Richard Nadeau

[January 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, on November 30, 2007, I asked the member for Pontiac, the Conservative minister from the Outaouais, a particularly pertinent question about why Gatineau does not have a single exclusively federally funded research centre while Ottawa has no fewer than 27 such facilities. What a shameful example of unfairness. That is not even close to the 25% of federal jobs that Gatineau should have in the sector, according to the promise made by the Government of Canada in 1983. Today, the 27 research centres located in Ottawa provide 6,033 jobs and receive $910 million every year.

The federal government, whether Liberal or Conservative, has never respected Gatineau when it comes to the 25:75 distribution of federal jobs.

There should be seven research centres located on the Quebec side of the Ottawa River, along with 1,508 more jobs in Gatineau.

And what about the economic spinoffs generated by research centres that Gatineau is missing out on because none of the centres are located there?

On November 29, Franco Materazzi, an economist and economic development consultant, told the French-language CBC that “over 200 companies have been created...thanks to partnership with federal research centres, and nearly all of them are in Ottawa”.

In response to the question I asked on November 30, the minister and member for Pontiac rejected the 25:75 formula, saying that the entire national capital region—Gatineau and Ottawa—is included in the equation. His anti-Quebec stance, and that of his party, the Reform-Alliance-Conservative Party, keep resurfacing. He and his party have chosen to ignore Quebec's distinctiveness and that of Gatineau in this matter. The federal government believes that Gatineau is simply another Ottawa neighbourhood. The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, who was a Liberal minister under Robert Bourassa, should be ashamed. When he said that Ottawa and Gatineau were a single entity, he turned his back on Quebec.

As my colleague and Leader of the Bloc Québécois, the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie said so well in a press conference on November 29, when he joined me in Gatineau to set the record straight on the issue of research centres, “Everyone agrees that we are pinning our economy on high level research. That is the way of the future. The way of the future for the federalists is on the other side of the river, in Ontario, with nothing for Quebec.”

Worse yet, the inequity goes beyond the issue of research centres, where the score is Gatineau zero and Ottawa 27. This minister even went back on the science and technology museum that was supposed to be set up in Hull over 22 years ago. He grovelled before federalist MPs in Ottawa instead of fighting for Gatineau, the way the Bloc Québécois does. As far as the museums are concerned, the score is Gatineau 1 and Ottawa 10. We are far from 25:75.

Furthermore, Gatineau is still waiting for phase 2 of the National Archives Preservation Centre. As far as goods and services spending is concerned, the federal government spends 2.2% in Gatineau, compared to 97.8% in Ottawa. The inequity is even more obvious when it is pointed out.

[Official Languages, December 11th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government can try to hide behind the Constitution, but the Official Languages Act is within its jurisdiction. The government already applies Quebec's minimum wage legislation to Quebec workers who are regulated by federal labour laws.

Will the government acknowledge that its attitude demonstrates nothing more than a lack of will to act in order to ensure that French is the Quebec nation's common public language, even in workplaces under federal jurisdiction?

[Court Challenges Program, December 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this morning the Prime Minister announced the appointment of Bernard Lord to lead a series of consultations and make recommendations on the new action plan for official languages. At the same time, the Prime Minister rejected the possibility of restoring the court challenges program.

How can we take these consultations seriously when we know that the main request of minorities—to restore the court challenges program—has been rejected outright by the Prime Minister?

[Employment Insurance Act, November 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the House is well aware that the Bloc Québécois supports this bill, since we introduced it. I am referring, of course, to Bill C-269, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system).

This bill makes the following changes to the Employment Insurance Act. One, it reduces each qualifying period by 70 hours. Two, it increases the benefit period. Three, it increases the rate of weekly benefits to 60%. Four, it repeals the waiting period. Five, it eliminates the presumption that persons related to each other do not deal with other at arm's length. Six, it increases the maximum yearly insurable earnings to $41,500 and introduces an indexing formula. Lastly, the bill enables self-employed persons to receive employment insurance.

In rejecting Bill C-269, the Conservatives are defying the will of this House, of workers, of Quebeckers and of all Canadians.

However, this is typical of how they do things. We are talking about the Conservative government that decided not to include opposition members in the Canadian delegation to the upcoming Bali conference. We are talking about the Conservative government that decided not so long ago to block the work of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, which was working on something the government was not happy with. We are talking about the government that abolished the court challenges program, saying that it will not fund people who challenge its laws. We are talking about the Conservative government that changed the criteria of the women's program to prevent groups that defend women's rights from receiving funding. We are talking about the minority Conservative government—and I stress the word “minority”— that is doing everything it can to silence any form of opposition.

