Pierre Paquette

[Employment Insurance, October 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are engaging in a public relations exercise about employment insurance at the expense of the unemployed, with announcements that do not meet their needs or the needs of Quebec. The latest announcement is about introducing parental leave for self-employed workers, which Quebec has had since 2006. Just like Bill C-50, which excludes forestry workers, seasonal workers, vulnerable workers and victims of intermittent layoffs, this bill leaves Quebec in the lurch.

When will the Conservative government understand that what is needed is comprehensive reform that meets the needs of the unemployed and of Quebec?

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska for his question. I think he raised a point that is worth elaborating on.

The Liberals and the Conservatives share a similar approach, even though they use different words. In terms of the economy, when did the Liberals ever stand up on behalf of the forestry industry? We moved a motion in the House one opposition day, but they voted against it. In terms of the environment, did the Liberal government, which allowed greenhouse gases to increase by 22% until 2006, do any better than the Conservatives? No. In terms of the Quebec nation, are the Liberals doing any better than the Conservatives? They deny Quebeckers working for employers under federal jurisdiction the right to work in French. They will support increasing political representation for the west, which will undermine representation of the Quebec nation in the House. In other words, both of these Canadian parties are fundamentally opposed to Quebec's interests and values.

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Repentigny, who comes from the beautiful Lanaudière region, as I do, for his question.

The approach taken by the Conservatives and the Prime Minister is completely outmoded. Today, there is not one advanced economy left that sets the economy up against the environment. That is what the Conservatives are doing, although green measures are extremely important in all of the current recovery plans, whether in the United States or Europe. This is understandable when we see that while in the case of the Liberals, decisions are made in Toronto, as the member for Bourassa said at the beginning of the week, in the case of the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister, decisions are made in Calgary. The economic development strategy is designed to meet the needs of the oil industry and the oil sands companies, and not to meet the needs of industry, of the economy of the future.

It is also not surprising when we consider that this Prime Minister reneged on Canada’s signature on the Kyoto protocol, that he reneged on the vote held in this House to ratify the Kyoto protocol, and that he described that protocol as a “socialist plot”.

It is also easy to explain when we consider that the Prime Minister preferred to have coffee and a doughnut at Tim Hortons, probably a nice chocolate glazed, rather than attend the UN’s extraordinary session on climate. It is extremely symptomatic.

Again, this environmental choice, a choice in the interests of the oil industry, is contrary to the interests of Quebec, because Quebec does not produce oil. Every time we spend a cent on oil, that money leaves Quebec. This explains a large part of our trade deficit with the rest of Canada and the world. As Quebeckers, it is in our interests to reduce our dependency on oil. That is very much not the approach taken by the Conservative government. And that is one reason why it must be banished from this place.

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, because it is a crucial issue.

I find it absolutely deplorable that the New Democratic Party, which claims to be a party that looks after the interests of workers and the unemployed, would buy the government's argument, because it just does not hold up. First, we must remember that the criteria to qualify for these 5 to 20 additional weeks of benefits are extremely tight as regards the benefits received in previous years. This means that a seasonal worker, in a sector where people are laid off intermittently, would not qualify. Moreover, a worker must have paid EI premiums for a certain period of time. The first thing that is unacceptable in Bill C-50, which, unfortunately, the NDP is supporting, is that it creates two classes of contributors and claimants. We have the good ones, namely those who have worked for a long time—good for them—and who have not had to rely on the EI fund. Then we have the bad ones, who have paid premiums but who, unfortunately, have had to rely on the EI program too frequently. Again, Bill C-50 should be defeated for that reason alone.

But there is more. The government is telling us that 190,000 workers will benefit from these measures if they lose their jobs. That is impossible and I can explain why very quickly. We currently have 1.6 million unemployed people in Canada. Half of them, that is 800,000, are entitled to benefits. The others do not qualify because they do not meet the eligibility criteria. So, roughly 800,000 people are getting benefits. Out of that number, 200,000, or 25%, are coming to the end of their benefits. This means that between 85% and 90% of these 200,000 people would be entitled to extended benefits. Given the criteria that are set out in Bill C-50, that is impossible. So, what the government is saying, and what the NDP is supporting, is just smoke and mirrors: it is simply not true.

