Serge Cardin

[Canada Elections Act, November 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, since this morning, I have felt a light breeze of hysteria blowing on this side of the House. Accordingly, I have decided that I should speak on this bill.

As politicians who have to face the electorate, we always state that the right to vote is not only a right, but should also be an obligation. So it works both ways. From that statement it follows that we must be able to establish the identity of the people who come to vote and to express their democratic choice.

I have heard many comments. They all came back to the fact that one could—at least, that is how it appeared to me—attack some segment of the population. In other words, the comments were discriminatory in some respect, which should not be the case. To exercise the right to vote, one must at least be capable of satisfactorily proving one's identity.

It would, perhaps, be interesting to look at the chronology of the events concerning voting with the face covered. We have gone through a similar situation in Quebec. Let us start at the beginning.

On March 22, 2007 the chief electoral officer of Quebec confirmed that women wearing veils could vote in the provincial election on March 26, even if they refused to uncover their face. Radio program hosts launched a campaign to persuade voters to go and vote with their face covered as a protest against the decision of the chief electoral officer.

On March 23, confronted with a public outcry and the possibility of seeing the election turn into a masked ball, the chief electoral officer of Quebec changed the electoral act: all voters would have to have their face uncovered.

On June 19, the members of the House of Commons adopted Bill C-31 to amend the Canada Elections Act. The bill provides for a photo identification procedure.

On September 6, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada announced that women wearing veils could vote in the next federal election and in the September 17 byelections in Quebec without being required to uncover their face.

On September 7, the Liberal party, the Conservative party and the Bloc Québécois called on the Chief Electoral Officer to reverse his decision. The Muslim community of Montreal also expressed its disagreement with the new policy. The following day, of course, the New Democratic party reconsidered and demanded that the position of the Chief Electoral Officer be reviewed.

On September 10, at a news conference, Marc Mayrand, the Chief Electoral Officer, stated that he had no intention of using his exceptional power to reverse the situation before the September 17 byelections. On that date, at least four women voted in the byelection in Outremont wearing a burka, to show their disagreement with the Chief Electoral Officer. One man, in a wheelchair, voted wearing a balaclava.

On October 17, in his Speech from the Throne, the Conservative government gave notice of its intention to introduce a bill prohibiting electors from voting with their face covered. On October 23, as we had already announced, the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill to prohibit people from voting with their face veiled. On October 26, the Conservative government came up with a bill to prohibit anyone from voting in an election with his or her face covered.

Of course, the Bloc Québécois supports this bill in principle. However, we feel that there are certain provisions which, while not absurd, will have to be reviewed and probably amended. We are finding that the bill introduced by the government does not fully reflect the principle that all are equal before the law.

Indeed, the bill opens the door to violations of the principle of equality between men and women. The first five clauses of Bill C-6 were included to allow deputy returning officers and poll clerks to delegate their powers to another individual. This means that a male deputy returning officer could accommodate a female voter by designating a woman in front of whom she could uncover her face to confirm her identity.

The Bloc Québécois feels that this is unacceptable. We will, of course, support the bill at second reading, but we will demand that the first five clauses be repealed.

The bill also includes some exceptions. For example, a person who must keep his or her face covered for medical reasons could still vote by providing two authorized pieces of identification and by taking an oath. Bill C-6 also adds new provisions to the act that allow returning officers to appoint additional persons in polling stations, and to also delegate some of their responsibilities.

As I mentioned earlier, I heard some very strange comments, primarily from Liberal members, who said that this is a witch hunt, that we do not have the right to prohibit people from voting with their face covered, and that we were directly targeting a community. In fact, our position is based on the very principle of democracy, on the right to vote, and on the need to make it practically impossible to use someone else's identity.

Not so long ago, it would have been unthinkable for any voter to show up with their face veiled or otherwise covered, preventing their identification. Now, in a specific context where there is much discussion everywhere about reasonable accommodations, a common knee jerk reaction in some people is to often use certain pretexts to find fault with those who wear a veil or cover their faces otherwise. In Roberval, a veiled woman showed up and voted. We are not necessarily talking about a burka here.

This goes to show how the door can be opened for individuals who are probably looking to make a mockery of the whole situation and to demonstrate that it is possible to vote without proper identification.

