Pierre Paquette

[Softwood Lumber, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec said in this House that we must be careful with loan guarantees because such a measure might “confirm the Americans in their position of imposing duties”. Yet, loan guarantees are authorized under the WTO and NAFTA.

Why does the government continue to refuse to grant these loan guarantees when they would make its position so much more credible to the U.S. government during Ms. Rice's visit?

[Softwood Lumber, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Ms. Rice's visit to Canada is an exceptional opportunity for the government to show just how determined it is in the softwood lumber issue. Forestry companies, as you know, have now paid out up to $5 billion in unjustified countervailing duties and are right in asking the federal government to grant them loan guarantees.

Will the government admit that refusing to grant these loan guarantees to the forestry companies is one way of refusing to make it really clear to the Americans that not only is the government talking tough, but it has also decided to take tough action in this matter?

[Softwood Lumber, October 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, talking louder is not enough. Yesterday, Carl Grenier, vice-president of the Free Trade Lumber Council said in a speech in Toronto that the $5 billion in duties held up illegally at the border was more than three times the net income for the twelve largest forest companies in Canada for the last 3 years.

Can the Prime Minister explain to us why he does not allow Export Development Canada to treat these illegally collected U.S. countervailing fees as accounts receivable, and thus to provide loan guarantees to companies needing them on that basis?

[Softwood Lumber, October 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, because of the American refusal to respect the NAFTA rulings, the softwood lumber industy in Quebec and Canada has turned to the U.S. courts, a process that may take up to two years. In the meantime, businesses here will still have to come up with $2 billion more in countervailing duties, bringing the total to $7 billion.

Does the Prime Minister not think that such a situation fully justifies the creation of a loan guarantee program to help the industry and send a clear message to the Americans: there will be no cut-rate agreement in the softwood lumber sector?

[Trade Compensation Act, October 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca on introducing Bill C-364. In fact, the Bloc Québécois was working on a similar bill. In that sense, from the outset, I can tell him that we will be supporting his bill over the next few months.

Clearly, the hon. member introduced Bill C-364 with the current lumber crisis in mind. Nevertheless, we are perceptive, and we can see that trade disputes are on the rise, particularly with our neighbours to the south. So, while set in a context coloured by the current impasse in the softwood lumber dispute, the scope of this bill should extend to other areas.

Take the pork industry, for example, which is regularly the victim of trade harassment. We might also think of the steel industry, where they have run into problems regularly. There is the dairy sector, which has been constantly attacked by the U.S., New Zealand and Australia.

All this to say that, while it deals with a situation that we cannot ignore, namely the softwood lumber dispute, one of the great strengths of this bill is that it is not sector specific. It applies to any sector affected by unjustified trade actions. In that sense, it is perfectly in keeping with Canada's international trade obligations.

I think it is important to point out that this is a bill which concerns all export sectors, and not just one in particular. It is very clear that, if passed, as we hope it will, this bill could benefit the softwood lumber industry.

It also seems to me that it should be emphasized that Bill C-364 is not related to export. It does not deal with export assistance, but rather with assistance made necessary by unjustified duties levied by a foreign country. With respect to softwood lumber, the foreign country is the United States. But it could very well happen that the European Union or other jurisdictions might implement protectionist trade policies resulting in situations where the provisions contained in this legislation would apply.

It must also be pointed out that this is nothing but common sense. The government has, moreover, announced on several occasions that it was thinking along those lines. I clearly remember, when the Minister of Foreign Affairs was Minister of International Trade, he announced, jointly with the Minister of Industry of the day—Mr. Manley if I am not mistaken—phase one of an aid package for the communities affected by the softwood lumber crisis, and a second for the companies and associations engaged in the dispute.

There was phase one, the $356 million we are tired of hearing about constantly from the present Minister of International Trade. I would remind hon. members that the $356 million was not specifically for the softwood lumber industry itself but for the affected communities. Hon. members will also realize that this money was spent in 2003, and now here we are with 2005 nearly over and the Liberals keep throwing back at us that figure for a program that dates back nearly three years now.

What is more, of that $356 million, and this is admitted by the Minister of International Trade himself, in a document he has sent to me, an excerpt from an article he placed in June 25th's Le Soleil , he states that only $15 million was allocated to the softwood lumber associations. Yet they are trying to convince us that help has been given to the industry and to the companies that are struggling.

Then there was phase one of the help with legal fees. If I remember correctly, that amount was $14 million, and then another $20 million was announced last April. This is just peanuts compared to the $350 million to $400 million the associations and companies have had to spend to defend themselves against the Americans' claims.

The government knows very well that something has to be done about the legal fees, and what it has done is insufficient. It has just done a bit of window-dressing. The bill will quite simply force the government to assume its responsibilities, responsibilities it claims to want to assume, but in actual fact is not doing. The same thing goes for the loan guarantees as well.

In the debate that we had, the former Minister of International Trade, who is now the Minister of Foreign Affairs, had suggested that the government would help businesses to get through this crisis. American authorities have illegally levied $5 billion in countervailing duties. Businesses have to pay these duties. It means reduced cash flow, fewer investments and fewer jobs.

And it is not over. President Bush's stubbornness, his refusal to follow through on the August 10 ruling of the extraordinary challenge committee, has forced softwood lumber businesses to go before American courts. We know that this procedure can take about two years. As the member mentioned earlier, we know full well that our businesses will have to pay $2 billion extra in countervailing duties to export their products to the United States, that is a total of $7 billion. It is important to understand the scope of this amount. Currently, duties stand at $5 billion.

