Pierre Paquette

[Employment Insurance Act, March 29th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I hope it is not my fiery comments that triggered the alarm. Anyway my mother would be very pleased with my speech.

To pick up where I left off, I was saying that the debate we are having today is somewhat preposterous because the flaws and the adverse impact of the EI reform have now been experienced for more than five years throughout Quebec and Canada. It has penalized farm workers, as I mentioned with regard to my riding, self-employed workers who are excluded and young families.

My colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville talked about this at length a while ago, but it is important for me to mention it again, as my riding of Joliette includes suburbs such as Le Gardeur and L'Assomption where many young families are finding it extremely difficult to get their lives organized, to combine work and family, and who should have access to sensible parental leave.

As a matter of fact, as I was winding up my speech when the alarm sounded I was saying that in Quebec we were imaginative enough to include self-employed workers in the parental leave program introduced by the minister of the day. Therefore, if the federal government had any imagination, we could solve all the problems that have been identified in the EI reform.

It is obvious that Bill C-2, just like its predecessor Bill C-44, solves none of the basic problems which have been identified by everybody. I am happy that the committee unanimously adopted the motion by my colleague, the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, asking that it report back on all these aspects by June 1.

I will concentrate on a particular aspect of Bill C-2 that we on this side consider fundamental, that is clause 9 in which the government claims the right to set the rate of EI premiums currently set by the Employment Insurance Commission with the approval of the governor in council and under the recommendation of the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Finance.

I know that the Minister of Finance has repeatedly ignored the commission's recommendations over the last few years, but there is at least a debate held regularly on the rate required to finance the measures provided for in the employment insurance program.

With clause 9 of Bill C-2 the government is trying to legalize what it is doing already, that is to legalize the misappropriation of funds we are witnessing with the creation of a surplus completely unrelated to the needs of the EI fund, a $35 billion surplus accumulated since 1995. This is totally unacceptable.

The premiums are paid by the workers and by the employers. We believe that it should be up to them, and only them, to set the rates needed for funding the measures provided for in the employment insurance plan.

The federal government accomplished quite a feat, and it is not the first time, when it achieved a consensus in Quebec among all partners in the labour market against clause 9, indeed against Bill C-2. When we see that the FTQ and the Conseil du patronat both denounce clause 9 by which the government is giving itself the right to establish contribution rates, I think there is a problem and the government should do something right now to convince us not to vote against Bill C-2. Obviously the Bloc finds the bill totally unacceptable because of clause 9.

However we must go further. How can the government justify giving itself the right to set premium rates under clause 9? I believe the government does not see the full impact of that provision because there are relatively few social consensus building fora in Canada. We know that labour relations have been rather stormy in the past and still are today.

Our unionization rate is not as high as I would like it to be but it is still one of the highest in the western world. In Quebec, for example, it is about 40% while in Canada it is around 34%. A government must have a social relation vision in order to be able to make labour market partners accountable on a number of issues.

With workers and employers each having a representative the EI commission was a consensus building forum. It encouraged social dialogue. By eliminating that forum through clause 9 the government is directly depriving labour market partners of their responsibilities and giving itself the right to decide the contribution rate of a plan to which it is not giving a cent. By taking that responsibility away from partners on the labour market it contributes to creating, I would even say generating, a vision of confrontation in terms of labour relations. In that regard I think the federal government is not acting responsibly.

Instead of doing what everyone is trying to do now in the western world, that is creating forums for social dialogue, it is eliminating one by giving itself the right to set the premium rates. I think that the approach taken in clause 9 goes beyond, and far beyond, the issue of employment insurance, even though that is already unacceptable. It goes to show that the government has no vision as far as the development of social relations within our society is concerned.

In that regard I urge the government to accept the amendment we brought in to delete clause 9 so that we can vote for Bill C-2, although we are aware that the legislation does not resolve the problems I have pointed out concerning admissibility. I hope this can be addressed after the committee tables its report in early June.