I was quite surprised by the Liberals' reaction, especially given what the leader of the Liberal Party had said. The Canadian Press quoted him on September 9 as saying, “We disagree with Elections Canada decision and we ask them to revisit their decision. At the end of the day, you must be able to identify yourself when you vote”.

It was the Liberal leader who said that. Later, he stated that, on the one hand, he disagreed with Elections Canada's decision not to reconsider the issue of uncovered faces but that, on the other hand, he might be able to live with the provisions of the existing legislation. This means that, at one time, all political leaders in this House were singing the same tune, saying that identification was necessary to vote.

Several principles guide the Bloc Québécois' position on this issue. As I said earlier, the Bloc Québécois supports the bill. All voters should be equal before the law. I also indicated that, in 2007, the lawmaker amended the Elections Act to tighten the requirements with respect to voter identification. Among other things, Bill C-31, which was passed by the House of Commons in February 2007, no longer allowed people to vouch for more than one elector and required photo ID to be able to vote.

The Bloc Québécois and the other political parties believed that the Elections Act was clear enough and that by requiring voters to prove their identity, it was implicitly requiring them to uncover their faces.

However, because the Chief Electoral Officer refused to use his exceptional power to require that all voters uncover their faces, the Bloc Québécois believes that the act needs to be amended as soon as possible, as we are doing. That is why we introduced our own bill.

We must not forget that groups representing Muslim women assert that they have never asked to be accommodated in this regard. In an interview with Radio-Canada, Asmaa Ibnouzahir of Présence musulmane Montréal said:

These women have been voting for years, and they have never asked for special treatment, even though they know they could. They themselves took the initiative to show their faces, just as they do at customs or the passport office, because they believed it made sense for security reasons. So for them, it is perfectly natural to uncover their faces.

I believe that this quote is enough to put an end to the debate about the requirement to uncover one's face when voting. I therefore ask the Liberal Party to reconsider its position and face facts: in the interests of democracy, people must vote with their faces uncovered.

[Canada Elections Act, November 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, like my Conservative colleague, I heard some things that made my hair stand on end. I got to know the Liberal member when I sat on a committee with him, and I had a great deal of respect for him. But now I am asking myself serious questions about his behaviour and what could possibly be behind his comments.

When we can identify someone, then we must do so. People have the right to vote, and no one must ever take on another person's identity. I am wondering about this because of the history of the party the member represents. I nearly lost the election in 1998 because some voters impersonated other people. Does the member see this as a way of increasing the Liberal Party's share of the vote in the next election?

[Business of Supply, November 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member, who is a new member of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

What does he think of the current situation when he is being told that 130,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in Quebec since December 31, 2002 and, of that number, 65,000 have been lost since the Conservatives came to power? He is telling us that his government has done everything possible to help the forestry and manufacturing sectors as a whole.

What concrete policies have been implemented since the Conservatives came to power? I repeat, of the 130,000 lost jobs, 65,000 have been lost since the Conservatives took office.

I would also like to draw to his attention Bill C-411, which was brought forward by my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville. This bill sets out criteria to identify dumping by countries that send their products to us. It is aimed at helping us adjust to both American and European policies and limit dumping in Quebec and Canada.

I would like to know what the Secretary of State for International Trade intends to do in order to stop the loss of jobs in the manufacturing and forestry sectors.

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, October 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague on his speech about the nuclear industry and nuclear waste management. These days, as we all know, when it comes to disposing of any kind of waste, people almost always say, “Not in my backyard”. That is currently the biggest problem we have with household waste.

In terms of nuclear waste, apparently they have figured out a way to treat it or bury it, but deciding where to bury it is a big problem. Earlier, they said it might be in Labrador or on the North Shore, and they promised astronomical compensation and fees.

When I was a member of the natural resources committee, I was worried that once they found a so-called acceptable method, Canada would open its doors to nuclear waste from other countries because nobody on this planet wants to worry about managing it. It also looks like locations have been selected. Nearly all of the locations where the government wants to bury nuclear waste are in Quebec, even though Quebec is home to just one of Canada's 22 nuclear plants and accounts for a very small proportion of the country's nuclear production.

I would like my colleague to comment on the possibility that countries that are currently producing nuclear power will be looking for places to bury nuclear waste that are not on their own soil.

