Bill C-1 (Historical)

An Act respecting the Administration of Oaths of Office

Bank Act

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord for his question. I see that the member is and always has been an ardent defender of the people. That explains why he has been re-elected time after time. I understand.

We can create that better balance right here in this House. That is the Bloc Québécois' goal with respect to Bill C-37. We want to see more services and we want to encourage competition. That is why we are ardent defenders of our fellow citizens.

The proposed bank mergers were unrestricted. The banks wanted to get bigger and bigger as fast as possible to take over the world market. They did not care about serving people and were ready to charge citizens as much as possible. We will oppose that.

An entire section of this bill deals with fee disclosure and forcing banks to be transparent. Even members of this House do not find out about fee increases until we go to a bank machine.

We must ensure that the population is aware of the facts so that they can pressure boards of directors. That is happening. Shareholders must be informed and encouraged to take action. Action must be taken with respect to cooperative financial institutions. Quebec must be given the tools to look after its own affairs. We must ensure that citizens see costs go down rather than up because bank profits are skyrocketing. Everyone knows those profits come from people's pockets. We want to ensure that the banks take as little as possible from them.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to Bill C-37. This bill is the mandatory review that is provided for regarding the operation of the banking system. Every five years, we have to review that piece of legislation to try to make it as functional as possible and to adjust it to changing technology. The Bloc Québécois will therefore be voting for the bill, because even though it is not perfect, it does contain significant improvements.

First, Bill C-37 institutes mechanisms for disclosing information to consumers, so that they will be able to make informed choices regarding the banking services they use. We all know that, historically, banking services have not always been models when it came to providing information to consumers. People did not find it easy to understand and it was very difficult to compare one bank to another. There are improvements in the bill that will allow people to get this kind of information, and this is a benefit for consumers.

Second, the bill will establish the regulatory framework to allow for digital data to be used in cheque processing, which will reduce the time that cheques are held by banking institutions. A new technology has been adopted, and this means that a cheque will be frozen in a banking institution for less time. This provides a benefit for the consumer and an important benefit for small and medium-sized businesses, which often have to wait until a cheque is released before it becomes available and can be cashed. It will facilitate both business operations and everyday management of family and individual budgets. In this respect, it is a practical application of a technology.

Third, the bill will reduce the regulatory burden for foreign banks, credit unions and insurance companies, to make the regulatory compliance mechanisms more efficient. For example, credit unions that have fewer people and that apply to do this will be recognized. As for foreign banks, the aim is for there to be more competition because a lack of competition is a problem in the Canadian system. In regions like the one I represent, bank branches have disappeared, one after the other, in recent decades.

At present, I can tell you that the Desjardins movement is represented, as is the National Bank of Canada and a few other banks, but those institutions cover huge geographic areas. The way that the rules about loans to businesses or individuals are applied, for example, increasingly fails to take the local situation into account and is increasingly often no more than a mathematical financial calculation. From that perspective, even the disappearance of the banks has an effect on how credit unions operate, because the banks' focus on profitability at any cost has prompted the Desjardins movement, for example, to review its structures with a view to that fact.

We have to find solutions to the lack of competition, solutions that may lie in providing foreign banks with market entry conditions that enable them to offer services so that ultimately the consumer wins. This should be done, on condition that appropriate operating rules are obeyed and also that we ensure that in terms of employment spinoffs, jobs are not simply being exported abroad. On that point, the amendments in the bill are acceptable, and are even attractive.

Fourth, the bill aims to amend the rules governing mortgage loans, thereby enabling more people to take advantage of that financial tool. A previous amendment has already increased the percentage that could be obtained without an insurance guarantee. This bill aims to increase it to 80%.

Lastly, the government is increasing the equity threshold from $1 billion to $2 billion, thereby making it possible for a single shareholder to wholly own a bank, and thus encouraging new competitors on the market. I mentioned that earlier. We need to ensure greater competition. This measure aims to move forward in this area.

The Bloc Québécois wants to ensure, however, that the amendments to the regulations do not allow the kind of uncontrolled mergers and acquisitions we have seen before in the banking sector. I have been a member of this House for about 12 years and we have seen all kinds of situations in terms of bank mergers. Under the former Liberal government, during my first few years as a member here, there was greater willingness to allow this. Systematic opposition from the Bloc Québécois, other parties of this House and civil society made it possible to ensure that there were no uncontrolled mergers and, that, at the end of the day, there were no fewer intervenors.

Canada currently has five major banks. If that number had decreased to only two, clearly, there would have been less competition. If we do not open the market up externally at the same time, we would be creating a duopoly, and we certainly do not want that to happen.

