Pierre Paquette

[Marriage Capacity Act, October 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Burnaby--Douglas for his initiative in presenting his bill to allow marriage between persons of the same sex.

In my opinion, it is high time we put an end to this anomaly, this discrimination which spoils the reputation of Canada and that of Quebec by expressing our collective will to fight against discriminations of all sorts.

According to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms already recognizes the equality of gays and lesbians. Therefore, how can we explain that the legislator refuses to grant same sex couples the right to marry legally? We are talking here about civil weddings of course, and I think the member explained that quite clearly in his presentation.

Last year, passage of Bill C-23 repealed almost all explicit references to the gender of partners in federal statutes. As far as we know, there are only four acts left where partners in a couple are specifically defined as heterosexual: the Divorce Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Criminal Code and the Canada Shipping Act.

What the member is asking for would require very little effort on the part of the legislators. A few amendments would suffice to put an end to this incredible discrimination.

I listened to representatives of the Liberal Party and the Canadian Alliance mention various legislative objections to passing this bill. I do not think that is what is at issue.

If a certain number of amendments to legislation must be made in order to meet the bill's objectives, we will make them but I think the crux of the matter is whether or not Canadian parliamentarians are prepared to remove this obstacle, this discrimination, in order to allow same sex couples to be married in a civil ceremony.

In my opinion, the legal arguments should naturally be consistent with our vision of respect for the freedoms and equality of all citizens of Canada and Quebec.

What is really at issue here is our concept of citizenship. Is every member of society, regardless of religion, political beliefs, sex or sexual orientation entitled to the same treatment, rights and obligations? This is where we must respond in the affirmative by making civil marriage open to same sex couples.

I am referring here to a dissenting opinion by Justice L'Heureux-Dubé, who said in a ruling concerning a civil marriage case:

Given the marginalized position of homosexuals in society, the metamessage that flows almost inevitably from excluding same-sex couples from such an important social institution--

She is referring here to civil marriage.

--is essentially that society considers such relationships to be less worthy of respect, concern and consideration than relationships involving members of the opposite sex.

I share this view entirely. In response to this comment by Justice L'Heureux-Dubé, it seems to me that we must make it very clear that citizenship as we understand it in Canada entitles one to the same rights, obligations and institutions, including civil marriage.

As I mentioned earlier, I think it is time to end this discriminatory situation, which reflects poorly on Canada.

Obviously, there is nothing preventing same sex couples from living together. This, I think, is what many of them decide to do, as do many heterosexual couples now.

However that is not the issue. It has to do with whether or not they will be given access to the institution of marriage if they so wish. Some people decide that they do want to marry. I do not see why the fact that they are a same sex couple should prevent them from being able to marry if they choose it freely. Marriage would provide them with some additional protection under certain statutes.

More fundamental, in the context of a relationship between two persons, the decision to marry can improve the quality of the relationship. This reflects their perception.

Let me give a personal example. I lived common law with my wife for several years. There came a time when we decided to marry. We felt that marriage would strengthen our commitment to each other. It meant something more than being in a common law relationship. This was our perception of the situation as a couple. There was no institution preventing us from having a civil wedding, and that is what we did in the end. This year we celebrated our 10th wedding anniversary.

As I see it, the situation is the same for same sex couples. They must have the right, if they so choose, to marry if they think that it will improve the quality of their relationship. Once again, I repeat that it is up to the couple to decide. Granting gays and lesbians access to civil marriage reflects what society believes. Clearly, the law is totally outdated on this score.

In a Canada-wide poll conducted in June by Léger Marketing, Canadians were asked if they believed homosexuals had the same rights as other Canadians: 75.7% answered yes. Thus, more than three-quarters of Canadians believe that homosexuals deserve to have all of the rights available in our society.

As concerns civil marriage more specifically, 65.4% of people said they agreed that same sex couples should be able to marry under our laws.

On a personal level, this is a commitment or a position I have had for over 15 years at least. As for unions, as the secretary general of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux since the early 1990s, I fought for the removal from collective agreements of all existing discrimination with regard to same sex couples. We worked hard at that, which led to passage of legislation on this subject by the National Assembly. I think we have to follow that logic through to its conclusion and give same sex couples access to the institution of civil marriage.

During the election campaign I also made a commitment to ensure that gays and lesbians had access to all the civil rights in Canada, including the right to get married. In my case, this is tied in with this notion of citizenship, which I find extremely important. I share the opinion of the hon. member for Burnaby--Douglas that, following the events of September 11, Canada must become even more exemplary with regard to the defence of rights and freedoms. What we are doing here is, first and foremost, fighting for rights and freedoms.