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, October 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question, given that we have started talking about managing nuclear waste. She told us that some progress had been made on this question and a method has now been adopted. The big question still remains: the question of where.

We are well aware that of the 22 or so nuclear power plants in Canada, there is only one in Quebec. I imagine that the same sort of principle will govern nuclear plants’ waste as governs the management of household waste: nobody wants it in their backyard.

Given that Canada seems to be intending to move toward expanding nuclear power generation, and given that at present the largest producer of nuclear waste is of course Ontario, we can perhaps assume that those provinces are not necessarily interested in keeping their waste in the long term. We are perhaps seeing a potential danger emerging from the fact that someone somewhere is going to be made the “where”, but it will be outside the provinces engaged in large-scale nuclear power generation.

[International Trade, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of International Trade is currently negotiating free trade agreements with 28 countries. Canada has a trade deficit with these countries, in particular with South Korea.

How can the minister rush into signing a free trade agreement while ignoring the study released by the CAW this morning, which shows that more than 30,000 jobs could be lost in Canada, including 8,000 in Quebec? Should saving these jobs not be a major concern for the minister?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we have to look beyond the job creation numbers. On a political level, the Conservatives are telling us not to look at the polls but at what is happening on the ground. However, when we see statistics on the unemployment rate, we have to be equally careful not to always accept the figures we are given as gospel truth, since determining the unemployment rate and conducting political polls are done by a similar process and methodology.

Indeed, jobs have been created, but what kind of jobs? We have to make a distinction between the manufacturing world in Quebec and that in the rest of Canada. It is absolutely not the same thing. They do not compare. Quebec's economic growth is largely geared toward exports. The manufacturing world is rather seriously affected by the Conservative government's international trade policies.

In my opinion, the ease with which the Conservative government enters into free trade agreements with other countries, without really weighing the consequences to the manufacturing industry, causes significant job losses: since 2003, almost 130,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing. These jobs may have been replaced, but not with jobs of the same quality with the same income for the workers. We see more workers slipping into poverty.

In our society we look at the unemployment rate from time to time and we say that everything is going well since the rate is steady or going down. Nevertheless, people are getting poorer. We have to do everything we can to try to keep our manufacturing jobs. We have to invest in research and development. We have to encourage innovation and not just settle for creating indirect service jobs that often pay minimum wage. We have lost a great deal of good salaries that helped people get out of poverty, a poverty they are quietly slipping back into with Canada's trade policies.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak with regard to the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

The Bloc Québécois was quick to set out what the throne speech should contain. Even though this has probably been done many times before, for the benefit of the voters who are watching us on the parliamentary channel—I imagine there are a few million people watching this morning—we should give a bit of background again and tell people what may have inspired this throne speech.

Thirty-one of the 126 Conservative members used to be Reformers, and eight of the 32 cabinet members were as well. That gives us some idea of the thinking behind this throne speech.

The Bloc's demands were very clear on Afghanistan, federal spending power, measures to address the forestry crisis, meeting Kyoto commitments and commitments to Quebec, and supply management. Of course, there were many other elements, which my colleague from Hochelaga mentioned previously, including justice. Important issues still have to be discussed in this House, and I know he will do a good job and introduce important improvements to the bill.

The government did not address any of the Bloc's five priorities. Although we demanded a withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2009, the government set the date at 2011, after creating a commission to analyze the situation and make recommendations to the government.

Federal spending power has by no means been eliminated. Instead, the government is placing limits on federal spending power for new shared-cost programs in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. We were clear on this. Federal spending power had to be eliminated, and in the event the government invested in areas of jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, they had to have the right to opt out of these programs with full compensation.

We also care about respecting our Kyoto commitments. The government's sanctimonious attempts to make us believe that it is an ardent crusader in the fight against greenhouse gases and for clean air are green indeed, but they are more often the inexpert sort of green than the environmentally friendly kind. We are a long way from achieving the goals that we must reach as soon as possible given the current state of our air quality and the greenhouse gases that are threatening the entire planet.

I would like to discuss measures to address the crisis in the forestry industry and supply management.

The crisis in the forestry industry has been going on for a long time. The Conservative government—which has done no better than its Liberal counterpart—resolved the softwood lumber crisis in a way that was bad for the industry and for workers. The Bloc Québécois has demanded that the government do something to help the forestry industry and, especially, forestry workers.