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that 20 minutes is not much time to put the Conservative government on trial for mismanagement. I will have to content myself with summarizing the grievances that we and the entire Quebec nation have against this government. I am certain that when the next election is held, Quebeckers will return a majority of Bloc members to this House, as they did in 1993, 1997, 2000, 2004 and 2006.

The motion is simple, and I will read it for the people who are watching: “That this House has lost confidence in the government.” I would add that the Bloc's position is also simple. We no longer have confidence in this Conservative government and therefore will vote in favour of the Liberal Party non-confidence motion. That goes without saying.

How can we have confidence in a government that, less than a year ago, said there would be no recession in Canada, when the whole world was going through a major financial crisis and signs of an economic slowdown were not only on the horizon, but already in evidence to the south of us?

How could Canada have avoided this economic slowdown, knowing that our main trading partner, the United States, which accounts for 85% of our exports, was already going through an economic slowdown? The government tried to deceive the people, but they could not fool Quebeckers, which is why, once again, as I mentioned earlier, Quebec rejected the Conservative Party and returned a majority of Bloc Québécois members to this House.

How can we have confidence in a party that, not even a year ago—if memory serves it was on November 24, 2008—tabled an economic statement that should have addressed the economic crisis that was already obvious, not only around the world, but in Canada as well?

The government tabled an economic statement that was actually an ideological statement that sparked a major political crisis in this House. The government attacked democracy by trying to abolish political party financing; it attacked women's rights by trying to prohibit them from going to court on pay equity issues; and it attacked federal employees' bargaining rights.

So how can we have confidence in a government that should have assumed its responsibilities long before November 24? It refused to do so on November 24, 2008, and instead preferred to flex its muscles to try to impress the opposition parties, but instead was caught out at its own game. That forced the Prime Minister to go see the Governor General and ask that the House be prorogued, thereby delaying all the measures that could have been taken to stimulate the economy.

I would remind the House that, long before November 24, the Bloc Québécois had proposed a series of measures with that goal in mind. Furthermore, we reiterated our proposals in April, but this government ignored the Bloc Québécois' proposals every time. As some government members have said several times, the Liberal Party did not contribute many proposals. In fact, they brought none forward, which is a little worrisome for a party that is supposed to be the official opposition.

How can we have confidence in a party whose economic, social, environmental and cultural choices are diametrically opposed to the values and interests of the Quebec nation? How can we have confidence in that party? Of course that is impossible, not only for the Bloc Québécois, but for the entire Quebec nation and all Quebeckers, and this is evident in the polls we have seen in recent months.

I would like to come back to exactly how these economic, social, environmental and cultural choices go against the interests of Quebec and against the interests and values of the Quebec nation. I hope I have enough time to go through the entire spectrum of Conservative horrors.

Consider the economic question. I am referring to the so-called economic action plan, or the third report. I would point out that that report is completely confusing and, upon reading it, the reader quickly realizes that the numbers presented do not represent what was really spent. The numbers are promises.

We are being told 90%. I would note that it was 80% in June. It is still somewhat disturbing that the increase has been only 10 percentage points, but again, that absolutely does not reflect the reality of the actual commitments made by the federal government regarding the measures that were announced, which were in fact totally inadequate and inequitable for Quebec.

That also explains why the Bloc Québécois opposed the budget speech.

I am looking at page 127 of this third report to Canadians. At the top, under the heading “Support for Industries”, and more specifically “Support for the auto sector”, in the column “2009-2010 Stimulus Value”, the amount shown is $9.718 billion. I note that from what we see in the “Stimulus Committed” column, 100% of the funds have been committed in the case of support for the auto sector. Again, that does not mean a lot, but I am reading what the Minister of Finance has presented to us.

Now let us look at forestry, an industry that has been in crisis since 2005, well before the global economic slowdown and the effects it has had on the economy of Quebec and Canada. There is not even any mention of support, which the industry has been calling for since 2005, and which it needs. It needed support yesterday, it needs it today, and if things continue the way they are it will not need it tomorrow because there will no longer be a forestry industry in Quebec. In terms of stimulus value, under “Forestry marketing and innovation”, we see $70 million for the whole of Canada, or about $25 million for Quebec, and we see that not all of the money has been committed.