[Employment Insurance Act, March 29th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is passing strange that we should still be discussing this EI reform in 2001. When I was the secretary general of the CSN back in 1995-96 we were discussing exactly the same issues.

When Mr. Axworthy brought in this reform as human resources minister we warned him that it would penalize many workers, and it did.

At this very moment 6 out of 10 workers who contribute and then lose their jobs do not qualify. It is totally unacceptable in a society that is supposed to be democratic and value its safety net.

Obviously the bill before us does not correct the fundamental flaws we pointed out in 1995-96 and still condemn.

In my riding of Joliette, for example, there are many farm workers. Because of the kind of harvesting they are hired for, many of them do not work a sufficient number of weeks to qualify for benefits. They leave for big cities like Montreal to find jobs and make ends meet. We are therefore losing highly skilled farm workers.

Perhaps the federal government thinks anybody can be turned into a farm worker when the harvesting season comes. This is not the way it works. It takes people who, after several years of experience, know when it is appropriate to harvest. If there are no experienced workers, choices will have to be made. They will cost thousands of dollars, sometimes even millions of dollars, in terms of farm income. This will penalize not only farm producers but also the region as a whole, like my region of Joliette. Lanaudière is also a region where there are more independent workers than the Canadian average.

I remember quite well Mr. Axworthy saying at the time that this reform was precisely aimed at adapting the EI plan to make it more compatible with the new realities in the labour market. We see that since 1995-96 the number of independent workers has increased and our plan is still not adapted to this new reality in the labour market.

These are people who do extremely important work in terms of general economic activity. These people are needed, but they are excluded from the social safety net and unduly penalized.

It would be very easy to find ways to include in the EI plan some protection for independent workers. Indeed, Quebec was able to do so in its—

And the fire alarm having rung:

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am not one of those who blindly endorses free trade, but I will not blame free trade for all the ills we are experiencing in Canada and Quebec as well as globally.

I think one of our big problems stems from the fact that, in the last few years our governments made the wrong decisions in facing free trade issues. They all moved toward a lowering of labour and social costs instead of looking for answers on a higher level.

I hope that as a society particularly in Canada and in Quebec, we will be able to meet the free trade challenge while maintaining and raising our social standards. I think we can do it, providing the political will is there.

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that since the minister has informed us that he was going to propose at the Buenos Aires meeting that the texts be made public, I think that this process can enable us to wait for the Buenos Aires meeting.

After Buenos Aires, it seems to me that we will need to ask some serious questions about the way parliamentarians and the general public can gain access to more information than at the present time.

The government of Quebec has made the texts to which access has been refused us available, and will continue to make them available to its MNAs who are members of the Commission des institutions du Québec.

I would like to hear the minister identify the countries opposed to public access to these documents, so that there can be a debate thereafter in this House on all the ins and outs of the question and a decision can be reached.

Clearly, I am not in favour of unilateral action, but I am not totally excluding it either. I am waiting to see a full report of what goes on in Buenos Aires, in order to have a better idea of the situation. If the countries opposed to making the texts public are the ones already known for their conservative, sometimes even reactionary, policies, then the situation will, in my opinion, be different than if Canada were the only one.

That said, regardless of the situation, the texts should be made available to parliamentarians, particularly if they are members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind hon. members to begin with that this take note debate on the summit of the Americas is in fact the consolation prize the federal government has awarded to members of the House of Commons after the defeat of my motion of February 15.

I would remind hon. members that the motion, which was supported by all opposition parties, called for the government to bring any final draft of the agreement on the free trade area of the Americas before the House so that it might be debated and put to a vote before anything whatsoever was signed.

Even if it is clear, since my colleague from Mercier has already begun to do so, we are going to take advantage of this opportunity to remind hon. members of the Bloc Quebecois position. It must also be made very clear that at no time is this exercise we are engaged in this evening to be seen as replacing a true debate and a decision by this House concerning the final free trade area of the Americas agreement, with all pertinent information.

For us, this means not only disclosure of all texts currently being worked on by the nine negotiating tables, but also regular reports on the progress of negotiations at those same tables.

