Pierre Paquette

[Workplace Psychological Harassment Prevention Act, September 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to participate in this debate on Bill C-360. I will be brief, but a few words are better than nothing at all. This bill introduced by my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville is called an act to prevent psychological harassment in the workplace. Like my colleague from Drummond, I would like to congratulate her, not only for her initiative in terms of the legislation, but also for all her political and social animation work in this area.

We have seen this phenomenon develop in the province of Quebec in the last years, but the world of work has not completely accepted these new provisions for the fight against psychological harassment in the workplace. We know that some complaints have been made. However, Quebec's National Assembly has already showed Canada the way.

My colleague is echoing the efforts made in Quebec to ensure that the Canada Labour Code, where the federal laws apply, including in the federal Public Service, contains provisions against psychological harassment. It is extremely important that we see this debate in the present context, which is two-fold: on one side the positive and negative effects of globalization and on the other side the trivialization of the ideas now in circulation, making us think that all opinions are equal.

I cannot help but mention the horrifying remarks the pseudo-doctor Mailloux made last Sunday on the show Tout le monde en parle . He made statements that have now achieved scientific notoriety. However, we thought that such rhetoric had disappeared over 50 years ago. He said that blacks and aboriginals in Canada had a lower IQ than everyone else. We are familiar with pseudo-professor Mailloux; he has been poisoning the airwaves at CKAC for years. So his comments came as no surprise. However, I still cannot believe that Guy A. Lepage, the host and producer, and Mario Clément, programming director of Radio-Canada, have trivialized his comments.

Imagine an employer who is already prejudiced against one of his employees, who is black or aboriginal, or even co-workers who already hold such prejudices. We know that they are minorities. This is also true in English Canada. I know that people are prejudiced against Quebeckers, who have also been the subject of similar remarks by commentators in Canada. I am thinking in particular of the English version of CBC's Hockey Night in Canada , where one such commentator has been spreading poison for many years. In passing, we have spoken out against him numerous times here.

If the employee is already the victim of prejudice, the attitude of his harassers will be reinforced on a much-watched program like that one, by Guy A. Lepage, whom many of our young people look up to. There must be a counter-balance to this. When something like that happens during a program and the interviewer has no legislated counter-balance, an extremely difficult situation ensues.

The bill before us is intended as that counter-balance. It would not have prevented what happened last Sunday. It is too late for that, anyway. They will try to remedy things on the next program, but the harm is done, and the way they reacted made things worse. A counter-balance like this bill on psychological harassment in the workplace is therefore necessary so that the individual, who has already been victimized and then sees credibility lent to his harassers by the reaction of someone like Guy A. Lepage, will have some recourse.

I spoke of globalization. Interestingly, on that level we are seeing polarization. On the one hand, some jobs require a new way of organizing one's work. That is why there is increasing discussion of psychological harassment in the workplace taking place in symposiums on work organization .

Smart employers—which most of them are, but not all—are well aware that psychological harassment not only has economic costs related to health—as my colleague from Drummond has so aptly pointed out—but also affects productivity. The ones responsible are not the victims of the harassment but the perpetrators of it.

Smart employers, often those in developing new sectors of the economy, want to effectively counteract psychological harassment. This bill will help them do so. Economic activity will benefit as a result.

On the other hand, in all sectors where jobs are becoming more precarious and their quality is deteriorating: declining sectors of service and activity getting very little government assistance—I am referring here of course to the industrial sector—psychological harassment is constantly on the rise.

This bill is needed in order to improve the quality of working life and our collective well-being, as well as to counteract complacency toward racist and prejudiced comments, which are unfortunately still far too common, even on our state-owned television network.

[Remote Sensing Space Systems Act, September 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, obviously an amendment was made. It was in fact proposed by my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île, and accepted in desperation.

However, in accordance with what the parliamentary secretary said, provisions could have been included throughout the bill to make sure that provincial jurisdictions would be respected and that provinces would have priority access to remote sensing images. Such was not the case.

The only amendment accepted was the one that would have been very difficult to reject. How could the Liberal Party admitted publicly that it was against the interests of the provinces?

When one looks at the details of the bill, one realizes that, in spite of the government's rhetoric, respecting the provincial jurisdictions and giving the provinces priority access to remote sensing images is not among its priorities. Otherwise, the government would have wholeheartedly accepted the changes proposed by the Bloc Québécois.

[Remote Sensing Space Systems Act, September 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on the last point of the question, we do think that the remote sensing technology used by RADARSAT-2 is not compatible with President Bush's missile defence shield project as we know it.