I will conclude by saying that two of my three children are still rather young and I do not know yet what sexual orientation they will choose. No matter what their choice will be I hope they will not become social outcasts and will have access to the same rights as all the citizens of Canada.

[Canada—Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, once again, when I put forward my amendment to the effect that there were no similar provisions for Central American countries, the Liberals defeated it.

I therefore remain extremely concerned about the content of the Costa Rica agreement and the agreement to follow. Let us hope that negotiations for free trade agreements with the four Central American countries introduce a number of other dimensions absent from these first generation agreements. Once again, I remain extremely worried.

When I sat on the Sub-Committee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, we heard from representatives of Lantic Sugar and the Canadian Sugar Institute. They testified and I did not have the impression that all members of the committee clearly understood the extent of the problem.

[Canada—Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary and I often attend the same meetings, but I do not think we see them the same.

With respect to the secretary general of the ILO, he said that the debate had taken place within the ILO on issues involving workers' rights within trade agreements and that no consensus had been reached for the moment. We know that it is a tripartite body.

I served as the secretary general of the CSN for eight years. I know, therefore, that within this forum many governments and unions and perhaps some enlightened managers think that an effort must be made to find a way to introduce dimensions pertaining to fundamental rights into trade agreements. They are working on this.

The International Labour Organization and the World Trade Organization must give thought to such things.

The tragic events of September 11 should give us cause to think. We cannot do things the same way any more. Much of the revolt in the world arises from the fact that trade agreements take no other dimension into account although they have an impact on society, the environment and democracies. The debate must therefore continue and the Bloc will support this debate.

Now as concerns what went on in committee regarding the amendment, I moved the same amendment in the subcommittee and in the standing committee. In the subcommittee, the chair declared it out of order. I looked into it in the course of the evening and came back with the argument that it was admissible. Finally it was allowed by the chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and was voted on. I moved the same amendment twice. In the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, it was defeated by the Liberals.

It is also true that, in the subcommittee, and this will be in the report, I agree, out of desperation to a general proposal to ensure tha, in future interests such as those of the sugar refining industry would be considered and that a multilateral perspective would be maintained during negotiations.

Specifically in the case of sugar, the Government of Canada should focus on multilateral negotiations to liberalize the sugar refining market.

I would like as my final point to say that we support free trade, but we must learn from past mistakes. Chapter 11 of NAFTA, and I think the Minister for International Trade agrees with many of our criticisms, cannot be repeated in new agreements we will sign.

In the case of the Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement, I would have expected Canada to reopen the agreement with respect to the protection and promotion of investments in order to take into account the remarks made by the Minister for International Trade himself in this regard, but it has not.

I think it is time we gave a signal to the Liberal government. We will not sign and we will not go along with any free trade agreement that does not meet a certain number of conditions. I have mentioned three in this case. We do not feel that there was sufficient consultation. At no time were parliamentarians asked what they thought. Instead we are being presented with a fait accompli.

Second, the clause on investments contains elements of chapter 11. Third, I cannot in all conscience agree to jeopardize 345 jobs in the Montreal area by unilaterally liberalizing the refined sugar market.

[Canada—Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-32, the Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement implementation act, must be examined in the context of the debate that has already taken place regarding the current process for negotiating a free trade area of the Americas and in the context where clearly we are in the midst of a globalization process. I believe that the exchange we just witnessed between the NDP member and the Canadian Alliance member demonstrates this fact.

Currently it is clear that the Canadian government's strategy consists of multiplying bilateral agreements to speed up the process of economic integration with the continent and with the world.

We already have a free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico, NAFTA. We have a free trade agreement with Israel, and another one with Chile. This weekend the Prime Minister announced that there would be negotiations for an agreement with Singapore. We also know that the government is interested in negotiating a free trade agreement with four Central American countries: Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador. The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade recommended that the government enter into negotiations with the European Union to establish a free trade agreement.

This then is the context in which we must look at the bill before us, regardless of whether we are friends with Costa Rica or not. I think it is clear that the people of Canada, like those of Quebec, are friends of the Costa Ricans. This is not the issue. The issue is what is we are getting in the Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement.