As we know, one of the themes of the summit of the Americas is enhancing democratic development. We find it somewhat paradoxical, if not downright contradictory, that at the very moment the federal government is telling us proudly about this theme of the summit of the Americas, we are here in this very House in the process of watering down representative democracy by refusing to allow MPs to debate and vote on the free trade area of the Americas.

This calls to mind a proverb in French which could be paraphrased this way “Dictatorship is: shut your mouth, and democracy for the Liberals—my addition here—is: keep talking”. Not only we parliamentarians have this impression, but so does the public. We are made to talk and talk, we are informed, but what people say, be they parliamentarians or the public, is not taken into account.

In this regard, the debate we are having is not enough to really speak of true transparency. The Bloc Quebecois thinks that transparency is vital to the success of the free trade area of the Americas, which we support.

As the member for Mercier mentioned, the Minister for International Trade is also a supporter and also believes that the current process is not transparent enough, since he agrees with the fact that the basic negotiation texts should be made public. This is tantamount to admitting that the current processes is not transparent enough.

Two weeks ago as well, it was making public the supplementary proposals in order to strengthen ties with the public. Clearly this all arises from the fact that there is social mobilization across the Americas, across Canada and across Quebec, and that the Liberal government should take note of the fact.

I think we are witnessing more of a monologue by the public and parliamentarians and, at best, a dialogue of the deaf.

Bridges must be built if we are to prevent demonstrations from getting out of hand. Not simply at the Quebec summit, because we have been rightly reminded that negotiations will continue over several years, but so there will be debate throughout Quebec and Canadian society.

The sponsorship system put in place by the federal government to fund part of the summit of the Americas will certainly not send the right signals to civil society and to all Quebecers and Canadians. It is clear that the business world has privileged access to decision makers in the whole process, and this is unacceptable.

The business forum will soon meet. I believe that international trade ministers will meet almost at the same time in Buenos Aires. The business forum has access to the heads of state and ministers concerned. The Bloc Quebecois is asking that such access be made available to all segments of civil society and not just business people, as is currently the case.

The federal government should show leadership and propose, at the upcoming summit of the Americas in Quebec City, that the continental social alliance be recognized as an essential component, as a stakeholder in the negotiation process.

The continental social alliance includes major union organizations, social groups, international co-operation bodies, women's groups and environmentalists from across the Americas. These people have made extraordinary efforts to set up a network across the Americas, and they will be in Quebec City for the people's summit. This network should have a voice, just like the business forum.

As my colleague pointed out, the provinces also have a role to play. A formal mechanism is needed, particularly for Quebec, the only truly francophone state in the Americas. Because we account for 2% of the population of the Americas, we have specific needs that must be protected and that must be taken into account in the negotiations. Therefore, officials from the Quebec government must be part of the Canadian negotiation teams and binational teams, to protect the interests of Quebec and ensure that the right decisions are made.

I also remind the House that the Bloc Quebecois wants to see the FTAA agreement contain references to fundamental rights such as human, labour and environmental rights. This is true and it was mentioned by many: Quebecers are already favourably predisposed toward free trade. That is understandable, given that 51% of what is produced in Quebec is exported to Canada, the United States or other countries.

Quebecers are well aware of the principle of international trade, by which one imports what one cannot produce or produce cost effectively, and exports in order to be able to pay the cost of imports, but one must not export for the sake of exporting. This is the principle of free trade which Quebecers are defending, not the principle of exporting at any cost, to the detriment of labour, human and environmental rights.

Unlike the Minister for International Trade, Quebecers learned some lessons from NAFTA and the MAI. They have a better grasp of the situation than the minister. They are only too aware that free trade did not resolve all the problems of inequality in our society, or in the NAFTA nations.

I would remind the House that even if the minister is more visual than auditory—something I learned today—the figures are there. All he has to do is refer to the World Bank figures. Canada and Mexico have lost ground compared to the United States since the early 1980s, and these are the 1998 figures. He can deny the facts all he wants, but the facts are there and they are verifiable.

