Alexandra Mendes

[Quebec Bridge, April 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the motion introduced by the member for Louis-Hébert. I thank him for bringing this issue to the attention of the House.

When I saw this motion on the order paper, I was immediately intrigued by its purpose and potential utility. I can understand perfectly why the member wants this issue to be addressed in the House. The Quebec Bridge is in his riding, and his constituents are directly affected by this artery in the Quebec City area. Not only is the Quebec Bridge an important transportation link, but it is a historical monument that identifies greater Quebec City.

It is a historic bridge, not only for Quebec, but for all of Canada, and it must be maintained. The federal government should be responsible for the safety of the people who use this bridge every day, regardless of who owns it at present.

There is also an unstable bridge in my riding: the Champlain Bridge. The Champlain Bridge is clearly in no way a historical monument, but it does have the largest volume of traffic in Canada.

Like the member for Louis-Hébert, I am concerned about the safety of my constituents and all the people who use the Champlain Bridge. Since I was elected, I have repeatedly called on the government to show real leadership in maintaining and improving this vital link between Montreal's island and south shore areas.

Although a pitiful $212 million was allocated in the 2009-10 budget, that money is spread over 10 years and is nothing but a band-aid solution to a real, imminent problem.

While I could wax poetic about the challenges facing the Champlain Bridge all day, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about another bridge just down the river from my riding and one that can be compared to the Pont de Québec. I am talking about the Victoria Bridge.

The Victoria Bridge, the oldest in the Montreal area, originally opened as a federal rail bridge in 1859, and Canadian National Railway, CN, inherited it from its predecessor, the Grand Trunk Railway, in 1918. Transport Canada entered into an agreement with CN, then a crown corporation, in 1962, taking responsibility for the costs of maintenance and repair of the brackets and the roadway surface, as well as other operating expenses.

Transport Canada also began compensating CN for lost toll revenues in the amount of $664,000 per annum under this agreement. According to a departmental press release from 1997, $150 million had been transferred to CN between 1962 and 1997 under this agreement.

Between 1997 and 2008, the Department of Transport transferred approximately $54 million to Canadian National Railway, which was privatized in 1995, under this agreement.

Let us compare this to the Quebec Bridge. The bridge was built as part of the National Transcontinental Railway, which later merged with the Canadian National Railway, CN. The federal government retained ownership of CN until 1993. The federal government transferred ownership of the Quebec Bridge to CN for $1 in 1993.

There is currently no agreement between the federal government and CN with respect to federal contributions to the cost of maintaining the automobile portion of this bridge even though CN did enter into such an agreement with the Province of Quebec. In 1997, the federal government agreed to contribute, together with the Province of Quebec and CN, to bridge repairs costing $60 million. The federal government allocated $6 million—$600,000 per year over 10 years—to the project.

CN and the federal government are currently in court over this project. The federal government claims that the project includes painting the bridge, but CN decided that it would not paint the bridge because of the additional cost of environmental mitigation.

That is the situation today. The member for Louis-Hébert is worried about the outcome of the dispute between CN and the federal government and has proposed a solution whereby the federal government would assume complete responsibility for the bridge to ensure that all necessary work is completed.

However, I believe that immediate assistance is required to protect the safety of everyone using the bridge as well to preserve this important historic structure.

What I would like to recommend to my colleague is an amendment that would strengthen Motion No. 423. It is my belief that this amendment would also satisfy the members opposite and, hopefully, push the government into maintaining the Pont de Québec.

Mr. Speaker, if the member for Louis-Hébert would accept my suggestion, the amendment would read as follows:

That the motion be amended by substitution of the word “and” after the word “dollar” by a comma and by adding after the words “Quebec City region”, the following: “and should enter into discussion with the CN regarding the responsibility for the cost of maintenance and repair”.

I firmly believe that reaching an agreement with CN could ensure the adequate maintenance of the Quebec Bridge that we all seek.

[Forestry Industry, April 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in 2006, the Conservatives trumpeted a bogus deal with the Americans and, ultimately, they killed the industry and tied their own hands.

The Conservatives killed the forestry industry in 2006, and they decided to bury it yesterday.

Clearly, that did not prevent them from taking credit for a historic agreement.

They use fanfare, announcements and posters to hide their incompetence.

Can the Prime Minister give us a better example of the Conservative culture of deceit?

[Forestry Industry, April 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, after years of crisis and years of laissez-faire policy, the Conservatives have made a great show of announcing a program designed not to help Quebec's forestry industry, but to bury it.

It is too little, too late.

The Conservatives simply written off the Pontiac, Mauricie and Abitibi.

Quebeckers want a federal plan to help the forestry industry get through the crisis.

Why do the Conservatives want to bury Quebec's forestry industry?

[Balanced Refugee Reform Act, April 26th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I most definitely agree that legal counsel should be available at all stages, especially at the appeals process where the refugee claimant must be given enough time and elasticity to present when that appeal goes through.