This inequity is the perfect illustration of the fact that the Conservative government is acting in Canada’s interests at the expense of Quebec’s. We have absolutely nothing against support being given to the auto industry, which is concentrated in Ontario. That industry needs support. What we do not understand is why the government can commit nearly $10 billion to support the auto industry, which is concentrated in Ontario, and cannot commit an equivalent amount for the forestry industry, which is extremely important to Quebec.

I will give one small illustration. That $10 billion is going to help save 30,000 jobs in the auto industry, which is concentrated in southern Ontario. Again, we agree with that. The forestry industry in Quebec represents 88,000 jobs, and barely $28 million has been spent, $100 million for the whole of Canada. By way of comparison, for each job saved in the auto industry, the Conservative government is prepared to spend $325,000, or nearly a half-million dollars per job, while for the forestry industry we have barely $318 per job that could be saved. Again, this support is not only inequitable, it is inadequate and ineffective.

What the forestry industry needs are loan guarantees and loans, because it is currently facing liquidity problems, and a number of companies will not survive the crisis if the Conservative government does not wake up and release funds providing some liquidity for this industry. This is one illustration of the fact that the Conservatives have abandoned Quebec. I point out once again that we have no problem with the assistance given the Ontario sector.

The Bloc has put forward proposals. The industry too has submitted proposals to the government, as have the unions and municipal representatives. Here are a few examples. A proposal was made to establish a credit facility to allow forestry companies to obtain loans and loan guarantees so they might get the funding they need to deal with the crisis. As I mentioned, a number have gone bankrupt, such as AbitibiBowater, or are verging on bankruptcy, such as Tembec. A refundable tax credit for investment was proposed to help businesses modernize. There is a tax credit for research and development already, but it is not refundable. When there are no profits, there is no benefit from such a measure. If the credit were refundable, a company such as Tembec, which invests nearly $80 million in research and development annually, could be refunded $80 million on its investment through a tax credit.

I would like to point out that, each time I hear the Conservative MPs from Quebec, I feel for them, but I feel more for the people who put their trust in them. They say they have lowered taxes on profits. That is of no help to the sectors in difficulty. When there are no profits, there are no taxes to be paid on profits. So this is what the Conservative government has put in place—reductions in taxes that have benefited primarily the oil companies, the companies operating in the tar sands. We have not been fooled by what has gone on in the past months and years.

We also sought $50 million to fund research on biofuels from forestry waste. The aim is to reduce Quebec's dependence on petroleum.

This is an industrial strategy the Bloc formulated nearly two years ago now. We also introduced a bill, which, just as the Government of Quebec wants to do—a coalition has been established in Quebec—aims to promote the use of wood in the construction or renovation of public buildings. Finally, we called for the establishment of a real carbon exchange in Montreal—there is one, as we know—but without absolute reduction targets, without 1990 as the reference year and without a territorial approach, the exchange will never get off the ground.

More than just the forestry industry in Quebec has been ignored by the Conservative government. There is also the aerospace industry, which is extremely important and an industry of the future for Quebec. This very morning, we learned, unfortunately, that Pratt & Whitney will be laying off 410 people. This illustrates the difficulties in this sector. Bombardier too had to lay employees off. The government totally ignored the problems of the aerospace sector, as if they did not exist. They probably do not exist in the minds of the Conservatives, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance because this sector is concentrated in the greater Montreal area. If it exists in Quebec, it must not really exist in the rest of Canada.

I believe that, because we pay taxes to Ottawa, we are entitled to industrial policies that meet the needs of our sectors of the future, such as aerospace. The government should immediately develop a real aerospace policy. The Bloc Québécois will continue to insist on this. My colleagues, and especially the hon. members for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher and Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, will continue to demand an industrial policy on aerospace.

There were also the research cuts, which did a lot of harm to Quebec. We saw it once again this morning. There was an announcement that the Minister of State (Science and Technology) had tried to intervene and induce a scientific research council not to support a conference because the minister and the government thought it did not have the right ideology.

I also remember the very restrictive program they instituted in the last budget for business research grants. Later I will read a few excerpts from a column by Alain Dubuc, who is far from being a sovereignist or progressive, but who still realizes we have a government that is totally regressive in the area of research and development. These cuts to research and development and these ideological approaches have done great harm to a number of research sectors in Quebec. I am thinking, for example, of Abitibi—Témiscamingue or the Université du Québec à Rimouski, which had to abandon its research programs.