I think the position of the Bloc Quebecois on free trade, like that of most Quebecers, is well known. We support it. We think it is an excellent idea because it encourages countries, by opening their borders, to specialize according to the advantages they enjoy such as natural resources, human resources or capital. This increases the general productivity of our economies. What I mean by productivity is not working intensely, but more effectively, more intelligently. All of this generates additional wealth, which can then be shared, and the problem often lies here, in the equitable distribution of the resultant wealth.

We must face the fact. The world has never been as rich as it is now. At no other time in recorded history has the world been as rich. At the same time, we must acknowledge that globalization and free trade agreements have not reduced the gap between the rich and the poor. Quite the contrary, they have widened it. A certain set of qualifications and a certain mobility are needed to benefit from globalization, free trade and specialization. Unskilled workers, as this is all the more apparent in industrialized economies, are unemployed and underemployed, in unacceptable working conditions and living in poverty.

The same can be said for regions. If free trade is not guided by a number of rules about the creation of this wealth across the continent or worldwide, inequalities among regions and among various classes of people within countries will grow. Accordingly, all aspects of our life must be taken into consideration, not just the economic issues more directly linked by trade agreements, but also the various social, environmental, cultural and democratic aspects. If they are not considered we may end up, under the guise of improving economic activity, creating inequalities, eradicating cultures and violating democratic rights.

Returning to the hockey analogy, although I unfortunately missed the beginning of it, I again congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your son's choice.

At this time, the professional teams and leagues have systems to try to level out disparities. If the top team had its choice of players during the selection process, not only would their team keep getting better but the one in the cellar would stay there. Professional hockey leagues have therefore come up with a plan to share player talent around more fairly by letting the bottom team in the rankings have first choice.

This of the same sort of philosophical approach we would like to see used by the Government of Canada in the free trade agreements, particularly in negotiations for the FTAA, as well as in the upcoming WTO negotiations.

Unfortunately there was nothing on this in the Canada-Costa Rica agreement. The Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement is a first generation agreement, as is NAFTA, as are those with Chile and Israel. It does not take the social, democratic and environmental dimensions into consideration.

The only new reference I was able to find in this agreement is one to the WTO declaration of 1998 on fundamental rights. This reference, however, has no mechanism for application.

We must take into account these economic, social and environmental concerns. Quebecers and Canadians should have been consulted in a meaningful manner, but this was not done. All that was put at their disposal was a website where they could make comments. Some groups did receive 18 months ago a letter from the Minister for International Trade inviting them to express their views. However, no systematic consultation process was set up. At no time were parliamentarians involved in the process. Now the government is coming up with an agreement that is presented to us as a fait accompli, expecting us to blindly pass the implementing act. We will not.

I hope that the federal government will realize that it can never again put parliamentarians, Canadians and Quebecers before a fait accompli.

In this case and in future ones, if there is no true consultation process that includes parliamentarians, civil society and all Canadians and Quebecers, we will vote against these free trade agreements out of respect for our democracy.

The first fundamental flaw of the whole process leading to this agreement is that it was not transparent. Negotiations were not conducted following a monitoring of the whole process by parliamentarians.

The second element which in our opinion is a serious mistake in the Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement is the investment clause.

In its documentation, the Minister for International Trade tells us that nothing is changed in terms of investment and services. I realize that nothing has changed regarding investment and services. An agreement had already been negotiated in 1998 between the Government of Costa Rica and the government of Canada for the promotion and protection of investments.

In the Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement, reference is made to this previous agreement. Under the provision on investment, article VIII.2 reads, and I quote:

The Parties note the existence of the Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Costa Rica for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed in San José, Costa Rica, on March 18, 1998.

When we take a look at the 1998 agreement, what do we see? We see that the provisions of NAFTA's chapter 11, which we condemned here and the Minister for International Trade said he wanted to change, are all there.

I would remind the House that in the debate we led and are continuing to lead for the negotiation of the free trade area of the Americas, we do not want to see investment protection provisions similar to those in chapter 11 of NAFTA, which give multinationals and private corporations too many rights over governments, states and the democratic will of peoples.

There were many problems with chapter 11, but I will mention just four: the definition of investments, which is far too broad; national treatment, which means that we cannot have a specific policy to further the economic development of a particular sector; the concept of expropriation, which is far too broad; and finally, the dispute settlement mechanism, which allows a company to go directly to an arbitration tribunal to challenge a government decision or policy. The agreement between the government of the Republic of Costa Rica and the Government of Canada contains these same provisions to promote and protect investments.

