Pierre Paquette

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, April 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a question while he is in the House. The Conservative Party and the Prime Minister promised Quebec a voice at UNESCO. Just last week, the Prime Minister repeated this promise before the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal. We now know that only sovereign states can be represented at UNESCO. Unfortunately, Quebec is not yet a sovereign state.

I would like to know how the minister intends to resolve this matter, especially since in recent days the Bloc Quebecois has made suggestions based on the Belgian model, among others. In addition, when will we have a clear answer with regard to the promise reiterated last week by the Prime Minister?

[Softwood Lumber, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, another NAFTA decision was made in favour of Canadian and Quebec softwood lumber industries.

In the wake of the summit in Cancun and of the remarks by the Prime Minister, can he provide a formal guarantee that compliance with NAFTA is a prerequisite to resumption of negotiations with the Americans in the softwood lumber dispute?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question, as it will allow me to complete my allotted 10 minutes. We are sometimes unable to say everything we would like in the short time we have.

I would remind my colleague that the leader of the Bloc Québécois and the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie stated that our party wants the Access to Information Act to be strengthened and the government to demonstrate real accountability.

The Prime Minister's attitude toward the media during his first few weeks in office was disturbing, to say the least. He tried to avoid the press. In my opinion, this is out of step with the exercise in transparency that he has invited us to take part in and that the Bloc Québécois will play a constructive role in. The hon. member is quite right: we have reason to be concerned.

As I mentioned, we have a minority government. I hope that the opposition parties will take common stands. I know that my colleague from Repentigny will work to make sure that we truly achieve the accountability and transparency that are needed to strengthen democracy.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. I would like to remind him that, fortunately, his party is no longer in power. We may now have the opportunity to find solutions to the fiscal imbalance.

I must call attention to this stubborn refusal to acknowledge the existence of a fiscal imbalance. Only the Liberal Party, and perhaps André Pratte, refuse to recognize its existence throughout Canada. I could quote some statistics for him.

I would remind the hon. member that the health care accord constituted investments that reduced the fiscal imbalance by only $800 million. However, the former finance minister went ahead with a unilateral reform of equalization, which meant a tremendous financial loss for Quebec. The shortfall in Quebec still totals at least $2.5 billion annually.

We could do so much more with that money. We want to sort out the fiscal imbalance so that we can strengthen Quebec's position.

Once Quebeckers are ready to assume their sovereignty, the transition will be easier.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Lambert.

Because this is the first time I have spoken in the House since the election on January 23 of this year, you will permit me to thank the people of the riding of Joliette. For the third time, the voters have again expressed their confidence in me. I will always be grateful to them for this. I can assure them that I will do everything in my power to represent the interests of the region of Lanaudière and Joliette, and the interests of Quebec.

I will now address my remarks to the Speech from the Throne. I would like to come back to the meaning of the Bloc Québécois vote on that speech. I think that we have to be careful not to interpret it incorrectly. I have on occasion heard some rather loony interpretations of the Bloc Québécois’ support from representatives of the new government.

The Speech from the Throne seems acceptable to us, essentially because of three factors. First—this is probably the clearest thing in the speech—the present Prime Minister, unlike the Prime Minister in the former Liberal government, has recognized that he is the leader of a minority government. He had no choice but to do so, first because of the reality of the House, in which his government does not have a majority of the seats, but also because of the wishes of the people. In Quebec, for example, 70% of the people who voted did not vote for the Conservative Party. The great majority of them voted for the Bloc Québécois. The fact that the Prime Minister has recognized this is, in our opinion, an indication of openness to the opposition, and also to the democratic choice that Canadians and Quebeckers made on January 23.

Second, because the Prime Minister has recognized that he is the leader of a minority government and that he needs the opposition in order to govern, he has obviously included some of the opposition’s concerns in the Speech from the Throne. I will identify some that the Bloc Québécois has been expressing in this House for many years.

The first one that comes to mind is the fiscal imbalance. The former government and the former Prime Minister created quite a dramatic moment for us all when, a few hours after the Speech from the Throne, they had to give in to the opposition parties. Those parties were calling for logical amendments to the throne speech, including an amendment to recognize the fiscal imbalance. We reached a compromise because the Bloc Québécois is, first and foremost, a constructive and responsible opposition party. The drama concluded with finely tuned wording stating that the government recognized the existence of financial pressures some call the “fiscal imbalance”.