These Conservatives are not concerned about the living conditions of the unemployed, minorities and those who need help the most. They are only interested in the Americans, oil companies and big business. They do not care about the difficulties of older workers in the manufacturing and forestry sectors or the problems of women's groups. This is very sad. The Bloc Québécois will denounce this situation in order to bring this government back in line. This Conservative government lacks humanity. It is cold and heartless and the idea of it becoming a majority government one day is very frightening. We are going to do everything we can to make sure that does not happen.

Before the Conservatives formed the government, they supported the idea of an independent fund and wanted, as we do, to put an end to the plundering of the employment insurance fund. That money belongs to the unemployed and it is not to be used at the discretion of Canada's federal government to do whatever it wants. Those who contribute to it are not able to touch 100% of it, which is outrageous. The Conservatives agreed with us on this issue when they were in the opposition. Now that they are in power, there is no difference between a Conservative government and a Liberal government. It is six of one and a half dozen of the other.

Once in power, as I was saying, the Conservatives went back on their word, rejected our Bill C-357 on an independent fund and preferred to let the money that belongs to the unemployed accumulate in the coffers of the big banks. They are taking from the poor and giving to the rich. That is a very familiar story from medieval times: what we have here is the Sheriff of Nottingham's gang.

They are right here. Here they are, doing absolutely nothing to respond to this very scandalous situation.

Employment insurance is no longer an assistance program, but rather a hidden tax.

Under the Liberals, the employment insurance fund was used to balance the budget. Although the Conservatives voted in favour of an independent fund, the surpluses generated remain in the consolidated fund and are used for other purposes besides providing help to those who need it when they find themselves in the vulnerable position of having lost their jobs. They are most definitely entitled, since they paid into it.

The Auditor General's report of November 23, 2004, reported that the government continued to plunder the employment insurance fund, despite the will of parliamentarians—we keep doing the same thing—and that the powers of the Employment Insurance Commission, whose membership includes contributors, would apparently be suspended for yet another year—and that is still the case. How is it that a government, a political party, once in power, could become such a bully towards those who pay into a fund that should be theirs—it should belong to the workers—and that should not be used to serve the ideological ends of the party in power?

The Conservatives voted at second reading against the idea of improving the employment insurance system through Bill C-269 proposed by the Bloc Québécois, and that shows the true colours of this government.

The 2006 Employment Insurance Monitoring and Assessment Report indicates that 44.8% of the unemployed have access to the system even though 100% of them paid premiums. Not only did they pay into the fund, but so did the employers. The federal government did not contribute a single nickel and it does what it wants with this money. That is outrageous.

The Bloc Québécois tried to have the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities adopt a report in February 2005 on the reform of employment insurance and continues to call for its implementation.

The Bloc Québécois is speaking out again against the looting of the fund and proposes concrete action such as: creating an independent fund and employment insurance commission, making the government repay the misused funds, having the Employment Insurance Commission set the premiums, and improving the system's coverage for workers in vulnerable situations.

Over the past two years, the Bloc Québécois has worked tirelessly to improve the system.

Employment insurance contributions are currently being used as a tax, not a contribution. That is unacceptable. The Bloc Québécois believes that we must clear up this misunderstanding and return the system to its original purpose, which was to insure workers who lose their jobs, not to tax work.

We have to think of the different kinds of people who collect employment insurance. I am thinking of the workers in my riding, in the Gatineau region, in the greater Outaouais region. Right now, jobs are being lost in paper mills and in forestry. The Minister of Labour, who is from the Pontiac region, should understand these sectors. I understand the paper mill workers who suddenly find themselves jobless because of downsizing.

We do not have adequate programs to help older workers from these mills, especially if they live in the city, as is the case in my riding. We do not have specific programs to help them bridge the gap between their years of seniority and retirement, when retirement is just a few years away.

Right now, the government could not care less about workers in vulnerable sectors, such as manufacturing and forestry, not to mention Ontarians working in the auto sector and the economic slump they are about to face.

The government says that there are more jobs today and less unemployment. But look at how poorly the new jobs are paid compared to those that have been lost.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 30th, 2007]

With regard to government jobs in the National Capital Region, what is: (a) the number of Public Service employees in the Outaouais region and in the Ottawa region from 2006 to 2007; and (b) the number of employees of government agencies, Crown corporations or any other government bodies in the Outaouais region and in the Ottawa region, from 2006 to 2007?