I will take the example of investments. The agreement reads as follows:

(g ) “investment” means any kind of asset owned or controlled either directly, or indirectly through an enterprise or natural person of a third State, by an investor of one Contracting Party in the territory of the other Contracting Party in accordance with the latter's laws and, in particular, though not exclusively, includes:

(i) movable and immovable property and any related property rights, such as mortgages, liens--;

(ii) shares, stock, bonds and debentures--;

(iii) money, claims to money--;

The list goes on.

The definition of investment is far too broad in the Canada-Costa Rica agreement, and it is inspired by the NAFTA definition.

Now as for the national treatment provisions, there is exactly the same clause as in chapter 11 and for expropriation exactly the same type of definition. I will quote from article VIII:

1. Investments of investors of either Contracting Party shall not be nationalized, expropriated or subjected to measures having an effect equivalent to nationalization or expropriation--

This is rather broad. Finally, as far as dispute settlement is concerned, I will quote from article XII:

1. If a dispute has not been settled amicably within a period of six months from the date on which it was initiated, it may be submitted by the investor to arbitration in accordance with paragraph (4).

Chapter 11 is found indirectly within the Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement and runs contrary to the commitments made by the Minister for International Trade when he stated that he did not want to see any equivalent of chapter 11 in the treaty on the free trade area of the Americas.

The final element that makes this agreement with Costa Rica unacceptable is the matter of sugar, as has been stated already.

In this case, there has been a unilateral liberalization of the sugar market on the part of the Canadian government without anything corresponding being done on the other side by Costa Rica or any of the other Central American governments that will follow later. There is no way I will be convinced that in agreements with Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras or El Salvador we will have what is not in the free trade agreement with Costa Rica.

In the case of Costa Rica under the agreement, the doors are now open to selling in Canada, with no applicable tariff, over 20,000 tonnes of refined sugar starting in 2003, and the volume involved will have no limits starting in 2009.

Canada is one of the countries, if not the country, that is most open to sugar imports. There is no tariff on raw sugar and there is a $30.84 tariff on refined sugar, which is the equivalent of 8%. Our price for sugar is one of the lowest in the world, whereas the U.S. and the European Union have many protectionist measures that resultsn distorted prices on the world level.

In Central American countries such as Guatemala, the tariffs on refined sugar may be as high as 160%. We are opening up our market while there are no market opportunities for Canada in these economies. The previous speaker mentioned this and I agree with him.

The United States is the obvious market for our refined sugar industries, but there is so much protectionism that even though they consume ten times more sugar than Canada they import less.

The four countries of Central America that I mentioned produce 2.8 million tonnes of raw sugar, of which 1.6 million tonnes, half, is exported. Three hundred thousand tonnes of that is refined sugar. In total Canada consumes approximately 1.2 million tonnes.

Guatemala, for example, currently produces and exports 1.1 million tonnes of sugar per year or the equivalent of our annual consumption. In 2000, Canada imported 273,000 tonnes of raw sugar from Central America, compared to our exports of 110,000 tonnes, under the quota, to the United States, a country that consumes ten times more sugar than we do, as I mentioned earlier.

Our industry is competitive, but in a market where there is no price distortion. On the world market and in the United States and Europe, where protectionist measures are in place, such distortion exists. I refuse to believe that there will be a market for Canadian refined sugar in Costa Rica, Guatemala and Nicaragua. Why? Because of the rule of origin.

We would have to import raw sugar from Central American countries and refine it in Canada in order to sell it back to these countries. The transportation costs alone explain why it would be difficult to sell this sugar, notwithstanding the fact that they produce raw sugar themselves,and could develop their own refining capability.

In Montreal, 345 jobs are being threatened. This may not seem like a lot to the Minister for International Trade, but in the Montreal area, particularly in these troubled economic times, these are jobs we want to keep.

Why were the opinions of industry, the unions and opposition parties not taken into consideration on this issue, if “it is not true”, as the Minister for International Trade said?

I personally presented an amendment to the Sub-Committee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment to make sure that this provision would not be included in the future. It is true that in the current context Costa Rica is not a threat, but Guatemala is.

I presented an amendment to make sure that in future free trade agreements with Central American countries we would not have the provision that is included in this one. That amendment was rejected by the Liberals. Now they would have us believe that they care about the 345 workers at Montreal's Lantic Sugar. Come on.

I think this provision should have been left out of the agreement. We must negotiate the liberalization of the sugar market. My proposal to the Minister for International Trade is to put this item on the agenda at the negotiations on the free trade area of the Americas and also at the WTO. We want the liberalization of sugar at least at the continental level, if not at the world level, so that Canadian and Quebec businesses that are competitive can compete in a fair market in terms of the practices used.