[Balanced Refugee Reform Act, April 26th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member will understand that I am not going to make any comments on the behaviour of my colleagues with respect to what happened before the holidays. However, I can say a few words about the appeal process presented in the bill. It is a start, but it is not a complete response.

This is part of the work the committee will begin rather quickly, I hope. We have to look at how this appeal process will work, as my colleague the hon. member for Laval—Les Îles pointed out. Asylum seekers will rarely be given the time to stay for an appeal. This is something that absolutely must be discussed.

[Balanced Refugee Reform Act, April 26th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, it actually had little to do with that. Yes, I recognize that the government is proposing to increase the number of refugees that will be accepted in Canada yearly. However, it has very much to do with the vocabulary the government often uses around the question of asylum seekers. It is in that sense that I was hoping we would be very careful on how we speak about refugees and asylum seekers.

[Balanced Refugee Reform Act, April 26th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I would like to echo what my colleague from Laval—Les Îles said. We hoped the bill would be sent to committee immediately after first reading so that we could make the necessary amendments to it.

On the whole, we support the minister's initiative to change refugee protection. These changes were urgently needed. But the bill has some serious flaws, most of which my colleague already mentioned.

For my part, I would like to talk about how the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees looks at safe countries and come back again to the issue of sexual orientation and gender, which can be seen as grounds or reasons for abuse in refugee claimants' countries of origin, even countries that are generally considered democratic.

There is another problem as well. I do not know whether it has already been raised, but I would like to mention it. It seems that $540 million has been earmarked for this reform, but it is not included in the budget.

I would like to ask the minister where the government is going to get the money to proceed with this reform. Does it plan to cut spending in other areas or other parts of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration? If so, where is it going to make cuts to pay for this reform?

I would also like to make mention of the vocabulary we use in referring to asylum seekers or political refugees. It is dangerous to talk about bogus claimants and even very harmful to the whole refugee system.

We need a reasoned, respectful discussion based on facts, rather than just on insults and simplifications. Not everyone who applies for refugee status may need protection. Some people may feel threatened when in fact they are not, but that does not mean they are abusing the system. They may have had very good reasons for leaving their country of origin, even though those reasons do not make them refugees under the law.

Refugees are some of the most vulnerable members of society and are, therefore, easy targets for attack as non-citizens in a foreign country, in this case, Canada.

Denigrating labels, especially those given by the government, have a serious negative impact on the public's perception of refugees and non-citizens in general. This often surfaces in public discourse about immigration and refugee status.

There is an enormous amount of confusion about the rights of refugee claimants. They are seen as perpetual system abusers. But many of these people have very serious and obvious reasons for seeking asylum in Canada.

I will now come back to two questions that complement those asked by my colleague from Laval—Les Îles. In terms of funding, where will we find the $540 million needed to see the reform through to the end? There is also the question of vocabulary. Is it be possible to be more careful when talking about people seeking asylum? We need to look at how we treat them and talk about them.

The question of safe countries has been debated at length. The minister has made some clarifications about the 8 days and 60 days. However, it would be extremely important to very clearly define, in committee, the impact of the interview that takes place within eight days and the repercussions this interview would have on the application.

In general, the minister's reform proposal is a great initiative. It is a good start. It was urgent and necessary. However, we must agree that other discussions will be necessary in order to improve it and make it as good as possible.

[Ethics, April 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that despite this information and despite Mr. Jaffer's website, the Conservatives still did not refer his file to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Commissioner of Lobbying or any other relevant authority.

There are three possible explanations: they are siding with their Conservative friends and giving them special access and treatment; or they have allowed the culture of deceit to take root to the point that they find Mr. Jaffer's behaviour acceptable; or they are quite simply complicit.

[Ethics, April 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, new information has surfaced about Rahim Jaffer being at a business dinner in the Toronto area on August 25. The invitations for this event introduced Mr. Jaffer as an intermediary who could help business people access government funds. That is in keeping with information on his website and his relationship with Mr. Gillani.

When did the government learn about Mr. Jaffer's activities?

[Administrative Professionals, April 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it would be inappropriate if not outright dishonest if this House did not underline the fact that today is international Administrative Professionals Day.

Too often, secretaries and administrative assistants are overlooked and their important work taken for granted. As I am sure all my colleagues know, administrative professionals often form the backbone of an office, literally holding it together. Without them, most organizations would simply not function.

Administrative Professionals Day provides the House of Commons with the opportunity to acknowledge the vital support provided by these employees to MPs and also to society in general.

In the contemporary economy, where services are omnipresent and information evolves rapidly, administrative professionals are vital to the proper functioning of society.

It is therefore appropriate to acknowledge their work, which all too often is still taken for granted. A very big thank you to the administrative professionals of Canada.