That being said, I would like to expand on what I said earlier. The agreement signed by Canada and United States in 2000, when Mr. Axworthy was minister, I believe, includes four sections but also appendices to which we did not have access. Maybe an indirect link to the missile defence shield is established in these appendices. However, considering the testimony of specialists, we believe that the remote sensing technology used by RADARSAT-2 could hardly be directly usable in the missile defence shield project.

We want to believe what the government told us when it said that we are not part of that project. If we were allowed to see the appendices of the 2000 agreement, I think that all doubts in that regard could be dissipated.

As for the provinces, I simply want to remind the parliamentary secretary that my colleague for La Pointe-de-l'Île proposed several amendments that were all rejected, including two on the jurisdiction of the provinces.

I will point out one of them. She had proposed that, in clause 8(1), at line 31, on page 4 — I went to check and the provisions are still the same — the following be added after “Forces” and before “Canada's conduct of international relations”: “jurisdiction of the provinces”. This amendment was rejected by the committee, on the initiative of the Liberal Party and the parliamentary secretary. We could have read instead: “--having regard to national security, the defence of Canada, the safety of Canadian Forces, jurisdiction of the provinces, Canada’s conduct of international relations--”. Consequently, we would have had a bill ensuring the respect of provincial jurisdiction.

I cannot go back on the facts. This amendment was rejected by the committee during the clause by clause study of Bill C-25 and at the time of the vote.

Not only was this amendment by my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île rejected, but she had proposed a second amendment in the same vein, once again to clause 8(1) of Bill C-25, on page 5. That amendment was at line 23, in clause 8 (4) (c). The current bill, even amended, goes in the same direction. She had proposed the following: “the government of that country or the provinces of Canada--” However, this amendment was also rejected by the committee.

If the parliamentary secretary does not see any problem in the jurisdiction of the provinces being respected and their having priority access to remote sensing images, I have difficulty understanding why the Liberals and the parliamentary secretary rejected so fiercely both amendments by my colleague from Pointe-de-l'Île.

If we had been able to bring about these two amendments, most of our objections would have been put aside. Unfortunately, we cannot re-write history, and the government does not seem to have the required openness. Consequently, the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C-25.

[Softwood Lumber, September 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the softwood lumber dispute has been going on for 40 months now. The industry is at the end of its rope, and an aid package is urgently needed.

Technically, the dispute ended on August 10, 2005, when the NAFTA panel ruled that there was no threat to the U.S. industry and that the countervailing and anti-dumping duties should be revoked and refunded.

Unfortunately, for the first time since the free trade agreement was entered into 17 years ago, the United States refused to comply with a panel decision. This choice the Americans made has very serious implications and threatens the integrity of NAFTA, whose decisions are supposed to be binding.

Now the industry has to go before American courts again to obtain justice, which is practically setting them back 20 years.

The Prime Minister and the government ought to show determination and implement the solutions put forward by the Bloc Québécois three years ago now.

The time for talk is over; it is now time to act.

[Remote Sensing Space Systems Act, September 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the parliamentary secretary that we proposed an entire series of amendments. Among others, my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île proposed a very specific amendment on the priorities of the provinces and respecting their jurisdictions, but the committee rejected it.

The bill may have been improved over its original version, but it is quite far from respecting the intent of the Canadian Constitution. This bill does not protect the exclusive jurisdictions of the provinces. In fact, it does not even take them into account.

As for the bill that was rejected by the House this week, it was simply a matter, under the Canadian Constitution, of ensuring that, in terms of the exclusive jurisdictions of the provinces or shared jurisdictions, the Government of Canada and Parliament could consult the provinces, which is perfectly normal.

I will give a quick example. When the North American Free Trade Agreement was signed, President Clinton asked for two side agreements: one on labour and the other on the environment. Although the federal Liberal government accepted the proposal, it was unable to implement it until a majority of the provinces representing the majority of the public had agreed to do so. For many years, an NDP government in Ontario and one in British Columbia, if my memory serves me correctly, refused. Accordingly, the agreement could not be ratified.

The Canadian Constitution already gives provinces the means to prevent the implementation of agreements signed by the federal government. We were to serve the federal government under the Constitution of 1867. Nonetheless, it seems like the Bloc Québécois is the only party in this House that wants to respect the Constitution of 1867. I am sorry to say so.

[Remote Sensing Space Systems Act, September 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-25, an act governing the operation of remote sensing space systems.

I want it known from the outset that we will vote against this bill. In fact, a number of problems that we had raised were not addressed in committee. And yet, the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île and I did propose a number of amendments. The NDP also tried to clarify the bill, but the Conservatives and the Liberals were indifferent and treated us to their usual uncompromising attitude that we have grown accustomed to over the past 10 years.