Because of these three elements, namely the lack of transparency during the negotiations, the fact that chapter 11 is indirectly included through the agreement for the promotion and protection of investments, and the fact that Canada's refined sugar industry is put in jeopardy, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against Bill C-32.

[Petitions, October 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition in support of Bill C-287, which, unfortunately, has already been defeated in this House. The petitioners draw to the attention of parliamentarians the need for mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods.

[Softwood Lumber, October 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade continues to say that there are no negotiations at the moment on softwood lumber.

However, the Americans have appointed a special negotiator, and the B.C. forestry minister is talking openly of negotiations.

A week away from the results of the anti-dumping investigation, which could still affect our softwood lumber industry, is it the minister's intention to invite all the players to reaffirm the consensus for a full return to free trade?

[Supply, October 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the majority in the House, the Liberal Party of Canada, support the elements of the motion, since they are already in effect, in their opinion. They talk of condemning the attacks, of expressing our support for the Canadian military and, finally, of encouraging committees to work with ministers. There are two ways of looking at this. Either they agree with that, and I see no reason why the Liberals would not vote for the motion in that case, or elements of the motion irritate them.

Up to now, I have not understood which, apart perhaps from the fact that they feel--this is a matter of perception--that to reaffirm these things and to insist that standing committees work with ministers are things that might be implicit criticism of what they do.

I have no problem reaffirming with the House the fact that we condemn the terrorist actions of September 11. We wish to pay tribute to the courage of the Canadian military. We think the committees, the ministers and all parliamentarians must work together until the House is called to vote on major decisions on military, financial and diplomatic questions relating to this fight against terrorism.

[Supply, October 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have taken part in a debate on the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks and I wish to express my deepest sympathy to the American people and to the families, friends and colleagues of those who died.

Violence is always unacceptable. It is all the more so when it is directed at civilians. This is true in the United States, and it is true elsewhere. We all agree that terrorism must be fought with close international co-operation. As has been repeatedly observed, democracy was attacked on September 11 and it is up to all democracies to rise up against terrorism.

Since it was also democracy that was attacked, we must all be above reproach democratically speaking. That is why, since the House returned, the Bloc Quebecois has repeatedly called for a vote in the House on any major military, diplomatic or financial decision, just as the Liberal Party of Canada did when it was in opposition.

It will be recalled that in 1990, during the gulf war, there was a debate involving the responsibilities of the Canadian government. Interestingly, the current leader of the Progressive Conservative Party was the Secretary of State for External Affairs at the time.

The motion he moved read as follows:

That this House, noting that the Government of Iraq has not complied with the United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning the invasion of Kuwait and the detention of third country nationals, supports the United Nations in its efforts to ensure compliance with Security Council resolution 660 and subsequent resolutions.

At the time, November 28, 1990, the now Deputy Prime Minister moved an amendment. This amendment read as follows:

—that this support shall not be interpreted as approval of the use of Canadian Forces for offensive action without further consultation without further consultation with and approval by this House.

The then critic for the Liberal Party of Canada, now the Deputy Prime Minister, said:

Liberals insist that before Canadians are called upon to participate in any offensive action, such participation must first be brought before parliament and voted on here in the way it was done at the time of the Korean conflict.

Obviously, the motion by the current Deputy Prime Minister was put to a vote and rejected, and that of the current leader of the Progressive Conservative Party was put to a vote and passed.

It is interesting to see that, almost 11 years later, we find ourselves in a similar situation. The resolution of the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative Caucus Coalition also shows the relevance of involving parliamentarians in important decisions.

I will focus on the third part of the motion, which seems to be going along the same lines as what the Bloc Quebecois has been saying over the last few weeks, namely that the House should vote on any major decision concerning the fight against terrorism.

The third part of the motion reads as follows:

That this House hereby order the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs to sit jointly to hold frequent meetings with ministers and officials of the government and the military.

We think that this part of the motion, as well as the rest of it, if it were implemented, would be a step in the right direction. It seems to me that the Liberal government would be well advised to show some openness to really involving parliamentarians in the whole decision making process at this crucial time, which requires co-operation and co-ordination among all parties.

We will support this motion. Personally, I must say that I support the third part of the motion in particular. I hope that it can be implemented and that we will be able to pursue the debate so that the House and parliamentarians are indeed called upon to vote on all major decisions on the military, financial and diplomatic front.