This region also suffered cuts to the Coriolis II, the only university oceanographic research ship in Rimouski. I might add in passing that this Conservative government has virtually no regard for the Lower St. Lawrence region. It has no regard as well for its own members and ministers. We even had cuts to the Mont-Mégantic Observatory, in the riding of the Minister of Public Works, who found out about them in the newspapers. That goes to show how much influence he has in his caucus.

The Conservative government has been negligent and unfair in such future sectors as research, aeronautics and other sectors that are important for the regions of Quebec, such as the forestry sector, including pulp and paper. The government deserves to be punished.

In regard to the research issue, Alain Dubuc wrote the following in La Presse, “It is so stupid I could laugh. It is as if the [Conservative] government were showing off a caricature of itself. Unfortunately, though, it is very serious. It is the same logic, the same obscurantism, the same inability to understand how advanced societies develop that led it to cut the grants to artists for international tours”. That was Alain Dubuc writing in La Presse, a paper that is far from sovereignist, who said this because it is just common sense.

I have not had a chance to say this yet, but I want to point out that Canada is lagging behind in research and development.

In 2006, Canada spent 1.06% on research and development. The OECD average was 1.56%. We were among the lowest-ranking G8 and G7 countries, behind France, the United States, Japan, Germany and Great Britain. We should not be neglecting this sector. We are already behind. We are the least advanced of all western economies, and this government is making things even worse.

Quebec is not satisfied with these economic choices. Quebec's future economic development is being jeopardized.

There are two other economic issues I want to talk about: public finances and the economy and the environment. Once again, the Conservative government's choices have compromised Quebec's future.

With respect to public finances, the fiscal imbalance still has not been resolved. People in Quebec—including Jean Charest's government, which is anything but sovereignist—are all too aware of this. The Parti Québécois, the ADQ and people in the business community are aware of it too. Everybody knows that even though the health transfers have come through, we are a long way from eliminating the fiscal imbalance.

Among other things, Quebec is still waiting for $850 million in post-secondary education transfers just to bring funding levels back to where they were in 1994-95 before Paul Martin unilaterally slashed transfers for post-secondary education and in a number of other sectors.

But it is not enough just to increase transfer payments. We would like that and we supported a Conservative government budget in the past because it included a significant transfer to Quebec. However, to truly resolve the fiscal imbalance we need to negotiate the transfer of a portion of the federal tax base to the Government of Quebec, which was done under Pearson and even in the 1970s when René Lévesque was Premier of Quebec.

There are other problems besides the fiscal imbalance. There is a series of disputes between Ottawa and Quebec. Allow me to name a few because they will make anyone's hair stand on end. The Government of Quebec is looking for money. It is waiting for its due. I am talking about at least $8 billion. There is the $2.6 billion for harmonizing taxes. We know that Quebec was the first jurisdiction to harmonize its sales tax with the GST, as the federal government of the day, under Mr. Mulroney, asked us to do. Our taxes have been harmonized since 1992. We have never been compensated. That represents $2.6 billion. Ontario will be compensated and so will British Columbia, just like the Atlantic provinces were before them. In the economic statement, the Minister of Finance told us that all the other provinces that harmonize their sales tax with the GST will be compensated—except Quebec.

There is the issue of equalization, of course. The Conservative government's Prime Minister and Minister of Finance went back on their promise. Equalization has been capped, which means that Quebec loses out on $1.25 billion a year.

There is the issue of funding for infrastructure, namely $1.3 billion. There is social assistance. By the way, this issue was not mentioned much in the last budget, but we are mentioning it today. A certain number of criteria were changed for transfer payments related to social assistance, which leaves Quebec with a $600 million shortfall. Half a billion dollars is not insignificant in the current economic climate. There is also the matter of $60 million for health transfers and the $850 million I mentioned earlier for post-secondary education.

There is $421 million, dating back to the ice storm in the mid-1990s. That is still unresolved. And that was during the time of the Liberals, who are no better than the Conservatives. I must add $416 million for the Pacte pour l'emploi Plus and $127 million for the income stabilization program, which also dates back to the 1990s when the Liberals were in power. Add to that $284 million for the Canada assistance plan, $53 million for improving northern airports, and $220 million for the CHUM and Sainte-Justine hospitals.