Still, consideration of legislation on remote sensing is very thrilling. It gives every member of the committee a chance to learn a great deal about it. We also saw that since this is a relatively new field, there were a great deal of questions that government officials had not asked themselves. Fortunately, the committee raised these questions. Too bad it did not get any response.

It probably would have been better to postpone the debate on Bill C-25 and to continue the work of the committee in order to ensure that this legislation, made necessary by the fact that the Canadian Space Agency was relieved from one of the responsibilities it had in managing RADARSAT-1, truly responded to the objectives set out in the summary. I will read the summary, since those watching us need to know what we are talking about.

This enactment regulates remote sensing space systems to ensure that their operation is neither injurious to national security, to the defence of Canada, to the safety of Canadian Forces or to Canada’s conduct of international relations nor inconsistent with Canada’s international obligations.

In order to accomplish this, the enactment establishes a licensing regime for remote sensing space systems and provides for restrictions on the distribution of data gathered by means of them. In addition, the enactment gives special powers to the Government of Canada concerning priority access to remote sensing services and the interruption of such services.

That is the aim of this bill. As I mentioned, we support this aim. However, if the Canadian Space Agency had retained responsibility for managing and operating RADARSAT-2, this bill would not be necessary. Instead, the Liberal government decided, in this area, to establish a public-private partnership—Quebec knows that such partnerships are rarely successful either in reality or in the public eye—between the Canadian Space Agency and MacDonald Dettwiler, a Canadian company.

If RADARSAT-1 had been left as it is, that is, having this remote sensing space system under public management, this bill would have been moot. However, we are being presented with a fait accompli, this public-private partnership. So we must establish a framework for this private enterprise, which will be responsible for managing a remote sensing space satellite.

Even if we make a law that every operator of this kind of technology must obtain a licence, the fact is that Bill C-25 seeks to provide a framework solely for the activities of one private company.

I want to mention that I find it troubling, to say the least, that one of the sponsors of this bill, the Minister of Industry, served on the board of this private company in 2000. A number of responsibilities set out in the bill will need to be clarified.

This bill is a first in Canada. As I said, it was made necessary due to a decision taken by the government, under former minister John Manley, to transfer RADARSAT-2 to a private company.

As I recall, and as the leader of the NDP said earlier, RADARSAT-2 was designed and built by the Canadian Space Agency, which is located in Saint Hubert, at a cost of $430 million. In fact, I think that the costs have increased somewhat since then. However, the Canadian company, MacDonald Dettwiler invested only $92 million. It has also committed to paying the satellite's operating costs. But any private company operating this satellite will want to sell the images it takes and make a profit. It will do so at the expense of taxpayers who paid for the system's construction.

In my opinion, this is the first problem in the whole debate, which is not as much focussed on Bill C-25 as on the government's past decision to shed responsibility for administration of RADARSAT-2.

One can, of course, wonder how appropriate it is, from the point of view of governance, to use the taxpayers' money to permit a private company to sell its remote sensing images. No one is questioning the appropriateness of having such satellites. Hon. members will recall that RADARSAT-1 scans the Earth's surface with advanced synthetic aperture radar. Unlike optical systems, this system makes imaging possible day and night, whether the atmosphere is clear, cloudy or foggy. As a result, these satellites are extremely useful for monitoring natural disasters.

As I said in my question to the parliamentary secretary, this also allows for natural resource management. It is, for example, very difficult to assess changes in a forest with the naked eye. With satellite images, however, it is possible to take inventory of the forests, as well as waterways and a number of other things. It is, of course, very useful for both meteorology and cartography.

The novelty with RADARSAT-2 is the markedly higher resolution than was available with RADARSAT-1, varying between two and three metres. This is, of course, where the entire problem lies with the use private interests will make of these ultra high resolution images. I recall that MacDonald Dettwiler, the private company that will be administering this, will sell these images to private interests as well as to foreign interests.

The Americans are worried about the possibility that images obtained by RADARSAT-2 and sold by this private company could have military repercussions. A treaty, to which we could not get access, was signed with the United States in 2000. We therefore share the concerns of the Polaris Institute as to its contents. Do the Americans have some right to veto the sale and use of the images that will be taken?

We know that U.S. law forbids selling images to certain countries. We can understand that. However, will we let the U.S. dictate to Canada how the images should be sold? We would have liked to have seen that treaty. We were told that it does not contain anything that can be cause for concern but I am not ready to blindly accept the government's word. We have concerns. The bill should reflect the complete independence of Canada in matters of foreign affairs but that is not the case.

