Pierre Paquette

[Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is pitiful to hear such arrogance and disregard for our party, which is a democratic expression of a significant part of the population. The latest polls show that roughly 54% of Quebeckers would vote for the Bloc Québécois.

Does wanting to correct the fiscal imbalance prove we are against Canada? If so, does that mean Canada only functions as long as there is a fiscal imbalance? Does this also mean that all the other provinces, like Quebec, have to experience financial difficulties in order for Canada to function?

Is an accessible employment insurance system that provides adequate coverage a bad thing for Canada? If so, does that mean that if the people who receive employment insurance benefits in British Columbia, Ontario and the Atlantic provinces received an adequate salary replacement rate, this would be detrimental to Canada?

Is a plan with teeth for the Kyoto protocol that is fair to Quebec a threat to Canada?

If that is what it means to live in Canada, then it is time for us to get out.

What I was saying concerned Bill C-43. Now, what is the government doing with C-48. It contains no stable funding for health, education or the fight against poverty. In addition there is nothing for employment insurance, not even a reference. In the case of the Kyoto protocol, this poor plan favoured by the west and the major oil companies will cost Quebec more.

We therefore oppose C-43 and C-48. If Quebec were a sovereign country, this sort of aberration would not need to be debated. However, while we are here, we will defend not only the interests of Quebec and Quebeckers, but the interests of Canadian workers as well. They oppose the fiscal imbalance. They support a real employment insurance system and they want the Kyoto protocol to work.

[Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to take part in the debate on Bill C-48, which sets out the agreement between the Liberal Party of Canada and the NDP.

This is an opportunity for me to condemn a two-part hoax. First, the leader of the NDP thinks he won points for the agreement set out in this bill. Second, the Liberal Party of Canada, through the current Prime Minister and with the help of the leader of the NDP, is inferring that this bill improves the budget, known as Bill C-43, which was totally unacceptable to the NDP and to us when we first debated and voted on it. We voted against it, as everyone knows.

Unfortunately for the Liberals, only the NDP truly believes that this agreement will do something for Canadians and Quebeckers. I saw the embarrassment of some NDP candidates in Quebec as result of this agreement. They had a great deal of difficulty understanding why, in exchange for so little, the leader of the NDP agreed to support a government that, clearly, according to witness after witness before the Gomery commission, appears to be led by a corrupt party.

Obviously the leader of the NDP and his MPs will say that they obtained $4.6 billion for social housing and the environment, among other things. It is all just smoke and mirrors. I will have the opportunity to easily demonstrate this.

I want to come back to the fact that the Liberal Party of Canada and the federal Liberal government specialize in this kind of hoax. Its other specialty, obviously, is believing that taxpayers' money belongs to both the federal government and the Liberal Party of Canada.

That said, I want to come back to this series of hoaxes. Unfortunately, I have just a few minutes, so I will not be able to name them all.

The 25th anniversary of the 1980 Quebec referendum on sovereignty- association is approaching. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the Liberal Party leader who campaigned for the no side said, in the Paul Sauvé Arena “—we are willing to lay our seats in the House on the line—”.

With what result? A unilateral constitutional agreement that Quebec is not party to and has never signed, despite the fact that both the Liberal Party of Quebec and the Parti Québécois have formed the Quebec government. It caused a constitutional crisis that has yet to be resolved.

In 1995, in response to a question on sovereignty and a partnership with Canada put to him while he was campaigning for the no camp, Jean Chrétien declared his love for us, “We love you, stay with us”. I do not think he convinced very many people. He was nonetheless confronted with a very close vote on referendum night.

What came out of this great declaration of love by Jean Chrétien and the rest of Canada? The clarity legislation. While this does not make any difference, attempts have been made and continue to be made to convince Quebeckers that they are not the masters of their own destiny. That is another federal Liberal hoax.

During the election campaigns of 1997, 2000 and 2003, we were promised a massive overhaul of the EI system. Each time, the elephant gave birth to a mouse. I clearly recall that, in 2000, the member for Bourassa travelled to Jonquière, where the steelworkers were furious. Before this audience, the Liberals made the promise to carry out this reform if they voted for them. The steelworkers did not believe a word they said; they are clever, they realized it was a hoax. As it turns out, the Liberals did not do a thing.

They did the same thing in 2003. They carried out a mini-reform, adding $300 million to the program, when the surplus in the employment insurance fund was $46 billion. That money was diverted to pay back the federal government's debt. In fact, my colleague from Chambly—Borduas questioned the minister on that earlier. The minister recognized that this was a very complex issue. Why would it be so complex? The Liberals, who have been promising reforms since 1997, should know how long it takes to examine an issue. Committees have made recommendation upon recommendation. One more hoax.

