Pierre Paquette

[Treaties Act, June 23rd, 2005]

The future members of the opposition.

[Treaties Act, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to speak to Bill C-260, which, as you know, is a bill the Bloc Québécois has been bringing back to this House for many years.

This bill was first introduced by our colleague at the National Assembly, Daniel Turp, the member for Mercier. It was then re-introduced by the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, who as you know is our foreign affairs critic. Now the torch has been passed on not only to the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, but also the hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. I want to commend him on this private members' bill.

Bill C-260 requires major treaties signed by the Government of Canada to be discussed by MPs and not just the executive branch of the government. In that sense, it is a bill that reflects the major advances of modern democracy. People will no longer accept treaties being negotiated, ratified and signed in secret behind closed doors. We are living in an age when, in addition to conventional treaties, a great number of trade and environmental treaties are being signed, for example, the convention on cultural diversity and other treaties related to culture.

It is to be hoped that in future, the international community will also be more effective at adopting rules having to do with social issues and labour standards than what we see today.

This is therefore a bill that really looks to the future. At the same time, though, it is rooted in the great battles that democrats have waged the world over and that the Bloc Québécois wages in this House. Once again, I would like to congratulate the member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia on this initiative.

As I was saying, the purpose of the bill is to submit major international treaties to a vote of the House before ratification by the existing government. When we say major treaties, we mean treaties requiring legislative changes. I will return to this in a moment.

This would make it possible, first, to have greater transparency. As you know, Canada is bound by nearly 3,000 bilateral and multilateral treaties. Unfortunately, most of these treaties are tabled sporadically or sometimes not at all. What this bill proposes is that treaties signed by the Canadian government, by Canada, should be tabled and published regularly.

This is also a bill that institutes not only transparency but also a democratic process that should be automatic. The members of the House should consider major treaties and, after a debate, there should be a vote on these treaties. I just mentioned how these treaties could be defined. This would also make it possible to use the consultation mechanisms we have in Parliament. For example, the parliamentary committees concerned by the treaty in question would not only study the treaty but could also be asked to contribute during the negotiations. I think that is extremely important.

For example, we are currently discussing an international policy statement tabled by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I am giving the example of one committee, but it could pertain to others as well. Several experts told us that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade does not play an important enough role, with the result that Canada's foreign policy is a party policy. At the present time, it is the Liberal Party of Canada that is in power—for a few weeks still, a few months at most—and it is therefore this party that decides on policy. After their upcoming defeat, the new government will have another foreign policy that could be the exact opposite of what we have now.

If the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade were allowed to play a greater advisory role—in both the negotiation and the ratification of treaties—foreign policy would be much less partisan than it is. It would be shared by all of the parties in this House and all members, thus ensuring not only consistency but continuity in foreign affairs. I give this as an example, but it is true as well in the case of the environment, fisheries, culture and so on.

By giving the parliamentary committee and members of this House not only the privilege but the obligation to examine treaties in detail, debate them and pass them, or not, the government would vastly improve democratic life in this House and in all of Canadian and Quebec society.

It would mesh perfectly with what the current Prime Minister promised when he was running for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada and when he was campaigning in the 2004 election, namely to reduce the democratic deficit.

Everyone can see that the fact that the executive alone has the privilege of negotiating and ratifying treaties creates huge problems in terms of transparency and democracy.

You will say, Mr. Speaker—and you will be right—that, in the case of Kyoto, the House voted. That is a fact, because the Prime Minister agreed to have the House debate this treaty. So, the House does not have a right. In fact, depending on how the Prime Minister sees things at the time, he can permit or refuse debate of a treaty in this House.

Take, for instance, the war in Iraq. We would have liked to have seen a vote here but there never was one, because this government did not want one. Fortunately, the decision reached was in keeping with the opinion of the majority of the people of Canada and Quebec. At least it was in line with the position of the Bloc Québécois.

If Bill C-260 were passed, that would also make it possible to respect provincial jurisdictions, which is extremely important. When the Canadian government, Canada, negotiates on services or agriculture with the World Trade Organization, it is negotiating in areas under either joint jurisdiction or solely provincial jurisdiction. Thus the commitments by the Government of Canada on behalf of Canadians and Quebeckers commit the provinces.

This is so much the case that, in the new GATT agreement signed in 1994, the so-called superior level of government—which term, we all agree, has no connection with reality—is obliged to use the means available to it to ensure that the local, or inferior levels comply with the agreements signed by the central government. So what we were told is no longer true.

It is correct as far as NAFTA is concerned. A province that is unwilling to apply certain of the measures in NAFTA within areas under its jurisdiction is entitled to do this, since there are provisions for this in the agreement. However, with GATT, now the World Trade Organization, and the new agreement signed in 1994 there is a responsibility.