While the committee was studying the bill, we wanted to make sure that we continued to look at this issue to avoid unrestrained mergers.

Speaking of mergers, we demand that any amendment to the moratorium on bank mergers be made in the best interest of citizens, not just to make the financial markets happy. There is an unfortunate tendency in this sector to see this activity as being the sole province of economic players, but clients, consumers, citizens, have the right to know how these things work. We must ensure that the mechanism gives everyone a fair chance and that we have a stable, structured system that fosters real competition. In that respect, the Bloc Québécois will ensure that the committees hear all relevant witnesses so they can make good recommendations.

That, in a nutshell, is the Bloc Québécois' analysis of this bill.

I would also like to talk about promoting consumers' interests by improving the information disclosure regime. A lot of progress was needed on this issue. For example, institutions will be required to clearly disclose their information on the Internet, in all branches and in writing to anyone who asks. This is a major change to the way banks do things, a change that we applaud. We hope that this will come to pass and that the banking system will become more democratic.

We also want to change the regulatory framework to enable the implementation of digital imaging. The legislative framework must therefore allow digital imaging in order to facilitate the cheque cashing process and to reduce the length of time banking institutions can hold cheques, as I mentioned earlier.

We must also reduce the length of time banking institutions can hold cheques directly, because following the publication of the 2006 Financial Institutions Legislation Review, the government promised to reduce the cheque holding time to make life easier for SMEs and other citizens. Bill C-37 gives the superintendent the authority to limit the length of time for which cheques can be held. We will see how that works out in practice.

The white paper proposed an immediate reduction of the maximum hold time to seven days, and to five days once the digital cheque imaging system is in place. We will see how this works.

Cheque holds affect not only consumers who need to have access to those funds to pay their bills, but also small and medium businesses that must pay their employees and keep the business operating out of the funds they deposit.

There are currently cash flows because of how quickly businesses are operating and because of the introduction of just-in-time systems. Financial flows need to be just as quick. In that sense, the improvement to the bill should help businesses.

The government wants all users of the payments system—including consumers—to benefit from the increased efficiency resulting from the Canadian Payments Association initiative that involved changing the payments system to facilitate electronic imaging of cheques. These changes must do more than just improve profits. We must ensure that the services are adequate and that the savings are passed on to the consumer.

The second objective is to increase legislative efficiency by lightening the regulatory burden on foreign banks so as to facilitate their access to the Canadian market and stimulate competition.

Competition exists. However, certain problems were raised concerning the regulations governing foreign banks. This bill aims to clarify the measures applying to foreign banks operating in Canadian territory by refocusing the regulatory framework on the chartered banks and simultaneously excluding the near banks.

The near banks are companies that offer banking-type financial services. Unlike chartered banks, near banks cannot change their basic money supply, that is, they cannot borrow money from or lend money to the Bank of Canada to make new deposits or new loans.

Still in the same section, a second measure aims to improve legislative efficiency and streamline the regulatory approval regime. We want to ensure that decisions that do not impact public policy, as provided for in the legislation, are in the hands of the superintendent.

In the opinion of the Bloc Québécois, the minister must not be permitted to depoliticize operations that will have an impact on public policy. We have to make sure that the minister continues to assume his responsibilities. Given the current practice of the Conservative government of not wanting to intervene in the economy, such a caution is quite justified.

The bill also relaxes the federal framework governing credit unions. For example, in order to facilitate the opening of new credit unions, the government would lower to two the number of institutions required to constitute a credit union. At present, a minimum of 10 credit unions is needed to establish an association under the Cooperative Credit Associations Act.

Still, in light of the new commercial possibilities offered by retail associations and ongoing consultation in the cooperative credit system, the current entry threshold is too high. This is why the amendment corresponds to the market reality, which seems to be an advantage. This would increase this sector’s ability to adapt to new developments and better serve consumers and SMEs.

The third objective of this bill would increase from 75% to 80% the loan-to-value ratio for which insurance is mandatory on residential mortgage loans. This ratio was set over 30 years ago. It is a cautionary measure designed to protect lenders from fluctuations in property values and payment defaults by borrowers.

The last time this ratio was changed was in 1965, when it was raised from 66% to 75%. But the marketplace has changed since then. Lenders’ risk management practices have improved, risk-based regulatory requirements concerning capital have been implemented and the financial markets have changed and stabilized.

Finally the supervisory framework for federally-regulated financial institutions has been strengthened. So it seems that the restriction no longer plays the same role with respect to caution. A cautionary provision requiring borrowers to take out mortgage insurance at a loan-to-value ratio set at 75% might mean that some consumers are paying more than necessary for their mortgage.