I am sorry to say that the Liberal Party of Canada attracts primarily billionaires, be it as leader or as Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. I hope that, unlike the Prime Minister, the minister is not building her fortune on tax havens.

I can guarantee that I will conduct an inquiry into this matter.

During the last election campaign, at the leadership debate in French, the Prime Minister made a public promise to overhaul EI to make it accessible to the unemployed by reducing the number of qualifying hours. Nothing happened.

I could mention the foundations used to hide the surpluses. I could mention the equalization program, which was unilaterally amended, amendments that have cost Quebec dearly. I could mention the fiscal imbalance that only the federal Liberals, in Canada and Quebec, deny. I could mention supply management, which the government boasts about defending, while it lets in modified milk products from all over the world, thereby jeopardizing this supply management system.

I could also mention Kyoto. Major international commitments are being made, but there is no action plan to ensure that we will achieve the objectives we have committed to. What is more, this is going to hurt Quebec.

Today, we heard another hoax. Yesterday, it was announced that a $750,000 trust fund had been set up. On the one hand, we have learned today that this trust does exist, but that it does not contain $750,000. On the other hand, this amount represents a very small percentage of the dirty money taken by the Liberal Party of Canada. This trust fund is just an empty piggy bank. It is a small empty pig created, once again, to try to deceive Quebeckers and Canadians.

Today, there was yet another hoax in the shape of Bill C-48. It implies that the government is going to improve Bill C-43, the Budget Implementation Act, 2005, which was tabled by the Minister of Finance in February. The leader of the NDP must have been surprised when he realized that his agreement with the Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Party was not attached in amendment to the budget, but was instead a separate piece of legislation marked Bill C-48. This means he will have to vote in favour of Bill C-43, although he voted against it at first reading.

I must say, moreover, that the only party that has been consistent since the start of this budget debate is the Bloc Québécois. Quebeckers know that. We were opposed to the budget from the start, we still are, and we will be tomorrow. The little amendments brought in with Bill C-48 will not convince us otherwise.

In fact, when one reads the bill, one can see as I have said that it is nothing but smoke and mirrors. I will therefore read an excerpt from Bill C-48.

Subject to subsection (3),...in respect of the fiscal year 2005-2006—

This paragraph says that all payments made by the Minister of Finance may not exceed $4.5 billion over two years. So:

subject to subsection (3), ... in respect of the fiscal year 2005-2006—

The same thing for 2006-07.

the Minister of Finance may... make payments out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund up to the amount that is the difference between the amount that would, but for those payments, be the annual surplus...and $2 billion.

This means that above $2 billion, if there is a surplus, the Minister of Finance will be authorized to use this surplus to comply with the agreement with the NDP. Well, last February, the Minister of Finance was telling us that there was no leeway and he had gone as far as he could go. Suddenly, he finds money. Over the last few weeks, he has discovered $22 billion for promises. This is much more, by the way, than what the leader of the NDP obtained. And why $22 billion? Because the government is under pressure to have an election. I must say that this has paid off much better for Canadians and Quebeckers. Half of this amount is going to Ontario. These are not election promises? It is totally unacceptable.

Earlier I described a bit the federal Liberals' propensity for hoaxes. The only thing that the government can do therefore—and knowing this, it will surely do it—is spend money all over so that there will not be a surplus if it does not want to comply with its agreement. And that will be completely consistent with the bill.

The leader of the NDP failed, therefore, to obtain any guarantees at all regarding this $4.5 billion. It also states in the bill that the maximum is $4.5 billion. For each point, it is the same thing.

Bill C-48 does not guarantee any improvements to social housing, absolutely no correction of the fiscal imbalance, and no improvements insofar as the Kyoto protocol is concerned. In view of its mandate to advance the interests of Quebec, the Bloc Québécois therefore has no other choice, in all logic, than to vote against Bill C-48, as it will also vote against Bill C-43. Thus it will demonstrate both its disagreement with and its lack of confidence in this government, which does not deserve to govern the country any longer.

[Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague on his excellent and very clear speech on Bills C-43 and C-48.

I would like to have some comments from him on this virtually ingrained reflex of the federal government—particularly when it is Liberal—to want to interfere in areas that are under the jurisdiction of Quebec.