At no time during the last term or during the election campaign were the Liberals able to acknowledge this. At only one point during the debate did the member for LaSalle—Émard let slip the words “fiscal imbalance”, but he pulled himself together immediately.

Simply acknowledging the fiscal imbalance in the Speech from the Throne is proof that this government is more willing to address the issue. However, I must note that the wording used—fiscal arrangements—allows the government to buy time. This does not fool us at all. As my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot stated this week, it is clear that the fiscal imbalance cannot be corrected without transferring tax points or GST revenues to the provinces. The Speech from the Throne could have mentioned this measure, which would not require extensive study given that the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Finance already made very similar recommendations.

Recognition of the special cultural responsibilities of the Quebec government is also a good sign. Giving Quebec a seat at UNESCO, like it has as a member of the Francophonie, shows a willingness to recognize the distinct nature of Quebec culture. Of course, this does not go far enough.The government should also recognize the national character of Quebec culture and the existence of many nations within the Canadian political sphere, including Quebec and Acadia, first nations, and of course, Canadians. The government is taking steps toward this, but they are just baby steps.

In the Speech from the Throne, the government backed away from its campaign promises. I will not go on at length about this, as I am sure my colleague from Saint-Lambert can do a better and more detailed job of it than I. All the same, this is a beginning.

There is room for cooperation. It may be possible to find avenues for ensuring that Quebec has access to the international stage not only in culture and education, but also in all of its fields of jurisdiction. The Bloc Québécois will be working on this in the weeks and months ahead and, I hope, over the coming year.

The third element among the Bloc’s concerns has to do with the international treaties that will be submitted when they are important. We realize that many treaties are signed by Canada and its partners. However, some are more important than others. In the past, in fact, the former government and former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien felt it important to submit the Kyoto protocol to the vote of this chamber.

We are told that this procedure will be applied more often. The Bloc Québécois warmly welcomes this new openness. You will remember that our colleague, the hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, had tabled a bill in this chamber precisely to this effect and which was defeated by a lack of support from the Liberals. Now that they are in opposition, we can only hope that their behaviour will be governed by common sense again.

First, the Prime Minister acknowledged that he is leading a minority government. Next, he incorporated the opposition’s concerns in the throne speech, in particular certain concerns of the Bloc Québécois. Finally, the third element is the inclusion of the subamendment tabled in this House by the Bloc. That subamendment asked the House to recognize there was no reason for the lack of a strategy to help older workers who lose their jobs. And yet, this is a reality.

Again this week, in my riding, 50 persons unfortunately were laid off because of the competition from China. Many of those people are over age 55 and will have difficulty finding other employment.

The Bloc Québécois believes it is important to help out older workers who lose their jobs. Among other things, this strategy should provide for income support measures or avoid a decrease in anticipated early learning and child cares spaces in Canada

These three elements make the Speech from the Throne acceptable to the Bloc Québécois. But the speech is still extremely vague as to how the government intends to give tangible form to this new openness. As we have indicated, on issue after issue, the Bloc Québécois will be exerting the necessary pressure to come up with results that meet the concerns and needs of Quebec and Quebeckers.

Some issues, however, get no mention whatsoever in the throne speech. I have to point that out. As concerns what is going on in my riding of Joliette, for example, there has been no mention of reopening the RCMP detachments. As we know, the detachment in Saint-Charles-Borromée, in Lanaudière, was closed by the RCMP as were nine other detachments.

In this region, as my colleague from Repentigny will testify, there is a huge problem of squatting where farmland is used for the illegal production of marijuana. Since the RCMP closed its detachment in Joliette, we have noticed a significant increase in the production and trafficking of marijuana and other illegal drugs, especially around schools. Parents are concerned, educators are concerned and elected representatives are concerned. They are all calling for the reopening of the detachment at Saint-Charles-Borromée. Obviously, what goes for the Lanaudière region goes for the other regions of Quebec as well.

The first nations were also given lip service. The federal government must assume its responsibilities in the day to day matters of the first nations. In my region, Lanaudière, there is a major safety issue. Over 40 people have died in recent years on an extremely dangerous stretch of road. Together the federal government and the provincial government have a responsibility to make the road between Saint-Michel-des-Saints and Manouane safer.

In conclusion, I will mention two other issues. One is a firm commitment to make no concessions at the WTO on supply management and the other is an immediate emergency plan to help the softwood lumber sector, where businesses are going into bankruptcy one after the other. In recent years, there have been huge job losses in this sector. In the last Parliament, the Conservatives supported the Bloc in this regard.