I am not saying that the problem concerning what workers in Mexico are paid is to be blamed on free trade only, but the fact is that free trade is not the cure-all for all societies' problems, and that other mechanisms are needed besides merely protecting the rights of companies and investors. In Mexico, people were being paid 22% of the American wage in the early 1980s and now the figure is 10%. That is a drop by half. Those are the facts.

This is why, within the agreement on the free trade area of the Americas, the signatory states commit, in exchange for commercial and financial benefits, to respect human rights, labour rights, the basic conventions of the International Labour Organization and the environmental rights.

This does not mean that we should take a penalty based approach to protecting those rights, but there must be a political commitment on the part of all states to respect them. If working plans are necessary to ensure that these rights are respected, and a structural fund has to be put in place, as my hon. colleague suggested, to help states with such problems as child labour, then that will be done.

If one country refuses to respect fundamental rights, it will be excluded from the FTAA because it will no longer belong there.

I believe Canadians and Quebecers would never have accepted to be part of a free trade area with Pinochet's Chile. We might as well recognize that right now, instead of putting our heads in the sand like some of us are doing here in the House.

Finally, I want to say that the free trade area of the Americas could be a wonderful opportunity for additional co-operation among countries of North America, Central America and Latin America, provided we provide all the ingredients required for that FTAA to succeed. The ingredients are not there yet.

This is why, at the summit of the Americas, the Bloc Quebecois will join forces with the civil society in Quebec to prepare an alternative to the project now tabled, which we disapprove of intensely.

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, first I must say that I really appreciated the reference to the Gérin-Lajoie doctrine made by the leader of the Canadian Alliance.

Indeed, the Bloc Quebecois also shares the idea that, as long as Quebec remains within the Canadian federation, its jurisdiction should extend to international issues, and if other provinces want that too, it would be good for them also.

My question deals with cultural diversity. I would like to know if, with the opening of markets within the free trade area of the Americas, the Canadian Alliance has included in its policy a provision for the development of cultural diversity, for the maintenance and development of all the different cultures of which the Americas are made up.

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to present very briefly a few figures to the Minister for International Trade and ask for his comments on this subject.

What he is saying is that opening new markets fosters economic growth and, as a result, enriches all participants.

However, let us take the world average of the per capita GDP and say it is equal to one hundred. In 1980, the United States had a per capita GDP that was equivalent to 482; in 1998, it had increased to 625. The world average was 100. As for Mexico, in 1980, its per capita GDP was 134; in 1998, it had fallen to 84. After NAFTA, the differential between the United States and Mexico grew, but during the same period, Brazil, and we have just spoken about this country's protectionist practices, showed an increase from 70 in 1980 to 96 in 1998.

Does the minister not agree that in addition to the opening of markets and the upholding of commercial rights we must include in these accords the protection of human rights and labour rights in order to ensure a real distribution of wealth?

[Lumber, March 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade came to see me personally to stress the importance of Canadian unity in the lumber issue. Yet, his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, seems open to the idea of imposing a tax on exports.

In light of the crumbling Canadian position, who will protect Quebec's interests? Will we again have a Canada-wide agreement at the expense of Quebec, as was the case the last time?

[Lumber, March 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we just learned that an official from the BC Lumber Trade Council travelled to the United States to discuss the implementation of an export tax on BC's lumber. This morning, New Brunswick lumber producers asked to be exempted from any future agreement on lumber.

Could the Minister for International Trade tell us whether we are witnessing a complete collapse of the Canadian common front he wants so much, since New Brunswick is now jumping ship, while British Columbia is playing its cards without regard for the others?

[Summit Of The Americas, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, not many besides the Minister for International Trade really believe that consultations are being held in Canada and Quebec on the free trade area of the Americas.

To get this government to listen, it costs between $75,000 and $1.5 million.

Does the Prime Minister not find it insulting that the big companies that pay, that have access to the government through the businessmen's forum, can have access to the summit of the Americas, whereas the premier of Quebec is excluded and cannot make himself heard?