These claims add up to more than $8 billion, and they would be resolved if the federal government respected Quebec. If it were open to negotiating in good faith with Quebec. If it led by example with its so-called open federalism.

That is not the case. The government is being petty, as evidenced yesterday in the Prime Minister's response, when he said that Quebec would be compensated if it did exactly what the others had done and let the federal government collect the QST, even though since 1992, Quebec has collected not only the QST, but also the federal GST.

As I said, I am running out of time. I would have liked to discuss a very important topic, but I am sure that the member for Chambly—Borduas will ask a question about employment insurance, which is a thorn in the side of the Conservative government. There is also the issue of the government's completely outdated notions about the environment.

If I had the unanimous consent of the House, I could take five more minutes to cover these topics and to finish my comments about the Conservative government and its mismanagement. Could you seek the consent of the House? If not, I will conclude.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 29th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, it is clear to the Bloc Québécois and to most people in Quebec that human rights must come before trade.

I think that if human rights, labour rights and environmental rights were taken seriously, then free trade agreements and investment protection would also be subject to environmental, labour rights and human rights standards.

Major international conventions exist. They must be respected in order for the advantages in the agreement to apply. That is one way Canada and other developed countries could help democracy and prosperity flourish in these emerging countries and in developing countries.

I do not buy the argument that economics and freer trade alone will lead to democracy and prosperity. That has not been proven in the past and it will not be in the future.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 29th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I do not think my colleague understood what I was saying or maybe he was not listening. The Doha round at the WTO is currently blocked. It is blocked because emerging countries do not want developed countries to be the only ones benefiting from freer trade. That should be the focus of debate regarding international trade. To avoid having to have this debate and having to make concessions to open the borders, the American government, under the Bush administration, decided to jump into all kinds of bilateral agreements with different countries. As I said, they were generally countries with which they did not have existing trade relationships, but that were not able to hold their own in the balance of power with the Americans.

I condemn the fact that Canada and its Conservative government took exactly the same approach, using the villages to surround and take the cities, as Mao Zedong said. They are currently trying to establish a model of free trade that does not take into account human rights, union rights or environmental rights.

The government is trying to force this on countries that cannot defend themselves, and make that the standard. That is unacceptable from a country like Canada or the United States. That is what President Obama said he would change.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 29th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-23, the Canada–Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

I must point out right away that the Bloc will oppose this bill, and not because it opposes free trade or the opening of borders. Everyone knows that, in the past, Quebeckers supported the philosophy that resulted in the establishment of the North American Free Trade Agreement, despite its imperfections. It was interesting to see that, for the first time, a free trade agreement included not only our neighbour the United States, but a developing country, as well, namely Mexico.

At the time, I was the general secretary of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux. We had changed the name of the Coalition Québécoise d'opposition au libre-échange—the Quebec coalition to oppose free trade—at the time the free trade agreement with the United States was being negotiated. With NAFTA, it became the Réseau québécois sur l'intégration continentale—the Quebec continental integration network.

So there is a very broad consensus in Quebec on the importance of opening up borders and doing so under a set of rules benefiting both parties. In our opinion, the free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia in no way serves the interests of Colombia or of Canada or of Quebec.

I point out first that the Bloc, like most stakeholders in international trade, advocates multilateral agreements within the context of the World Trade Organization or as part of an eventual free trade area of the Americas. As there is currently a blockage at the WTO, the former Bush administration in the U.S. had adopted the strategy of trying to sign bilateral agreements with countries unable to properly defend their interests. Free trade agreements have been attempted or have been signed between the United States and Chile, Peru and Colombia.

We note that the Conservative government has adopted this strategy with less success than the previous American administration. It simply blindly followed the Republican strategy, the prerogative of President Bush, negotiating bilateral agreements with powerless countries, through which the Americans imposed their vision of free trade. The Conservative government of Canada has adopted the same strategy.

This strategy, I note, is being questioned by the new American administration, and President Obama has called for a review of the strategy for expanding international trade.