In fact, it may very well happen that, at the end of the day, the Government of Canada could sign a treaty and one of the provinces or Quebec might not respect it because it fell under their jurisdiction.

Taking the WTO as an example, there might be repercussions from other countries. They would tell us, “Come on now, you people have signed a treaty and now you are not able to get your so-called inferior governments to comply with it.” That terminology does not, of course, reflect in any way the realities of our respective governments.

It would therefore be advisable for the provinces to be involved in the negotiating process, so as not to end up with inconsistencies like the examples I have given.

Consider this in terms of the negotiations on the Free Trade Area of the Americas, when that was going on. It is going nowhere now, but at the time, there was an education committee. The Canadian government represented Canada, although the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction in this area. It was a bit strange to see the Canadian government sitting at the table and negotiating with the governments of 34 other countries in the Americas—well, 33 other countries, because Cuba was not party to the negotiations—when education is outside its jurisdiction.

This bill would allow us to adapt current practices of ratifying treaties to the modern day reality in the rest of the world.

Some people say that the executive branch's privilege is tied to British tradition. This is probably true. However, even Great Britain has changed its approach. Now, in the case of many treaties, the British Parliament has the duty to engage in debate and then vote.

There should be a consensus in the House on Bill C-260, and the bill should be adopted as rapidly as possible so that we can further improve our democratic life.

[Agriculture, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on May 11, more than 350 dairy farmers delivered 28 bags of skim milk powder to the four ministers concerned with supply management and to the Prime Minister, to get Canada to use article XXVIII of the GATT in order to prevent unrestricted imports of several dairy ingredients.

The Minister of International Trade should be aware of the risk these imports represent to supply management and should use article XXVIII of the GATT.

While the minister is telling us that now is not the time to institute new tariff quotas under article XXVIII, unrestricted imports of dairy ingredients are threatening our supply management system.

The minister must take action immediately to limit the imports of ingredients that are replacing domestic milk and to really strengthen the supply management system.

I also want to take this opportunity to wish Quebeckers a happy St. Jean Baptiste Day.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we did not join with the Conservatives. We do not in fact support Bill C-48, but that is, in the main, for our own reasons. Presenting things this way is just a rhetorical device. It is as if I said the Liberals and the NDP were identical. Mind you, Trudeau always said that the New Democrats were Liberals in a hurry. I am beginning to believe it now.

That is not the issue. Behind this operation, the NDP, unfortunately, has supported a corrupt party and government. I will say that I am feeling rather uncomfortable for the NDP, which was party to an operation that prevented the people of Canada and Quebec from punishing this government. There is no alliance with the Conservatives. It is nothing like that.

I think the NDP made a grave mistake by enabling this government to survive for a few months, because it will be just for a few months. They should have gone to the public following the revelations of the Gomery commission. Moreover, no thought was given to the unemployed. There is nothing on employment insurance and nothing on the fiscal imbalance.

As I mentioned at the outset, they traded substance for shadows—certainty for uncertainty. We will have no part of that.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. When we read the bill we see that there are a great many “ifs” and “maybes”. First, there needs to be a $2 billion surplus every year. We know there will be one since the Minister of Finance has constantly underestimated the surpluses.

Nonetheless, if the Liberals did not want to give the money because it did not suit them to do so for one reason or another, they could change their mind—we know what they are like. That said, if they just spent money on other programs they could end up with a $2 billion surplus without having to say a word about keeping their promises.

The Comptroller General was asked whether this bill was binding. The answer was no. It is a line of credit the federal government has opened to spend the maximum in every sector. Take international aid for example. The maximum is $500 million. There is no guarantee this money will be spent.

I think we should have had—in fact this was suggested in the Standing Committee on Finance—a much more cohesive bill. The haste of drafting Bill C-48 just to form a political alliance is probably what made it so vague. It leaves the Liberal Party of Canada and current government with a lot of elbow room.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, whom I like very much as a person, has asked a number of questions. I will not unfortunately be able to answer them all.

As far as the sponsorships are concerned, there is no common thread between what went on here in Ottawa with the Liberal Party of Canada, and what went on in Quebec with Oxygène 9 and Mr. Baril. Immediately he felt there was a hint of conflict of interest, he resigned. Here, the government had to be harassed.

Even back in the 2000 election campaign we were speaking out about some practices by this government. We could not imagine that this scandal had roots so deep.

The Gomery inquiry was struck in response to pressure by the opposition parties and public opinion. This government has never done a thing without being pressured to do so.