[Federal Government Research Centres, November 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, while Ottawa has 27 federally funded research centres, Gatineau has none. In 1983, we were promised 25% of federal jobs. Today, Ottawa's 27 research centres provide 6,033 jobs and receive $910 million. The federal government is not even trying to catch up by opening one single research centre.

Does the government realize that if Gatineau had one-quarter of federal jobs, as promised 23 years ago, there would now be seven research centres—

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 29th, 2007]

With respect to the total number of government agency and Crown corporation jobs in the capital region from 1998 to 2007, how many were with the following government agencies, Crown corporations or other government organizations, broken down by the number of jobs either on the Outaouais side or the Ottawa side of the capital region: Atlantic Pilotage Authority Canada; Great Lakes Pilotage Authority Canada; Northern Pipeline Agency Canada; Laurentian Pilotage Authority Canada; Pacific Pilotage Authority Canada; Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency; National Literacy Secretariat; Competition Bureau; Office of the Correctional Investigator; Transportation Safety Board of Canada; Public Service Integrity Office; Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner; Office of the Commissioner of Review Tribunals CPP/OAS; Office of the Prime Minister; Cadets Canada; Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety; Canadian Police College; Security Intelligence Review Committee; Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development; Office of the Ethics Commissioner; Pension Appeals Board; Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada; National Battlefields Commission; Status of Women Canada; Employment Insurance Board of Referees; Canadian Judicial Council; National Joint Council; Cape Breton Growth Fund Corporation; Tax Court of Canada; Federal Court of Appeal; Federal Court; Supreme Court of Canada; Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists; Elections Canada; Federal Labour Standards Review; ExportSource.ca; Canadian Race Relations Foundation; Canadian Coast Guard; Governor General of Canada; Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics; Infrastructure Canada; Royal Canadian Mint; Marine Atlantic; Currency Museum; Public Sector Pension Investment Board; Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation; Canadian Intellectual Property Office; Government of Canada Regulation Web Site; Federal Healthcare Partnership; Technology Partnerships Canada; Policy Research Initiative; Receiver General for Canada; Defence Research and Development Canada; Species at Risk Act Public Registry; Leadership Network; Canada Business Network; Networks of Centres of Excellence; Environmental Protection Review Canada; National Search and Rescue Secretariat; Service Canada; Criminal Intelligence Service Canada; Public Prosecution Service of Canada; Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation; Federal Bridge Corporation Limited; Canada Lands Company Limited; Canadian Biodiversity Information Facility; Veteran Review and Appeal Board?

[National Peacekeepers’ Day Act, November 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today about Bill C-287, An Act respecting a National Peacekeepers' Day. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill.

The strengths of this bill are the following: it recognizes the important role played by UN peacekeepers, which should be highlighted here, in this House. The Bloc Québécois is very much in favour of multilateralism as a method of settling international conflicts, and UN peacekeepers embody this approach. The peacekeepers who have died on UN missions deserve to be commemorated. This bill will also give our current Prime Minister an opportunity to discover that the peaceful use of our army is something that must absolutely be encouraged.

The only shortcoming is the date of the commemoration on August 9, which is not the first choice of the Bloc Québécois.We would have preferred a date that is already universally recognized as the International Day of United Nations Peacekeepers: May 29.

There are a great many reasons to pay tribute to peacekeepers. They are a central element in multilateralism, a principle of conflict resolution that is dear to Quebeckers. The essentially international characteristic of the peacekeeping missions authorized by the United Nations Security Council grants unparalleled legitimacy to any intervention and attests to the determination of the entire international community to take tangible steps to deal with the crises that occur from time to time.

However, peacekeeping operations alone are not the appropriate instrument for every situation. They must be accompanied by a peace process, not replace it. United Nations peacekeeping operations are an impartial and very widely accepted way of not only sharing the burden, but acting effectively.

Peacekeepers are present throughout the world. The 18 operations directed by the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations are being carried out on four continents in 10 time zones, employ more than 90,000 people and have a direct influence on the lives of hundreds of millions of others.

Close to 64,200 people are currently serving as soldiers and military observers, and roughly 7,500 are in police forces. The Department of Peacekeeping Operations also employs nearly 5,250 international civilian personnel, over 11,300 local civilian personnel and approximately 1,720 United Nations volunteers. One hundred and eight countries contribute military and police personnel to UN peacekeeping operations.