We have a lot of work ahead of us. We will work constructively to come up with solutions in response to the concerns of Canadians and Quebeckers.

[Supply, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question. He and I see things in exactly the same way.

We are obviously speaking about supply management. Since the beginning, there have not been any solid, satisfactory answers from the government, that is to say from the ministers involved or the Prime Minister, to the concerns voiced by farmers and members of the opposition parties.

In my view, the hour of truth is here. The more the negotiations continue, the greater the pressure will be. Our partners have to know how far we are prepared to make concessions and at what point we will stop.

In regard to the two things needed to save the foundations of supply management, we must be very clear and say to the world that there will be no concessions in these respects. We are prepared, however, to negotiate other things.

Unfortunately, the member is completely right: Canada is a pee wee when it comes to international negotiations. It is true at the WTO in the case of supply management, as in everything else, including bicycles.

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal recommended a tax on the import of bicycles, especially from southeast Asia, of about 30% this year, 20% the next year, and finally 10% to help this sector, which creates hundred of jobs, get through this difficult transition period.

The tribunal sent its recommendation to the Minister of Finance more than two months ago, but nothing has happened. Whom are they afraid of frightening? The Vietnamese? They are important partners of ours, but what kind of reprisals could they take?

If they are afraid of using the tools that the international rules make available to us in this case—because Vietnam is a large exporter of bicycles to Canada—imagine how they would react to the Americans. There is softwood lumber, but I spoke about it earlier and do not want to repeat myself.

In the case of milk, though, Australia, New Zealand and the Americans attack us constantly before the WTO tribunals, the WTO panels.

Canada has never used the means available to it to demonstrate that there are tremendous subsidies in the United States, as everyone knows. Why? They are afraid of offending the Americans. So what do we look like all this time?

Since everyone else challenges our supply management system and we never challenge the Americans' subsidies for their exports or just their internal supports for their farmers, we are considered the international “bad guys”. It is a losers' strategy, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs would say. Oh yes. The Liberal government has a losers' strategy in international trade, and I could talk about clothing and textiles or about furniture.

We manage to be afraid of being afraid. So what happens ultimately? There are job losses and doubt is cast on the social choices we make. It is totally unacceptable.

[Supply, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that, if we have an opportunity to bring back the amendment that our colleague from the Conservative Party wanted to introduce, the Bloc will bring it back, unless another party does so. I wanted to mention that we were in favour of the amendment that the Conservative Party was going to introduce, and perhaps we will be able to bring it back ourselves.

I will repeat the Bloc motion, because its wording is extremely important:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should give its negotiators a mandate during the negotiations at the World Trade Organization so that, at the end of the current round of negotiations, Canada obtains results that ensure that the supply management sectors are subject to no reduction in over-quota tariffs and no increase in tariff quotas, so that these sectors can continue to provide producers with a fair and equitable income.

In the proposal, we are extremely precise concerning the conditions necessary for supply management to be maintained, to continue not only to be viable, but also to develop. In this sense, the first two lines are very important to us.

I am happy that we seem to have reached an understanding with the Conservatives and the NDP that it is essential to include in the motion these two elements, namely that tariff quotas will not be increased and that there will be no reduction in over-quota tariffs. Without that, indeed, the pious wishes of the Liberal government are no more than hot air. If we are unable during the World Trade Organization negotiations to maintain the conditions that permit supply management in our domestic market, and if we are unable to hold a very firm line in these negotiations, we will be saying one thing and doing the opposite.

That would be nothing new, people will tell me, for indeed, that often happens with the Liberal party and the Liberal government. One can cite the example of softwood lumber. Now, the Prime Minister is turning up the rhetoric and ministers are saying that they are shocked at the situation. The Americans must abide by the NAFTA decision. And yet the softwood industry in Quebec and in Canada is not being given the resources to make it through this crisis.

The program that is emerging is not encouraging. Yesterday, in fact, we saw the leaks in the press. This is one more signal to the Americans. Despite the fact that the rhetoric has increased, we are not serious in our strategy of support to the industry to achieve a settlement that is satisfactory to the Canadian and Quebec softwood lumber industries on the basis of the decisions of the NAFTA tribunal, and nothing less than that. Here, too, we are in exactly the same situation.