In addition, there are no provisions in case MacDonald Dettwiler, a private company, should change hands as happened a few months or a few years ago. I think it then became an American company. What would happen if it changed hands? Would its licence be cancelled? Can you imagine a satellite like RADARSAT-2, built with public funds by the Canadian Space Agency, being operated by a foreign private company? It is beyond comprehension that the Canadian government did not find it necessary to include in the bill dispositions ensuring that the company operating RADARSAT-2 remains in Canadian hands. We see it as sheer irresponsibility.

There is another problem which I alluded to earlier in my question to the parliamentary secretary and it is the fact that the legislation does not specify how priority of access to the images will be determined.

The prioritization is not framed in the operating criteria previously used with RADARSAT-2. Members will recall that these criteria ensured priority access to relevant departments—Environment, Natural Resources, Fisheries and Oceans—the provinces and the scientific community.

Now, there is no such assurance. At least, there is no mention in the bill of priority access for the departments, federal or Quebec, which are the largest users of remote sensing data, or for the scientific community.

Previously, with RADARSAT-1, the Canadian Space Agency was the one setting and managing priorities. Now, the management of the satellite will be in the hands of a private company, as I said earlier. This private company might establish its priorities based on the primary objective of private companies: profit. And this primary objective may well be contrary to the interest of common good and Canadian and Quebec interests where the provinces are concerned. So, one would have expected Bill C-25 to clearly provide an order of priority for access to the images, but it does not.

As I said, while several questions remain unanswered, officials have been working on this bill for five years already. I am not criticizing them. The fact is that, clearly, there has been a lack of transparency. The bill was introduced suddenly. There was, on the part of the government and the parliamentary secretary, a feeling of urgency to rush this bill through the various stages of consideration at committee and in Parliament.

As I indicated, the bill was put together so quickly that, when my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île contacted Ferdinand Beaulne, director of the large remote sensing research centre in Canada, therefore someone who is really closely involved with the whole remote sensing file, he was not even aware of the existence of Bill C-25. This means that he had never been consulted by officials or the government on the drafting of Bill C-25.

On the other hand, Mr. Giroux, who is the director of external relations at the Canadian Space Agency, has told us several times that MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates and its subsidiary RADARSAT International Inc., together the Agency's private partner in the RADARSAT-2 program, was consulted extensively during the development of the bill before us. This is somewhat problematic since, as I mentioned to you, the specific purpose of Bill C-25 is to provide a framework for the activities of a single company, namely MacDonald Dettwiler, the only company consulted. In fact, potential subcontractors or clients of MacDonald Dettwiler appeared before the committee to share their concerns about their interests not being taken into account in the industry's development. As far as I can see, everyone in the House agrees that this industry is extremely promising for Canada and Quebec.

Therefore, my party believes that we should have taken a bit more time to involve more people in the process and to have a strong bill.

I mentioned a short while ago in my question that provinces are considered as simple clients and do not have priority access, as was the case before, when they had nearly free access. I want to talk some more about this, since it is the third problem element. The provinces, who are the main buyers of remote sensing images, had even invested in RADARSAT-1. As I mentioned earlier, remote sensing is linked to numerous provincial jurisdictions, such as natural resources, agriculture and the environment. In fact, you, Mr. Speaker, are just as aware of this reality as I am.

As I said, the bill does not explicitly mention an agreement with the provinces, and so we believe it is necessary to change this through an amendment. I think this is a major deficiency in Bill C-25.

There is one other aspect I believe is important, namely, the use that some private-sector or government clients may make of RADARSAT-2 and its remote sensing images. One would have expected the government to comply with the summary, where it is said that remote sensing space systems are regulated “to ensure that their operation is neither injurious to national security, to the defence of Canada, to the safety of Canadian Forces—”. One would have expected a control mechanism on the export of those remote sensing data, just as there still are on exports of products of a military nature in Canada.

In fact, there are guidelines. There is a policy to control exports of military goods and technology to countries we want banned from receiving such exports. I have introduced an amendment which, I thought, simply reflected common sense, that is to say that we make sure that countries that are a threat in terms of Canadian military exports are also covered in the area of remote sensing.

As an example, members know that Canada rigorously controls exports of military goods and technology to countries that constitute a threat to itself and its allies; to those that are involved in a conflict or that might be shortly; to those that have had sanctions imposed by the Security Council of the United Nations; to those where human rights are seriously and repeatedly violated by the government, unless it can be demonstrated that the population is under no reasonable risk.

If it is good for the export of military goods and services, it should also have been good for remote sensing images which the government feels must be covered by Bill C-25.