The second part has to do with readjusting the equity thresholds, which would allow sole ownership or to force wide ownership. They also want to increase, from one third, the minority limit on the number of foreign directors on the boards of Canadian banks. There is an array of measures, therefore, intended to make the banking system work better.

As I said at the outset, my fellow citizens and the electors in my riding are very concerned about the availability of bank services. The banks have undertaken some major offensives over the last few years and have invaded the insurance market, for example. The insurance brokers came up with a strong response to show us what a negative effect this would have had on regional development.

The Bloc Québécois believes that this bill, generally and overall, improves the way the bank system works.

Obviously, there are still some basic questions. However, in view of the fact that the act will have to be reviewed within five years and the government has already offered an additional six-month period ending April 24, we should definitely pass this bill and hope that ultimately the government will listen to what the Bloc has to say. We will continue to monitor these matters.

I want to conclude with the question of bank mergers. This is an area where the federal government's actions have lacked transparency over the last few years. They have gone back and forth and even hidden a document for a few months on the pretext that since we have a minority government, it might have been damaging to make it public. In the meantime, life goes on.

I think that it is good to have an open public debate in a sector like this. We should take a global view now of the measures we are taking and the corrective steps we want to take, to ensure there is genuine competition and we do not just end up creating duopolies.

Foreign banks can come and compete, just as the Canadian banks can make foreign purchases. Globalization in itself is not a bad thing, but we need to ensure that it is done in a way that leaves us winners.

The federal government has often neglected to use all the tools at its disposal, including the safeguards enabling industrial sectors such as the apparel and textile industries to protect themselves, to have a transition period. This was not done in these industries.

With regard to Canada's banking system, which has grown along with Canada, it is solid but it must adjust to new global realities. It must be given the requisite opportunity to serve consumers adequately. In this regard, there are still improvements to be made in terms of the transparency of information available.

I am anxious to see whether or not the clauses of this bill that pertain to disclosure of information to consumers, will be applied correctly and if the banks will provide the maximum amount of information. In the end, the Bloc Québécois will be able to see whether or not results are achieved.

In any event, this is an on-going process. We will have to re-examine this legislation to ensure that it always reflects the market reality. However, at present, the Bloc Québécois thinks it is a good thing to vote in favour of this bill, which makes certain improvements to our banking system. We hope that the banking system will be of benefit to our entire economy and that, in particular, it will address the lack of service in areas outside of major centres, in the rural areas of Quebec and Canada. In this regard, the banking system needs to pay more attention to our citizens.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. He clearly examined the bill in great detail. It did not generate much debate when it was amended. I believe that this amendment was in fact introduced by the government.

Of course, my recollection may be questionable. I agree with the member that, given more time, we should have done more work on this issue in particular.

In the context of Bill C-37, more flexible measures concerning cooperative credit associations were aimed at facilitating the entry of new cooperative credit associations and at reducing to two the number of institutions that would be required to become a cooperative credit association.

Thus, small communities will have the opportunity to put in place cooperative credit associations that will be recognized as long as they have two institutions or two branches. In this case, the regulatory requirements cannot be the same as for a charter bank that has thousands of branches and which manages billions of dollars. This is why the bill was amended to account for some situations where there would be a small number of cooperative credit associations.

Another aspect is perhaps related to this fact. I admit that I would have to take another look at the text . The regulatory requirements for foreign near banks that are present in Canada were also amended so that they would be regulated almost to the same extent as in their country of origin. Once again, these are institutions that may be relatively small.

This is the only reason I can give the member. In some cases, regulations that would be too onerous would prevent communities from putting in place cooperative credit associations as long as there are two institutions. They would not be nearly as large as the Desjardins movement or other credit unions.

I think that we will have to remain vigilant to ensure that there is no abuse in this regard.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks on Bill C-37, I would like to add a few comments on the issue of public finance.

The Liberal finance critic who just spoke reminded hon. members that the Mulroney years were extremely disastrous as far as public finance was concerned, with major deficits including the last one of $42 billion.

Nonetheless, I want to provide a few facts for the public's information and so that everyone knows the whole story. The first deficit recorded in 1975 was run by a Liberal finance minister, John Turner. Then a whole series of deficits followed until 1993-94. The Liberal solution was to offload the problem to the provinces, Quebec in particular, by creating the fiscal imbalance. If we look at the true public finance story of the past 20 or 30 years, neither side has anything to teach us.