It is a totally different situation in Quebec, for both the Parti Québecois and the Quebec Liberal Party. For example, at the first hint of problems with Jean Brault's contributions to the Parti Québecois, a trust fund was created. Here the government had to be harassed for a month, or a month and a half, until it admitted it no longer had any choice. And then it took a while before the money got transferred.

These are not in any way similar situations. Observers were not at all taken in. There was a whole mechanism in place here. I am not saying it was all the Liberal Party of Canada, or all the government, but there was a real system set up to funnel money indirectly to the Liberal Party of Canada. I am not in any way saying that this was the intent of the sponsorship program. Its primary objective, in reality, was to buy the souls of Quebeckers, and opinion polls show that it failed to do that.

As far as Bill C-48 is concerned, Quebec Premier Charest is certainly playing a totally legitimate game in trying to help out his Ottawa brethren, and to sing the praises of the Liberal Party of Canada in a lead-up to the election. Nevertheless, according to the polls, declared votes in their favour are at around 20% or 22%. I do not think that this will be a major advantage for the Liberal Party of Canada in the next election.

There is a lot more I could say, but no more time, so I will take my seat.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-48.

As some already know, I am a teacher by profession. I was an economics professor—and will be again once we achieve sovereignty in Quebec—at the Maisonneuve college, where I am still employed. I am sure that Bill C-48 will make for an extremely interesting case study when I go back to teaching at the end of my political career.

Bill C-48 is a unique case politically, economically, and financially speaking and the Bloc Québécois is opposed to it on all those levels.

Politically speaking, look at the situation we were in a few weeks ago when the minority government was looking for support just to survive. Bill C-48 did not come out of the goodness of the Liberals' hearts. They were in political hot water and this is what they came up with to survive politically. Bill C-48 is the product of this government's corruption. Let us not forget that.

Without Bill C-48, this government probably would have fallen and an election would already have been held in which the people of Quebec and Canada could have punished this government.

In case anyone thinks this is not a government on probation, some of whose representatives have been accused of dirty deeds, L. Ian MacDonald, who is not a sovereignist, I am sure we agree, wrote an article in Policy Options on the Gomery inquiry. I will read an excerpt. It is a summary of his article that I invite everyone to read:

As explosive as the auditor general’s report on the sponsorship scandal was, it did not, and could not, follow those funds, as Sheila Fraser said, “once they left the government.” It was left to Justice John Gomery to follow the money, not so much through a bureaucratic maze as down a political trail that led to the advertising agencies in Montreal and back to the Liberal Party of Canada (Quebec). In 128 days of public hearings, Gomery took some 25,000 pages of testimony, some of it stories of cash payments in envelopes right out the movies. Gomery’s findings will be out in November and his recommendations in December. Has the cost been worth it? The only benchmark is what we know now that we didn't know before Gomery. The answer is plenty.

It is very clear in what political context Bill C-48 was created. They tried to win an artificial majority in order to continue governing.

Unfortunately, I must say that the NDP, a party that I respect a great deal, has fallen right into the trap. On my way here, I thought about what I had learned in college. The NDP had the wool pulled over its eyes, to use one expression to describe this situation. We have others: it took the bait; it was fooled by smoke and mirrors; in short, it grasped at a shadow and lost the substance.

Politically speaking, I am quite concerned when a party of honesty and integrity, such as the NDP, is taken in by the Liberal Party of Canada, which is a corrupt party. As I mentioned, the Gomery commission and a number of observers seem to support that argument. The truth will come out once Justice Gomery's report has been tabled.

Politically speaking, this is an absolute farce. Nothing in Bill C-48 is truly progressive. Its only purpose is to buy peace for several months so the Liberal Party can continue to govern.

Economically and financially, we have the example of the $500 million for foreign aid. Obviously, there will always be support for increasing development aid.

So, this allows the Liberal Government of Canada to say that it has invested $500 million—how extraordinary—but that it will make no commitment whatsoever to 0.7% of GDP for official development assistance.

Again this week, the Minister of International Cooperation said that the government was making a moral commitment to reach this goal, but that there was no timeline, calendar or plan. So, the government is telling us that there is $500 million in Bill C-48, that this is wonderful, and that this absolves us of any commitment to provide official development assistance.

There is $1.5 billion for post-secondary education. Obviously, this is an astronomical sum. However, when we do not know how this $1.5 billion will be spent or what percentage will go to which expenditures, this may be a recipe for disaster.

I myself attended a meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance, two weeks ago Monday. University association representatives came to tell us that a balance is essential. If everything is invested in improving access to a university education, then the universities cannot accept additional students, because they do not have the professors, labs or infrastructure they would need.