In the Speech from the Throne, the government said that it was concerned about the crisis, but it offered nothing concrete to help revive the industry or to help older workers who have been laid off. I would like to read the following excerpt from the throne speech.

Our Government will stand up for Canada’s traditional industries. Key sectors including forestry, fisheries, manufacturing and tourism are facing challenges. Our Government has taken action to support workers as these industries adjust to global conditions and will continue to do so in the next session.

When I hear that “it will continue to do so in the next session”, knowing that 130,000 jobs have been lost in Quebec in the manufacturing sector since 2003—of which 65,000 since the Conservatives came to power—I find unfortunately that the fears of Quebec and Canadian workers are justified with regard to even greater job losses in the future than what we have already experienced.

With regard to the manufacturing sector, I would like to return to the attitude of the Minister of International Trade, who is currently negotiating 28 free trade agreements with various countries. He is rushing into 28 agreements when no study or analysis of the impact on Quebec and Canadian industries has been carried out—nothing that was not minor or cursory. Consequently, we are unaware of the potential impact on manufacturing jobs in Quebec and Canada.

We know very well that the Minister of International Trade supports purchasing goods at the lowest cost for our companies. Therefore, he supports importing to supply Canadian companies. This also has a direct impact on the Canadian suppliers of the same types of goods. This will result in greater job losses.

My colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville tabled Bill C-411 to establish more specific and pertinent criteria for preventing, among other things, dumping by various countries. In the meantime, our Minister of International Trade is attempting to negotiate, piecemeal, quickly and without any analysis, all sorts of free trade agreements with other countries. That gives rise to concern, as voiced by the government itself in the throne speech, that the situation will further deteriorate rather than improve.

Finally, there is supply management. It is obviously an important aspect which has an impact on the regions, in agriculture, forestry and manufacturing, because of the crises.

We know full well that the regions are important components in the development of a country—Quebec and Canada as well—and in the stability of agriculture, as well as of employment in the manufacturing sector.

As for agriculture, let us remember that in the past few months, the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food have made many statements that betray the government's true intentions. Even if, in the throne speech, the government seems to be in favour of maintaining supply management, contradictory comments have been made. The Minister of International Trade even said that one day supply management would have to come to an end. The former Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food suggested that supply managed farmers prevented the government from properly defending the interests of Canadians at the WTO, and that they should consider compromising.

So it is clear that none of the Bloc's five demands was satisfied. And even if there seems to be an interest in supply management, the evidence is there and the comments have been made. The agricultural community will not be able to survive with policies like the ones this government could develop.

In conclusion, supply management is very important, as is the manufacturing industry. But all the other issues brought up by the Bloc Québécois in speeches and debates are important as well.

So, for these five main reasons—the demands I mentioned earlier—and for a number of other reasons that were brought up in this House, we ask the Liberal Party to reconsider its position, to not give in, to not go against its beliefs and to give the Conservative government a chance to go back to the drawing board.

[Special Import Measures Act, October 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this evening I would like to discuss Bill C-411. I would like to thank my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville for introducing this bill.

I want to talk about this bill in the context of the throne speech debate, a debate in which the Conservative Party has placed itself on a pedestal and the Liberal Party is bowing down before it.

Despite these peculiar circumstances, we still want to work for Quebec and for Canada; we want to save jobs in Quebec and in Canada.

Nevertheless, I would like to say a few words about the Speech from the Throne. The government claims to be concerned about the crisis, but it has not proposed any real action to revive the industry, nor has it come up with an assistance program for older workers who have been laid off.

I would like to quote part of the Speech from the Throne:

Our government will stand up for Canada’s traditional industries. Key sectors including forestry, fisheries, manufacturing and tourism are facing challenges. Our government has taken action to support workers as these industries adjust to global conditions and will continue to do so in the next session.

Who does the government think it is fooling when it says things like that in the Speech from the Throne? It has done nothing at all about the crisis in the forestry industry. We know exactly what it did.

Even though the courts ruled in Canada's favour with respect to the forestry industry, the Conservatives still paid the United States so that the destruction of the industry could go on.