The UN is the largest multilateral contributor to post-conflict stabilization worldwide. Only the United States deploys more military personnel in the field than the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. There is therefore still a long way to go before multilateralism is the most commonly used form of conflict resolution.

In 2005 alone, UN peacekeeping operations rotated 161,386 military and police personnel, made 864 flights into or out of the field, and carried 271,651 cubic meters of cargo.

The actions of peacekeepers are usually effective. Since 1945, UN peacekeepers have undertaken 60 field missions and negotiated 172 peace settlements that have not only ended regional conflicts, but also enabled people in more than 45 countries to take part in free and fair elections.

In 2005, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations successfully completed peacekeeping missions in Sierra Leone and Timor-Leste, and fulfilled its mandate of helping to establish domestic institutions and providing these as yet fragile societies with the opportunity to establish lasting peace.

Demining operations managed by the UN Mine Action Service, part of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, facilitate the deployment of peacekeepers to Burundi, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Lebanon, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sudan.

In terms of security, recent peacekeeping missions have been carried out in some of the most difficult and least governed areas ever encountered by international missions. These operations have provided practical assistance on the ground to extremely vulnerable populations. Peacekeepers are deployed to areas where others cannot or will not go and play a vital role by paving the way for the return to stability and, ultimately, for peace and long-term development.

There is also a clear correlation between the decrease in the number of civil wars and the increase in UN peacekeeping missions. The number of UN peacekeeping operations has more than quadrupled since the end of the Cold War. Since 1990, this renewed international activism has grown in scope and intensity, and the number of crises, wars and genocides has begun to diminish accordingly.

In addition to peacekeeping and security, the peacekeeping forces have, with increasing frequency, been responsible for supporting political processes, building legal systems, creating law enforcement and police forces, and disarming former combatants. For example, through their disarmament, demobilization and reintegration program, the United Nations mission in Sierra Leone alone has destroyed 42,330 weapons and more than 1.2 million bullets and shells. It has also disarmed 75,490 combatants, including 6,845 child combatants, and provided an allocation to and ensured the reintegration of nearly 55,000 veterans.

The United Nations mission in Timor-Leste has created a business women's group that trains women entering the public service and ensures that they are heard in the new government and structures of civil society. Today, women represent over 25% of parliamentarians in that country. That is one of the highest percentages of female parliamentarians in the world.

UN peacekeeping is cost-effective. A survey by Oxford University economists found that international military intervention under Chapter VII of the UN Charter—action taken when peace is under threat—is the most cost-effective means of reducing the risk of conflict in post-conflict societies.

The approved Department of Peacekeeping Operations budget for the period from July 1, 2005, to June 30, 2006, was approximately $5 billion. This represents 0.5% of global military spending. A study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office estimated that it would cost the U.S. about twice as much as the UN to conduct a peacekeeping operation similar to the UN stabilization mission in Haiti.

I will end here with those statistics and illustrations, because it has been proven that peacekeepers are a necessity and the Bloc Québécois is very proud of that.

[National Capital Commission, November 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the National Capital Commission paid tribute to the infamous Lord Durham as part of its celebration of Ottawa's 150th anniversary as Canada's capital.

It is deeply hurtful to Quebeckers that people are ignoring the fact that Durham recommended that the British government assimilate francophones. Durham described francophones as inferior in all respects to anglophones, a people with no history whose only salvation lay in assimilation to the English majority.

It is scandalous that the Conservatives, who have proclaimed their respect for the Quebec nation, have allowed a person who described Quebeckers as a nationality “destitute of all that can invigorate and elevate a people” to be honoured in this way.

The Bloc Québécois demands an apology from the minister responsible for the National Capital Commission for this insult to the Quebec nation.

[Business of Supply, November 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it has to do with what we were saying earlier. Each sector has its reality, and that reality is pretty harsh right now for the manufacturing and forestry sectors.

With regard to international trade, our laws are based on the cold war. They were adopted in another era. Today, the auto industry, the paper industry and the softwood lumber industry are in crisis. They are suffering from the short-sightedness of the current government and the fact that it does not see wealth coming from anywhere else but western Canada, Alberta and oil companies. It so happens that the wealth of a country, be it Quebec or Canada, comes from all the workers capable of working in all the existing industries.