They want us to think—and this has gone on for decades, more than a century I would say even—that the federal government knows more about public administration than Quebec's elected representatives.

[Softwood Lumber, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it will be three years this Sunday that the softwood lumber dispute has been going on. The industry's situation in Quebec and Canada is deteriorating quickly. On top of the $4.5 billion in illegal duties levied by the American, legal fees are piling up.

On April 14, the minister finally announced financial assistance for the associations in support of the industry's legal proceedings, with costs now exceeding $350 million.

In early May, in a meeting with government negotiators, the representatives of the softwood lumber industry were stunned, to put it mildly, to learn that this assistance will not actually be provided until the end of 2005.

But now is when the industry needs this money to resist the American industry's legal harassment. By delaying this assistance, the minister is weakening our industry's position and playing into the hands of the American industry. What a shame.

[Canadian Federation of Independent Business, May 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business is celebrating its 35th anniversary this year. The federation's mission is to act as an advocate for small and medium size businesses. It represents and defends the interests of over 24,000 small and medium size businesses in Quebec.

The federation's policy direction is based on the opinions of its members, which are gathered through regular polls conducted according to the one member, one vote principle.

The growth of the federation and of small and medium size businesses has been remarkable. In addition to being instrumental in job creation and economic growth, small business makes an enormous contribution to the development of communities throughout Quebec.

The Bloc Québécois is proud to draw attention to the 35th anniversary of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business; we wish it every success.

[Prime Minister, May 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the events of recent days have brought to mind something written by Victor Hugo on the coup d'état by Louis Bonaparte, whom he called Napoléon-le-petit, or Little Napoleon. I will read an excerpt from it:

There are a number of descendants of Machiavelli, and Louis Bonaparte is one of them. He announces an outrageous action, then indignantly disavows it, swears on everything that is sacred, declares himself an upright man, and then, just as people start to be reassured and to find the announcement nothing but a comical memory, he carries it out. He used that approach for the coup d'état, and for the decrees...That is his approach; he uses it and finds it good. It suits him, but he will have to face the judgment of history.

Those in his inner circle hear from his lips a plan that seems, not immoral, as we do not scrutinize it to that extent, but thoughtless and dangerous, even to him. We raise objections; he listens without comment; sometimes he backs down for two or three days, but then he resumes his plan and does as he pleases.

Imagine what Victor Hugo would have written about the unspeakable actions of the Prime Minister.

[Question No. 118, May 9th, 2005]

With regard to the statements that the Minister of International Trade made in the House of Commons on March 9 and 11, 2005, concerning the $350 million allocated to the softwood lumber industry: ( a ) who receives this money; ( b ) how much has already been spent; and ( c ) what is the breakdown per recipient?

(Return tabled)

[Cycling, May 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud that the first international BMX race in Quebec will be held in Crabtree on July 9 and 10.

The decision by the International Cycling Union to give the Crabtree organizing committee its approval is historic and marks Quebec's entry into the international scene in this discipline.

Crabtree being selected to host this event is a sign of recognition of the quality shown in the past by its organizers, and will strongly encourage the development of this discipline in Quebec. With the introduction of BMX as an official discipline at the 2008 Olympic Games, the arrival of an international race in Quebec in 2005 is timely.

I want to congratulate the local organizers, Nathalie Houle, president, Dylan Vanier, general manager, and Mélanie Desrochers, four-time Canadian champion and Crabtree resident, as well as Louis Barbeau, general manager of the Fédération québécoise des sports cyclistes for this major achievement.

[Agriculture, May 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on April 29, Quebec dairy producers gave each Quebec MP 25 kg of powdered milk to express their dissatisfaction at the Canadian government's inaction with respect to the import of modified milk ingredients and butter oils.

Why does the Minister of International Trade not invoke article XXVIII of the GATT in order to establish new tariff quotas and prove once and for all his intention to assist dairy producers and truly protect supply management?

[Civil Marriage Act, April 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to speak Bill C-38 on same sex marriage.

This is my third time speaking on this subject, but only the first time in the debate on Bill C-38. I had the opportunity to speak on a motion introduced by former MP Svend Robinson. I spoke a second time against a motion introduced by a Conservative member. Today, I will reiterate my position for the third time because the Bloc Québécois and its leader have announced that there will be a free vote on Bill C-38. So I am expressing my own views now, although my position is shared by most of my colleagues. The Bloc Québécois does not really have any party line on this issue, but we have noted a number of things that I want to mention.