Adding this $1.5 billion may therefore seem to be a good thing, but it is more likely to cause problems than to bring solutions, particularly since there is no government commitment to renewed funding. Teachers will be hired, laboratories opened perhaps, and then everything will have to be closed down again because there is not enough money to fund it all.

I will remind hon. members that there was a strike in Quebec a few years ago, one the Liberal government of Quebec of the day considered illegal. At that time I was secretary general of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux. We were hit with a fine of several million dollars. Of course, in order to look good and seem progressive, the government said that the money from these fines would be made available to community groups and charitable organizations. The Montreal United Way recommended that these groups turn it down. Why so? Because, when money becomes available for one year, permanent staff is hired, additional services provided, and then the next year there is no more money, staff can no longer be paid nor services delivered, but the demand created is still there.

In Bill C-48, as in the entire approach of the federal government and of the Liberal Party of Canada, there is always that philosophy of creating a need, funding it initially, and then pulling out later, leaving Quebec and the provinces holding the bag.

We have seen this with social housing. There again—I am forced to say this—the $1.6 billion for social housing is of course welcome, but if the federal Liberal government pulls out the following year, does not maintain its investments, and announces no continued funding for social housing, Quebec will find itself back in exactly the same position as now. I am sure that is the situation in other provinces as well. There is social housing but not the funds to maintain it properly.

So a need is created and then the ball ends up back in the provinces' court—and in Quebec's especially. I must point out that Quebec has kept its commitments as far as social housing is concerned. Moreover, the Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain has said so on numerous occasions. Consequently, the problem is still there. This does, of course, seem to be a most acceptable measure, even praiseworthy in principle, but in reality, it creates problems.

In this regard, we would have thought it more likely the Liberal government would commit to investing 1% of its public spending annually on social housing, as the NDP has asked—I imagine—along with the Bloc. However, this is not the case. The government provides one breath of fresh air, which will then suffocate social housing. It is extremely disturbing.

In terms of the environment, $900 million is an extraordinary amount, to be sure. It does not prevent the plan announced by the Minister of the Environment in response to the Kyoto protocol from being not only too weak to be carried out but destined for polluters who pay nothing for their pollution.

Accordingly, it guarantees a policy, which is, in our opinion in Bloc Québécois—and that of our critic for this matter—damaging to Quebec. The government is favouring the petroleum industry and once again making the people who have made an effort, especially the manufacturing sector in Quebec, pay for the reduction in greenhouse gases.

Looking at all that, I think it began with the best of intentions. However, the political, economic and financial results are catastrophic and do not resolve the underlying problems. The fiscal imbalance must not be forgotten. And there is nothing in this bill for EI.

It is not the fault of the NDP. I do not want to throw stones at them for that, but it does enable the federal Liberal government to say that it has a very good bill to resolve a stack of social issues, and that employment insurance will be for later. It will not be for later. We know that very well. Since 2000, government members and ministers have promised EI reforms we have yet to see.

I recall clearly—and I repeat this often, because I want everyone to remember—that, in 2000, the member for Bourassa and other Liberal government ministers of the time promised reforms to construction workers in Jonquière or Chicoutimi. Furthermore, during the televised debate in the last election, the Prime Minister himself promised reforms. However, nothing has happened since then.

Some $46 billion or $47 billion was diverted. Obviously $4.5 billion is nothing to sneeze at. However, $46 billion or $47 billion has been misappropriated. This gives an idea of the scale involved. We cannot settle for this, especially if we consider ourselves progressive.

So we must continue to put pressure on this minority government. Furthermore, EI should be a priority.

We must not forget the gun registry scandal either. Apparently, $1.7 billion was spent. Most of us agree with the principle; the gun registry is essential. However, we were told that it would cost $2 million, not the almost $2 billion it has cost to date. This is mind-boggling. Obviously some people profited from it. This is another scandal.

This reminds us, obviously, of the sponsorship scandal. I will say no more about it. I think that we have made up our minds about that scandal.

Look at the federal job creation program. The Minister of Foreign Affairs was then the human resources minister. A billion dollars was spent on all sorts of projects. Exactly how that money was used was never really determined.

There is still the fiscal imbalance. We are talking about an amount between $12 billion and $14 billion for all provinces. For Quebec alone, the fiscal imbalance represents $3.5 billion. In that sense, Bill C-48 is like putting a band-aid on a cancer. The cancer should have been treated.

The Conservative Party finance critic mentioned that this bill does not contain any details and that is a shame. As I was saying earlier, in terms of post-secondary education, the choices made in budget allocation will be extremely critical in determining how useful this money is. The same is true for housing. We would have expected a little more. Perhaps they ran out of time.