We know that there will be a meeting in Hong Kong in mid-December and that the Canadian government must renew its mandate to its negotiators. In the context of these mandates, we are starting to get a number of elements on the table. We have undoubtedly found that the Americans and the Europeans have tabled an offer and that the Group of 10 has made a proposal, which is perhaps of the greatest interest to Canada. There are also the developing countries, such as India and Brazil. As far as Brazil is concerned, that was expressed again at the most recent meeting of heads of state and government at the Summit of the Americas.

The proposals are on the table. We need an ironclad guarantee that the Canadian negotiators fully understand their mandate, namely that there should be no reduction in over-quota tariffs and no increase in tariff quotas. Overall—and this is important—we need to be able to maintain a supply management system in Quebec and in Canada that first and foremost ensures a reliable supply to processors and consumers. This ensures a high-quality supply at a competitive price. We can see this, for example, in the case of Canadian milk. On average over a lengthy period, it has been retailing at a much cheaper price than American milk. We also find that the system gives agricultural producers a fair and equitable return for their work, their families and their investments.

In that sense, it is extremely important to remind our WTO partners that supply management does not cause any trade distortion on the international market. It is designed exclusively for our domestic market, and there are hardly any exports. I know that federations under supply management are prepared not to export in order to maintain the conditions necessary for this system. This ensures not only fair and equitable income for producers, but also a human-scale agricultural model.

As long as producers know how much they should produce and how much processors will buy and at what price, it is possible to maintain human-scale farms. There is no need to move toward industrialization, like the United States and many other western industrialized countries are doing. This is a societal choice that has to be respected.

However, to do so, the mandate given to our negotiators at the WTO has to be very clear. There is no leeway. That is why it is important to be very specific in terms of the motion.

There have been discussions at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, as well as the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I attended these committee meetings, and discussions will continue on Thursday. These discussions were on the Canadian position and on whether it would appear too uncompromising to our partners. That is not being uncompromising; it is the only mandate that is consistent with the will of this House as a whole. Hon. members will recall that a motion was put forward by the hon. member for Montcalm, saying that no compromises should be made where supply management is concerned. Everyone was unanimous.

If we want to be consistent, the motion that will hopefully be passed this evening has to include these two lines. That is the crux of the problem. If the government will not support that, it means that, essentially, in the negotiations in Hong Kong and post-Hong Kong negotiations, it is prepared to compromise on quotas and over-quota tariffs.

Tonight, if the Liberals and the Liberal government vote against the motion brought forward by the Bloc, especially as it will be amended by the Conservatives, their cards will be on the table for everyone to see. Farmers in supply managed sectors in Quebec, in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada will know that everything that was said by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of International Trade was nothing but hot air, that they intended all along to negotiate in the current round of multilateral negotiations and that they were always willing to make concessions that will seriously jeopardize our ability to maintain this system which, may I remind my colleagues, is a societal choice.

I call upon the government and those ministers to follow up on what they said in the last election campaign as well as during the debates that were held in this House over the last few months with regard to supply management, and to support the Bloc Québécois motion as it will be amended later on.

We also want to include in this motion the fact that our exporters of agricultural products must be able to have a fair and equitable income. In this regard, the Bloc Québécois, unlike the Liberal government, never intended to rob Peter to pay Paul, or should I say to rob Paul to pay Peter. Therefore, I urge the government to be reasonable and to support this motion so that all our trading partners know that Canada and Quebec will maintain a firm position with regard to supply management in these WTO negotiations.

[Supply, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

It gives me great pleasure to speak to the motion by my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska. I am pleased to support it. I will—

[Softwood Lumber, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister claimed no member of the Bloc had ever contacted him about the loan guarantees, and this is incorrect. On October 25, my colleague from Montmagny--L'Islet--Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup and I wrote to the Prime Minister calling on him to put loan guarantees in place.

Does the government not understand that, with a loan guarantee program spread over 5 years and covering only 16% of the amounts frozen in trust, it is sending a signal of weakness to the Americans in that it does not support the industry, a signal that clearly shows it can talk the talk but is not ready to walk the walk?

[Softwood Lumber, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, according to preliminary information, this $800 million loan guarantee program appears to be spread over five years, which will greatly reduce the already insufficient impact of the program.

Since forestry companies have already paid out more than $5 billion in duties that are being held in trust, will the government admit that this $800 million in loan guarantees over five years will not provide them with the necessary liquidity to operate properly?