I admit that I found this very hard to understand. As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, I felt that this issue was brushed aside because the government, for reasons that are unknown to me, even though I have a pretty good idea, needs to have Bill C-25 passed as quickly as possible. I think it has to do with the agreement with the United States whereby Canada made the commitment to create a framework for this private corporation, and I am very concerned about that.

Regarding the archiving of data, which will be dealt with in the regulations, we know that this type of high resolution remote sensing can be an invasion of privacy and can be used to compromise the freedom of our fellow citizens. This is why we would have preferred that provisions dealing with the archiving of data be included in the bill itself. The government kept exclusive control over this area by putting it in the regulations. Several experts, including a legal expert and a scientist specialized in Earth observation, pointed out the importance of such archiving of data when they came before the committee.

In the case of the environment and the climate, it is extremely important that all the data be kept year after year. What will that private company do with the images? It will probably consider that the management of these data will cost too much. Consequently, after two years, it will get rid of a whole series of extremely important images.

For example, we were told that in order to be able to measure the warming of the planet or problems concerning the ozone layer, researchers must be able to go back in time to compare series of data. Of course, that will cost money, as I have already said, but a private commercial operator should be required to inform National Archives of his intention to get rid of a number of images. There are no provisions in the legislation in that regard.

In conclusion, we deplore the fact that the Canadian Space Agency has been partly stripped of the management of RADARSAT-2. We believe that the Canadian Space Agency must play an important role. Consequently, because there are no provisions in the bill establishing priority criteria, because nothing in the bill ensures that RADARSAT-2 will not be sold to foreign interests, because there was a lack of transparency at the drafting and consideration stages, because the interests of provinces, particularly Quebec, are not protected, because scientific advances are put at risk by Bill C-25, because there are no consultations with the provinces and the departments involved, as I said in my introduction, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against Bill C-25.

[Remote Sensing Space Systems Act, September 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, while sharing the concerns expressed by the leader of the NDP, I would like to raise another problem with Bill C-25.

As we know, RADARSAT-1, which is managed by the Canadian Space Agency, is already in place. This remote sensing satellite has been in operation since 1995 and helps establish priorities for the use of the images it captures. For instance, federal departments have privileged access to these images, as do the provinces and scientists.

There is no mention anywhere in this bill that the provinces will have privileged access to the images captured by RADARSAT-2. There is no explicit mention of possible agreements with the provinces, which are put in the same category as regular commercial customers. Given that RADARSAT-2 will now be managed by a private company, namely MacDonald Dettwiler, it seems to me that it should have been set out very clearly in the bill that the provinces must have privileged access. In fact, under the Canadian Constitution, the provinces are responsible for managing natural resources, and these images are very useful for the management of forests, for example, and farm management as well.

Therefore, I cannot understand why the amendments put forward by the Bloc Québécois in this respect were rejected, and why the bill was not corrected accordingly. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could enlighten us on this.

[Noël Lacas, September 29th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it was with sadness that we learned of the passing of Noël Lacas last week.

I want to acknowledge his exceptional contributions to the union movement and to the development of the Lanaudière region for over 50 years.

In 1952, the Conseil central des syndicats nationaux de Joliette hired him as a union advisor. It was in this role that he became instrumental in forming new unions and in negotiating for the public sector and for prison guards in Quebec.

Since his retirement in 1984, Noël Lacas had been heavily involved in sovereignist activities.

With his passing, the Lanaudière region and Quebec as a whole have lost a great unionist and staunch defender of Quebec.

A historian as well, he brought us a well-researched history of the Conseil central de Joliette, now the Conseil central de Lanaudière

His funeral was held on September 22 at the Joliette Cathedral. The Bloc Québécois offers its condolences to his family and loved ones.

[Softwood Lumber, September 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the figure the hon. member is referring to dates back to 2003. That $20 million is a drop in the bucket compared to the expenses the industry has incurred and will continue to incur to defend itself in the American courts. This is no laughing matter. It is very clear that the American strategy is to buy time in order to kill the industry so that when the issue is resolved there will be no players left.

Does the minister realize that one way to help the softwood lumber industry get through this crisis and recover the tariffs the U.S. authorities illegally imposed is to give the industry loan guarantees, period?

[Softwood Lumber, September 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the softwood lumber dispute is nowhere near resolution, judging by the attitude of the U.S. industry, which, unhappy with the decisions, is disputing the very legitimacy of NAFTA.

Day after day for three years, the Bloc Québécois has been asking the government to provide concrete help to the softwood lumber industry, namely by providing loan guarantees.

Does the Minister of International Trade not feel the time has come to give the softwood lumber industry some concrete help? Does he intend to provide the loan guarantees the industry is looking for?