I imagine the Minister of Finance must be quite shocked to see, after tabling his budget in February, that for partisan reasons his credibility is on the line. Indeed, that is what is at stake.

In February, he told us there was no surplus, but that he had a $4 billion contingency fund for emergencies and economic prudence. Now the government is making a $4.5 billion commitment over two years. It is proof—and the Bloc Québécois has denounced this many times—that they deliberately underestimate the surpluses. The finance minister's credibility will be marred for life. He knows it, too; that much is obvious. When he responds to questions on Bill C-48, he is uncomfortable and he winces. I would rather he gave a precise picture of the public finances and that we had a real debate on how to use the surpluses; not the unexpected surpluses, but the real ones.

Where should this money go? To repay the debt, as they have said for years? I want to reiterate that. That is an extremely serious thing. For years, they led us to think that the unexpected surpluses should go to repay the debt. And yet, we can see it with Bill C-48. If the government expects unexpected surpluses ahead of time, they can be allocated to some particular thing. Tens of billions of dollars are involved here. In fact, some $60 billion to $70 billion have been withdrawn from the democratic debate, from the options available to the members here in the House and to the public. It is unacceptable.

With Bill C-48, unfortunately for the Minister of Finance, they made this fact public. In other words, they underestimate the surplus so they can deduct it from the public debt. They also use trusts and foundations for this. In this way, money from the public purse is removed from the control of parliamentarians. This too is a denial of democracy and a democratic deficit, a deficit that the current Prime Minister criticized a few months back. I have to say that the more time passes, the more I realize those words must surely have been intended to convince both the members of the Liberal Party of Canada and the public that renewal was on the way. We are realizing with the Liberals that the more things change, the more they remain the same.

The democratic deficit remains. The proof lies in the number of motions passed in this House without producing any effect on government action. I will give only one example, in which I am personally involved. It is the splitting of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The Prime Minister decided the day he was sworn in to split this department. Two bills were introduced and defeated. It would seem that that changed absolutely nothing in the government's trajectory. I could mention other motions that also passed in this House, and that came to nought in terms of government action.

So Bill C-48 may be a fine gesture by the NDP, but it is a harmful one from the political point of view, because it attempts to make people forget that at least a portion of one of the parties involved, that is the Liberal Party of Canada, is corrupt. From the economic point of view, this is far from a guarantee of improved services as far as post-secondary education, provision of social housing, or the environment are concerned.

As I have said, as far as international aid is concerned, this will enable the government to wiggle out of its obligation to have a deadline and a very specific plan for achieving the 0.7% of GDP objective by 2015.

So, overall, this is a way to make people forget what is essential: this government has lost its moral credibility; it is a lame duck government, but Bill C-48 has enabled it to enter into an alliance that will keep it going another few months. We in the Bloc Québécois, like all parties in opposition, have a responsibility to keep reminding people of the essential facts, which demonstrate that this government does not deserve the support of the people of Quebec and Canada. It is regrettable that the NDP fell into the trap.

In this connection, it is my hope that within a few days, or a few hours, some people will see the light and common sense will win out. Bill C-48 is a sham, and we cannot vote in favour of a sham. What we want is some real solutions. All parties in opposition must join forces to put pressure on this corrupt government.

[International Trade, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the world has changed and the Liberals are confused. It is the Minister of Finance who is responsible for the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. Clearly, trade legislation in Canada is outdated. These days, companies here often outsource part of their production.

Will the government admit that some companies sometimes refuse to file a complaint simply because it suits them not to and that the workers who do not have this right are left powerless to do anything in situations that may mean loss of jobs?

[International Trade, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, currently, only companies are authorized to file complaints with the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to protect themselves from unfair competition. Unions are calling for this same right.

Does the Government of Canada realize that not only companies but also unions need the right to file complaints in order to defend jobs threatened by dumping or other unfair trade practices?

[Softwood Lumber, June 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the launching of an aquaponic ecological farm producing trout and lettuce, the construction of a positive pressure vertical wind tunnel, and a study on the revitalization of the village nucleus: such are the projects designed to help the softwood lumber industry, which the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec was boasting about in this House, on June 10.

These projects, while very interesting for the communities, are not related to the softwood lumber industry, or to the workers affected, who have been left to fend for themselves by the Liberal government in Ottawa.

The federal government must provide direct support to the industry and it must change the employment insurance rules for affected workers. A true assistance plan must also be put in place to help the industry assume legal costs that are now in excess of $350 million, and include loan guarantees for the companies affected.

The type of programs developed by the Liberals will not save the Quebec and Canadian softwood lumber industry. Action is urgently needed.