The debate concerns the protection of both equality rights and the right to freedom of religion. In fact, Bill C-38 successfully accommodates these two fundamental values enshrined in both the Quebec charter of rights and freedoms and the Canadian charter. Consequently, while we support legislating a definition of civil marriage that includes both heterosexual and homosexual couples, we also support the idea in the bill that religions not be obligated to perform same sex marriages, be they in churches, synagogues, temples or mosques. This is quite appropriate. In fact, we are referring here to two completely separate areas or levels of debate. The debate in the House must focus on the fundamental rights of all our citizens.

In a church, the debate is about values, and that is completely different. In my riding, a number of practising Catholics have come together around a priest, Raymond Gravel, who is well known because he is on television quite often. They are engaging in a debate within the church to make religious marriage available to same sex couples. They contacted me to get my support in this debate. I told them that it was not at all my place to participate in a debate within the Catholic church. This is something for Catholic officials and the people who practise this religion.

My role, as a parliamentarian and the member for Joliette, is limited to the civil level. Is the definition of marriage that currently exists in the legislation consistent with the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? In more than eight cases, the courts have decided that the traditional definition of marriage as between partners of the opposite sex is discriminatory under these charters. This is not a question that was asked by Bill C-38. This bill is aimed simply at complying with eight decisions that have already been handed down in eight courts in seven provinces and Yukon, including the Court of Appeal of Quebec.

If Bill C-38 did not exist, or even if the bill were eventually defeated, that would not change the fact that in seven provinces and Yukon, same-sex couples would be entitled to marry because the federal government has not appealed any of these cases.

In this situation, our only way to protect the traditional definition of marriage, if I can say it this way, would be to use the notwithstanding clause and, consequently, for all of us to realize that, in order to have a definition like that, a provision of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had to be violated.

In addition, the government asked the Supreme Court four questions in regard to this debate. These are the four questions. The first was: does the federal government have exclusive jurisdiction to define marriage?

The second question pertained to the charter. Does the charter allow religious groups not to perform marriages they feel go against their religious beliefs? Is the definition of same sex marriage constitutional? Is the traditional definition of marriage, in other words the union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, constitutional?

I remind the House that the Supreme Court replied to this reference from the government. I might add a little aside that the fourth question was asked by the current Prime Minister a few weeks before the last election campaign. It was clearly just a manoeuvre for strictly electoral purposes to put off a decision that was should have been made by Parliament. It is interesting all the same to see that, despite all these delays, we are on the verge of an election we must make a parliamentary decision that cannot be ignored.

The Supreme Court confirmed the federal government's exclusive legislative authority with regard to the definition of marriage and, clearly, the provinces' exclusive legislative authority with regard to the celebration of marriage. To this end, although we agree in principle, we have a small problem with the fact that Bill C-38 already states that officials of religious groups will have the right to refuse to perform marriages between same sex partners. We agree in principle; it is a question of values. However, this falls under provincial jurisdiction. With Bill C-38, the government is treading on the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces in this regard.

The court's main decision was that same sex marriage was consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I also remind the House that, in answer to the question relating to religious groups, the Supreme Court determined that freedom of religion protects religious groups from having to perform same-sex marriages.

Finally, with regard to the fourth question, the court declined to comment, in order not to create confusion. It determined that there was without purpose, since the appeal courts had already ruled on the question. The Supreme Court determined that answering the fourth question would not further the issue. In fact, if the government had wanted to verify the validity of this question, it could simply have appealled previous decisions. As I mentioned earlier, eight courts were involved.

In short, the Supreme Court found that extending the definition of marriage is consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Furthermore, the lower courts have already told us that the traditional definition of marriage, meaning the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, violated the charter. So it is quite appropriate for Bill C-38 to reinforce the decisions of the provincial courts of appeal.

Finally, Bill C-38 is in keeping with the overall spirit of the decisions by the Supreme Court and the lower courts. With a much broader definition—one more respectful of the rights all citizens now recognize—this bill now allows marriage not only between heterosexuals but also between homosexuals.

As the Supreme Court has reaffirmed, churches are not bound to perform certain marriages. This reconciles the right to equality for all citizens with the right to religious freedom, whether under the Canadian charter or the Quebec charter.

The idea in all of this is to reaffirm clearly that discrimination is not acceptable in Canada nor in Quebec. I am the father of three children, two still quite young, and I do not know their sexual orientation. Nevertheless, I would not want them to be victims of discrimination.

By passing Bill C-38, we would be sending a very clear message that in Canada, and in Quebec, discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation or political or religious affiliation is not acceptable.