Yvon Lévesque

[First Nations Socio-Economic Forum, October 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, today, October 25, is a historic day for Quebec's first nations and the Quebec nation.

I am proud to inform this House of the initiative taken by the aboriginal people of Quebec. Indeed, today and the next two days, first nations are holding their first socio-economic forum in Mashteuiatsh, close to Roberval, in Quebec.

This major event provides an opportunity to make commitments and take concrete measures that will help aboriginal nations thrive.

It has already been 10 years since the royal commission on aboriginal peoples tabled its report, and too little has been done since. Ensuring that these nations will thrive is a major challenge.

My Bloc Québécois colleagues and myself are proud to support the initiative and the political courage of Quebec's first nations. We hope that the federal government will take concrete action, and I mean concrete, for the well-being of Quebec's aboriginal peoples.

[Ordre national du Québec, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay tribute to two exceptional people from my riding, namely Édith Cloutier and Johnny Adams, who were made knights of the Ordre national du Québec last June. They were awarded this honour for their great involvement and commitment within their respective communities.

Ms. Cloutier, executive director of the Val-d'Or Native Friendship Centre, and president of the Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue et Nord du Québec, is a passionate and determined woman. She has worked relentlessly for the improvement of the living conditions of native people living in urban environments.

Mr. Adams has devoted his efforts to improving the quality of life and development of the members of his community, but above all his achievements as mayor of Kuujjuaq and president of the Kativik regional government have been considerable.

Congratulations, Ms. Cloutier and Mr. Adams, on your generosity and solidarity. You are a great source of inspiration to the people in our riding and especially in your communities.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the member for Outremont was one of the members of the previous Liberal government who, when in power, applauded the Minister of International Trade for refusing to help companies survive, applauded the Minister of Human Resources for refusing to accept the independent employment insurance fund and POWA, and applauded the Minister of International Trade when he refused to acknowledge that companies needed loan guarantees in order to stay alive during the negotiations. The current Minister of International Trade crossed the floor and has used the same strategy; he helped the oil companies—as did the member for Outremont's leader—by lowering their taxes rather than providing aid to forestry companies.

Did they consult Quebec companies before deciding to vote against the agreement? How much longer could the companies have lasted without government assistance? They must be pleased with what happened to the Bloc Québécois, because together with the NDP they now hold the balance of power. They have joined forces to defeat the government so let them all be present for the vote and let them defeat it.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas say that it was his understanding that certain members of the Bloc Québécois felt uncomfortable about supporting the bill as it stood. I would like to clarify our position.

We are not really uncomfortable. We know that this is a bad agreement. However, just as forest companies in British Columbia need to sell off their wood because the situation is urgent, for Quebec, as well, we can no longer put off this agreement. By not offering loan guarantees, the current government and the previous government refused to help businesses stay afloat during negotiations and while awaiting the final court rulings regarding the cases pending. Otherwise, it would have been possible for businesses—whether in Quebec, British Columbia or Ontario—to stay afloat, and to challenge the American government and its lobbyists in order to definitively obtain justice.

We now have an opening, since we are told that the agreement signed will not necessarily last seven years, as originally planned. In fact, anyone can put an end to this agreement, including British Columbia, or I believe so, in any case. Thus, once British Columbia has sold off its wood, will it change tactics and demand that the agreement be reopened? We would then find ourselves in negotiations once again, maybe nearly as long as these have been. Perhaps the future government called upon to debate the case will resolve it for good.

[Points of Order, September 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the hon. member should intervene on behalf of another member. If she was offended by my remarks, she can ask for an apology herself. I can then respond to her directly.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative party member mentioned that this dispute has been going on for some time. All members of the House would agree with that. That is perhaps the only point on which the Conservative party and the rest of the House can agree.

The Conservative party is the only party that believes that this is a good agreement and, above all, that it will last. The hon. member mentioned that it is important for the people of Alberta because that province's forests have an infestation and they must sell off their wood. He said it is important that this agreement survive so they can get rid of their wood in the United States, no matter the price, as long as they can clear it out.

I would remind the House that the mad cow crisis also originated in Alberta. Quebec had to pay the tab. Today, the softwood lumber problem comes from the west, and Quebec is again paying for it.

Given all this effort and the $1.5 billion handed over to the Americans, would it not have been enough to pay the lawyers, in order to put an end to this endless process and, finally, reach a decision that could be enforced and facilitate negotiations with the Americans?

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his presentation.

He knows full well that I was one of the fierce opponents of this agreement.

Since the majority of Quebeckers working in the industry were in favour of the agreement, the Bloc had no choice but to support it, partly to demonstrate its accountability to its constituents.

During his presentation, the parliamentary secretary said that all the people in his riding had accepted the agreement. The first question I would like to ask him is as follows: can he tell us what percentage of companies in Mégantic—L'Érable are affected by this agreement? And do all the companies really support this agreement?

My second question concerns the action by theMinister of Human Resources and Social Development, who is slow—not to say refusing—to take a position on the assistance she might give workers and the independent employment insurance fund. This might enable companies to decide for themselves, with the workers, on the employment insurance conditions that would apply to the groups of workers penalized by the lack of empathy shown by this government.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I find the comments made by the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George amusing. He called this a good agreement, and said that only the Liberals and NDP do not understand it. However, the Bloc Québécois does not understand it, either. The Bloc does not feel this is a good agreement. Although voting in favour, the Bloc Québécois is maintaining its position that this is a very bad agreement.

At one time, the Conservative Party asked for help from the Liberal minister who was negotiating this agreement and who could do nothing. After having crossed the floor of this House, he was unable to do any better.

This may be a good agreement for forestry in British Columbia, because it allows them to sell off their bad lumber. This is fortunate for them, but I would remind the House that, if not for British Columbia, this tax would not have been imposed.

The hon. member for Simcoe—Grey rose earlier to say that this is a good agreement. She may be pretty when she blushes, but she was blushing from shame.

Are the hon. members who just spoke not in a more favourable position, thanks to west coast ports that allow them to sell off their softwood lumber to Japan and other Pacific Rim countries, unlike the eastern provinces that have only one customer, the Americans?

[Canada Elections Act, September 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her presentation, on the hope she expressed that we will have fixed mandates or fixed election dates, and on the confidence she has in politicians as a whole.

Would it not be appropriate, therefore, to ask the government to define what a vote of confidence is so that it cannot fall back on any old excuse for requesting one? Maybe this would raise the profile of elections and Canadians would show more confidence in them.

[Canada Elections Act, September 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard two government members, the hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission and the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margaret's, talk to us about democratic deficit. The leader of the minority government in this House is about to go to the United Nations and speak for an entire country, specifically to announce Canada's foreign policy, but without having even consulted the opposition parties or trying to reach an agreement, a shared policy. If this is supposed to be democracy under a minority government, well then I've seen enough.

We are talking about fixed election dates, but by giving the opposition the power to bring down the government over a bill that ignores public opinion, only to then be able to accuse the opposition of having forced an election, this is what I call a democratic deficit created by a minority government.

The hon. member for South Shore—St. Margaret's said that we need time to gain public trust. Would it not be a good idea for a minority government to gain public trust by listening to the other parties elected by Canadians and Quebeckers to represent them, to try to adapt their policies? This measure could arouse public trust. Thus, we would not need an imaginary fixed election date, one that would not be real.

Does it not seem more sensible and credible to try to create an atmosphere of trust within Parliament first, and then with the public?