It must be said that negotiations to expand free trade at the WTO and in the context of a free trade area of the Americas are currently blocked, not because people are opposed to opening up borders, but because they realized that opening up borders without another agreement on labour, the environment or culture and language leads to troubled waters, as we have seen with chapter 11 of NAFTA on the protection of investments, which has been reproduced in the free trade agreement with Colombia.

We should be very clear. This agreement is certainly not based on the amount of trade between Canada and Colombia. In 2008, Canadian imports from Colombia amounted to $644 million. We are not even talking a billion dollars here. At the same time, Canadian exports to Colombia amounted to about $700 million. These negotiations certainly do not involve a major trading partner. What is quite significant, though, is the amount of Canadian investment in Colombia, especially the mining sector, which is over a billion dollars.

If we take a look at the chapter on investor protection, we see that it is very prejudicial to governments, especially the Government of Colombia. The amount of Colombian investment in Canada is only a million dollars.

It is obvious that the purpose of the chapter on the protection of foreign investment is not so much to protect Colombian investors in Canada as to protect Canadian investors in Colombia.

Once again, we are not against protecting foreign investment if it is done well. The problem with the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, as with the free trade agreement with Peru, is that the chapter on protecting foreign investment confers inordinate rights on foreign corporations. These are mostly Canadian corporations operating in Colombia. It is certainly not the Colombian companies operating in Canada that will pose a problem. Canadian companies operating in Colombia are given the ability to sue the Government of Colombia directly in some situations.

We saw this under chapter 11 of NAFTA, which was carefully negotiated although the people involved did not realize what all the ramifications were. We are more aware now of all the abuses that can arise as a result of NAFTA chapter 11, which has been copied in the treaty between Canada and Colombia.

These abuses have to be stopped. We will not support free trade agreements that include chapters to protect foreign investment similar to chapter 11 of NAFTA. That is why we voted against the Canada-Peru free trade agreement and it is one of the reasons why we will vote against this act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia.

On the other hand, we recently voted in favour of the free trade agreement with the European Free Trade Association because it did not have any provisions allowing either Scandinavian companies—because the countries in this association are mostly Scandinavian—or Canadian companies to sue the other government.

It is rather strange that the kind of protection provided in these treaties is different as soon as we are dealing with a developing country that cannot bargain from a position of strength. When it comes to a developed country on our own level, the protective agreements are government to government, that is to say, it is Canada that goes before a tribunal like the London tribunal. Unfortunately, a decision was recently handed down that was unfavourable to Canada and its softwood lumber. American companies did not sue Canadian companies or the Government of Canada directly. Instead, it was the American government that filed a complaint with the tribunal and the interests of the Canadian companies were represented by the Government of Canada.

We think that is how it should be done. It is known as the OECD formula for investment protection, but that is not what we see in the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. We can add to that Colombia's terrible human rights record, and I think we have very good reason to oppose such a bill to implement the agreement.

I would remind the House that my hon. Conservative colleague was talking about improvements earlier. I do not know where he sees any improvements, considering, for example, that in 2008 crimes committed by paramilitary groups increased by 41% and 14% the year before, and considering that, in 2001, there was a slight decrease in the number of murders of trade unionists, but in 2008, there were 46 such murders. So, clearly, human rights and union rights are being systematically violated.

By signing a free trade agreement with Colombia, Canada is condoning the state of human rights and union rights in that country. The Bloc Québécois refuses to be complicit in this, and Quebeckers will not be complicit in a situation that will benefit Canadian mining companies alone, at the expense of human rights and union rights. I am also convinced that environmental rights are not being respected, because, if we were to take a closer look, I think we would find that these mining companies do not respect the environment in Colombia.

I think I have been quite clear. No one will be surprised to learn that the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C-23 and will be very proud to do so.

[Canada-U.S. Relations, September 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, full reciprocity is not only a bad idea for Canadian companies, but it could also cause the United States to call for the extension of free trade to sectors that are currently exempt from NAFTA.

Is the government aware that its proposal gives the United States grounds for demanding access to sectors such as health and culture?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, September 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, opening up government procurement to full reciprocity, which the Conservative government proposed to the President of the United States, is a bad idea for Quebec's economy and for Canada's because it would introduce an all-or-nothing dynamic. That is exactly what happened with softwood lumber.

Instead of creating a new problem, should the government not be working to convince American authorities to allow U.S. states and municipalities complete freedom in choosing their suppliers?