Today, Carl Grenier, vice-president of the Free Trade Lumber Council, presented to the Toronto Economic Club the figures compiled by Price Waterhouse. These $5 billion collected in countervailing duties at the U.S. border currently represent three times the net revenues generated in the past three years by the 12 largest companies in the forestry sector.

In a few weeks, or a few months, some will be surprised that large companies will have gone bankrupt. I can already see the minister responsible for economic development or the industry minister telling us they will address the issue. Bill C-364 seeks to prevent these bankruptcies and avoid having a situation where the government would have to spend even more. This bill is not about spending. The hon. member was very clear on this. I want to repeat what was said. These are loan guarantees. There is absolutely no cost to the taxpayer. In this sense, the Liberal claim to the effect that the bill requires a royal recommendation appears totally ill-founded. We are not talking about contributions, but about loans that will be repaid when we manage to recover these $5 billion. It will be the same thing regarding other disputes that may affect us in the coming years.

I also want to go back to the first segment of the assistance provided to communities. We asked the government repeatedly when it would implement a loan guarantee program such as the one at Export Development Canada. We are not reinventing the wheel. We now know that the $5 billion in countervailing duties is money owed to Canadian and Quebec companies by U.S. authorities. The courts have issued all their rulings. We are now at the end of the legal process. As soon as the Americans decide to fulfill their international obligations under NAFTA, that money will be used to repay the loan guarantees.

Every time I ask him the question, the Minister of International Trade says that the government helped the industry by allocating $356 million. I will explain what this money was used for in Lanaudière—and I will drop a few of the investment projects because I am running out of time. This $356 million helped start up an ecological aquaponic farm that produces trout and lettuce. This does not have much to do with softwood lumber. A positive pressure vertical wind tunnel was built for individuals wanting to experience free fall. This is a far cry from softwood lumber. A commercial laundromat was set up, the productivity of a numbered company was improved and the possibility of developing a golf course was explored. It is true that there are trees around this golf course, but we usually try not to cut too many of them down in order to maintain the idyllic look of the course.

In light of this government's lack of responsibility, the hon. member did well to introduce Bill C-364, but it should not have come down to this. The government should have assumed its responsibilities in accordance with international rules. However, it does not want to. The opposition parties—I hope the NDP will also support this bill—will force this Liberal government to assume its responsibilities and help our businesses and industries that are suffering from commercial harassment. We must provide concrete help to our businesses and our softwood lumber industry. They are at the end of their rope and need help that complies with our international obligations.

I absolutely do not understand why the Liberals are being so stubborn in refusing a proposal that makes such good sense. They should have already implemented such a measure a number of years ago or at least a number of months ago.

[Canada Labour Code, October 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Shefford on his bill and his brilliant speech. In my opinion, it ought to have convinced everyone here to vote in favour of Bill C-380.

I would like to pick up on his closing remarks, in which he pointed out that the federal government has not done a thing for 15 years. What does he think caused that resistance on the part of the federal government, particularly since the Liberals took over? Is there some way of overcoming that resistance?

[Remote Sensing Space Systems Act, October 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask two questions of the member, the Conservative Party critic for foreign affairs, who, to my surprise, supports this bill.

First, nothing in this bill provides for the licence to be revoked if the satellite operator ever becomes a foreigner. Does this not worry him a little, especially in view of the fact that MacDonald belonged to the Americans for a few months? Would it not have been better to state very clearly that RADARSAT-2 and any other satellites that the Canadian Space Agency might design must be operated by companies that are 100% Canadian-owned? That is my first question.

Second, in view of the fact that this is a private operator, should they not also have ensured that federal departments, provincial governments and departments as well as the scientific community have priority access to the remote sensing images? Since this is a private company, it will obviously try to sell the images to whoever offers the most. What was standard procedure with RADARSAT-1, namely a certain priority in the use of the remote sensing images for the federal government, the provinces and the scientific community, no longer applies. Nothing in the bill ensures this priority. I think there should have been a provision like this in it.

I want to ask the member what he thinks about these two concerns of the Bloc Québécois.

[Remote Sensing Space Systems Act, October 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Liberal member who is defending this bill, as the parliamentary secretary did last Friday.

I would like him to explain something for me. The purpose of this bill is partly to ensure the security of remote sensing images. So how can his party be opposed to the idea I raised that there should be some positive measures to restrict the access to remote sensing data by countries that are a threat to peace, that are at war, or that have dubious reputations in regard to terrorist connections?

I proposed an amendment which recommended that the government draw up directives similar to those that currently control Canada's military exports. This amendment was shot down. The Liberals, followed by the Conservatives, voted against it.

It seems to me that there is a contradiction between rejecting this amendment and the purpose of this bill, which is intended among other things to ensure the security of remote sensing images.

[Foreign Affairs, October 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is confusing veto power with consultation. Speaking of consultation, civil society in Quebec wants to be heard before an international agreement with direct consequences for everyone is signed by the federal government.

By using Quebec as a threat, is the Minister of Foreign Affairs not the one behind the refusal of the Conservatives and the NDP to accept this request from civil society in the form of Bill C-260, which they voted down?

[Foreign Affairs, October 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-260, presented by the Bloc Québécois, called for major international treaties to be submitted to the House for review before ratification by the government. After being pressured by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, even the NDP and the Conservatives refused to give Parliament this authority.

How can the Minister of Foreign Affairs say he is attuned to the voice of Quebec, when he seizes the first opportunity to convince the Conservatives and the NDP to reject a bill whose purpose is to submit major treaties to the House for approval? Why reject greater democracy? Why reject greater transparency?