It is clear that, when talking about close co-operation, one must refer to the United Nations and the UN charter. We think this is extremely important.

This issue has been debated a number of times. To be effective, this international coalition must, as much as possible and whenever appropriate, be placed under the auspices of the UN to avoid falling in the trap set by the terrorists, namely presenting this fight against terrorism as a war between cultures.

I believe it is critically important, especially in view of the fears created in the Muslim world by the air strikes in Afghanistan, that the UN be called upon to play an increasingly important role. Canada must lead the way to ensure the UN plays the role it should, especially if we are told, as was the case these past few days, that military retaliation might encompass countries other than Afghanistan.

We have said it over and over again but it bears repeating: It is not against Islam, it is not against the Arab world, it is against terrorism that we are at war. This is why the UN must be called upon to plan a much greater role than the U.S. government seems to be willing to consider for now.

This is also why it is essential for leaders in every circle in Canada and Quebec--I do mean every circle, not only political, but also social and religious circles--to remind people that in no way, shape or form should the attacks of September 11 be attributed to any given ethnic of religious group.

In this respect, I very much appreciated the statements by the Bloc Quebecois leader and the Quebec premier, especially when the Bloc Quebecois leader told the House that Allah or God should be left out of human conflicts and when the Quebec premier said “Let us not sow hatred where the terrorists could not sow death”.

Any act of intolerance must be denounced and condemned both by parliamentarians and those in our communities who are in a position to play a leading role and influence public opinion.

As was pointed out earlier--and the Bloc Quebecois agrees on this--the United States and their allies need to retaliate against these terrorist attacks, but their response has to be well targeted and not affect civilians unfairly.

After a week now of air strikes, we have every reason to be concerned about the impact on the civilian population, especially the people of Afghanistan. Drought conditions have existed there for five years now and an almost permanent state of war has been in effect for more than 20 years.

There are currently five million people at risk. In addition to supporting the Americans, we should make it a priority to help out the people affected by this world crisis. Let me remind the House that the people of Afghanistan did not elect the Taliban and did not invite the terrorists to seek refuge in their country.

So, it seems that Canada should be doing a lot more in terms of humanitarian assistance for the Afghan people. At $6 million, Canada's spending on these operations is totally laughable, compared to what Norway, a much smaller country in terms of population, is spending. I hope the government will announce more spending in the hours and the days to come.

We also need to work harder to build a fairer, more secure world for everyone. As we all know, terrorism is not totally but primarily fed by injustice and poverty. I think Canada must take the lead and ensure that the globalization movement already under way is at the service of the people, which has not been the case, so far, as we saw, for instance during the summit in Quebec City.

Canada must provide the example in humanitarian aid. Canadian humanitarian aid is at the lowest level it has been in 30 years. We must be consistent. This consistency could begin today with an example of symbolic value in the Muslim world, namely, the lifting of sanctions against Iraq on everything not related to military products. It seems to me that in this regard Canada could score a few points and show itself to indeed be a leader, as it was a few decades ago, so Quebecers and Canadians can work toward making the world a better place to live.

[Softwood Lumber, October 4th, 2001]

It is the same study, Mr. Chairman.

[Softwood Lumber, October 4th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I definitely do not want to criticize the Atlantic provinces for having done their homework, so as to be excluded from procedures undertaken by the U.S.

In my opinion, what the Americans should be criticized for is the main reason that made them go after Quebec and British Columbia in particular, namely the fact that our forests are managed differently than U.S. forests and that, in their eyes, public management, which incidentally gives excellent results, is tantamount to subsidies.

I was able to see this for myself when we met U.S. officials in Washington. In their mind, it was a simple equation: private forests means subsidies. To which Canada and Quebec reply that managing our forests differently does not mean that we do so in an unfair way. I think we must be clear on this.

As for the anti-dumping issue, we know that it is businesses themselves that are directly involved. But I think that the federal and provincial governments have a responsibility to support businesses at a political and technical level.

I know that a lot has been done. I met with Tembec officials, among others, who are targeted by this anti-dumping procedure and they told me that they received very substantial technical support from both the Quebec and federal governments. I think that we should continue in that direction.

In my opinion, the whole anti-dumping process is a measure to increase pressure on the Canadian industry. A settlement based on a return to free trade would put an end to all these procedures.

I am not psychic, but I hope this is what will happen, because it is an extremely dangerous and arbitrary process. The investigation is focused on a few companies but the rights will be imposed on the whole industry.

We will have to keep a very close eye on this situation.