I would also like to mention the report tabled by the Standing Committee on International Trade several months ago. The report urged the government to lift all barriers to free trade with China even though Quebec imports ten times more goods from China than it exports to China. The report recommends weakening trade laws to make things easier for importers and ignores the fact that producers are currently suffering from fierce and often unfair competition. The government wanted to bring down supply management in agricultural industries even though the system assures farmers of a decent income at no cost to consumers or the government.

With respect to supply management, I will come back to the Speech from the Throne in a future debate in an effort to clarify the government's hidden agenda.

Supply management is very important to Quebec in the manufacturing sector. Manufactured goods account for 60% of its GDP and 85% of its exports. In Alberta, for instance, manufacturing accounts for only 6.7% of GDP. There are obviously some Conservative members who do not want the legislation on special import measures changed in order to help our companies survive under particularly trying circumstances. It is true that things are difficult all over the world, but that is no reason to let people get away with unfair and even illegal practices.

Earlier I heard the Secretary of State say that he was mostly concerned about people who import. He wants to see Canadian importers paying as little as possible, even if the prices are illegal and unfair and a result of dumping by certain emerging countries. All we want is to ensure that the rules of the game are clear, honest and transparent. There are some countries that practice dumping and we should ensure that this practice is clearly identified and steps are taken here to impose countervailing duties on dumping.

The United States accused us of dumping and unfair practices in the case of softwood lumber. We paid duties. But we were found to be in the right. We were not dumping. Unfortunately, though, we are the victims of dumping in Canada and Quebec.

Both the parliamentary secretary and the Liberal Party representative told us that we should just use what already exists and the companies should just go out and defend themselves.

Our hon. colleague from Shefford gave a good example, the Raleigh bicycle case. The International Trade Tribunal found that the company was right and that there was dumping. The industry minister at the time, just before becoming Minister of International Affairs, simply said that it was not very serious, this company and its jobs were not very important, there was no problem and people would just get to pay less for their bicycles. I repeat: these are unfair, illegal practices.

The government is making itself complicit, therefore, in these practices. I even suppose they would be prepared to use such practices themselves, although we would obviously be opposed.

We must recognize that Canada is not alone in this. It seems that the government does not want to play by the same rules as other countries. We need only look to the United States or the European Union, which apply similar criteria. In fact, rather than having 17 goods subject to anti-dumping measures, as Canada does, these countries have three times that number. I do not know how many different products China manufactures, but 17 is not very many.

More stringent criteria are needed to demonstrate a willingness to identify these dumping practices. It goes without saying that jobs must be protected. We are not talking about protecting them for all eternity, but a responsible government—or one that claims to be—must provide these industries with the means to develop, to compete with other countries and to increase their productivity. Thus, policies must be developed while these countervailing duties, these antidumping duties, are in place.

It is obvious that the government does not wish to move in that direction. However, we must stop underestimating the fair value of goods.

As I said earlier, Bill C-411 lists the criteria to be used in determining whether a business is really growing in a market-based economy. We know that China had a command economy for some time. Then China joined the WTO and there was talk of a transitional market. Canada hastened to recognize it as a market-based economy. Now it is letting things slide and is reluctant to establish the criteria that would enable us to identify products that have been dumped on the market.

Instances of commercial dumping can be proven if solid criteria, such as those proposed here, are in place. However, there is something even worse. The Conservative government is way behind on this issue and so are the Liberals. Social dumping scorns human rights and is heedless of the environment, and we have to start thinking about it now. We have a long way to go, and that is what I want to talk to the government about: social dumping.

The government has to start trying to understand that commercial dumping is happening. It has to pass Bill C-411 so that we can have solid criteria that will help businesses in Canada and Quebec.

[Canada Elections Act, May 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Conservative Party and the colleague who garnered 65% of the votes. However, they were lucky. It was a close call. We can only imagine how different the statistics would be had the Bloc fielded candidates in his province.

In the past few elections, people from other provinces showed interest and asked what we were waiting for to get the Bloc going in their province. They have federalist representatives whom they support. I am obviously speaking of people from other provinces and not of myself. However, they would like something new, a bit of a change from the old parties that feed them all sorts of lines. The pendulum is definitely swinging between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party.

It is just incredible. The Conservatives obtained 65% of the vote but are still in the minority. What do they need to have a majority? Do they need 100% or close to that, as did Fidel Castro in Cuba?

I am seriously thinking about opening a Bloc Québécois franchise in their province.