Let us come back to Bill C-37 , An Act to amend the law governing financial institutions and to provide for related and consequential matters. The Bloc Québécois will obviously be in favour of this essentially technical bill and we will have no problem supporting it.

Precisely because this is a technical bill, it does not address the substantive questions that we would have expected the Conservative government to provide us with some answers to, some possible solutions, or even that it raise issues. I am thinking, for example, of the entire question of electronic transactions. There is absolutely no reference to that, apart from cheque imaging, which I will come back to.

We know that this is a major issue in the economic development of Canada and Quebec and all of our economies. Failing to address this question, failing to provide solutions, at least in terms of regulation, means that we run the risk of hitting a ceiling over the next few years in terms of electronic transactions. The regulatory framework is inadequate. We would therefore have expected that this question be addressed in Bill C-37.

The same is true of bank fees. It may be appropriate for there to be fees for certain transactions. But do fees need to be charged for all transactions? Some transaction charges are surely somewhat questionable. An example might be a cash withdrawal at an ATM that belongs to a bank other than the one that the person ordinarily does business with. There are relatively high fees for that transaction. This might at least have been given some thought.

In fact, the Minister of Finance will be meeting with the banks in a few days to discuss these questions. It would have been useful, before they are discussed with the banks, if we could have had a substantive discussion at the Standing Committee on Finance, based on various information that both the Department of Finance and the Minister of Finance could have provided to us. But no, the question had to be raised by one of the members of the Standing Committee on Finance and the committee had to take it upon itself to initiate a study of bank fees.

Once again, on questions of this type, we must not take an ideological approach, whether on the right or on the left. We must first try to understand why banks charge these fees, what they are for, and to establish rules or limits, to regulate this practice based on information and facts, and not based on preconceived notions.

The work on this will be done by the Standing Committee on Finance. We would have expected, however, in a bill to revise the Bank Act, something that happens only every five years, that these subjects, which have been widely debated in Canadian and Quebec society, would have been addressed.

There is another matter that should have been included in this bill. That is the entire question of reinvesting in the community. We know that discriminatory practices sometimes occur on the part of our banking institutions. I would say that they are not even committed intentionally. It is simply a certain way of doing things that is referred to as systemic discrimination.

Here is an example. Every year, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which is hardly a left-wing institution, as we know, speaks out against the discrimination that women entrepreneurs suffer, particularly small and medium-sized business owners. March 8 will be International Women's Day, and they will probably speak out against it again this year.

This is a known fact that even the business community recognizes, and we must therefore find ways to counter this systematic discrimination.

In the United States, community re-investment is a practice that forces financial institutions to take stock of their loan and credit applicants, and how the banks approve the applications. If it appears that certain groups are under-represented despite their applications, a special fund makes money available to those investors who have been discriminated against by the banks based on their profile. It is even better when there is no discrimination and the financial institutions take stock of the ratio of loan applications and approved loans.

However, I repeat, this is common practice in the United States, and this forces the financial institutions to re-invest in the community, in those groups that have the greatest difficulty obtaining credit, in particular, to start up a business.

Another question should have been addressed during the examination of Bill C-37 and that is the issue of tax havens. How is it that Canadian banks are such frequent users of tax havens? The Bank of Nova Scotia comes to mind, among others, since I discovered that it has locations in nearly all the tax havens in the West Indies, including Bermuda and the Bahamas. Why? Is it simply because it does not have the choice, given the global economy? We would like to know. The question has not even been asked. Is it because Canadian laws and regulations are not stringent enough? The Standing Committee on Finance began examining one possibility and will delve further into this over the coming weeks.

People will remember some interesting debates we had in the House on how companies like Canada Steamship Lines Inc. were using tax havens to avoid their responsibilities as good corporate citizens. As I was saying, we should at least have touched on this, although we still can. The Bloc Québécois intends, by the way, to introduce a motion in the next few weeks that the committee should pursue its work on tax havens.

Another aspect is identity theft. We know now that criminals can access our entire profile using social insurance cards. There are about five million too many of them in circulation.

With a certain amount of credit information, these people can go to a financial institution, take out a mortgage on someone’s house and disappear with the money. Unfortunately, these things happen every day. There is nothing about this crime, which is still not recognized as such. Sometimes people discover from one day to the next that they are indebted to the banks.

Who is responsible when this kind of thing happens? Are the banks not responsible for ensuring that when someone comes to them with certain information, he or she is the right person?

I think that we could have an interesting debate on this. We did touch on it when Bill C-37 was being studied. However, the department officials told us that it would have to be listed first as a crime in the Criminal Code before it could be included in the Bank Act.

We should have suggested a number of possibilities. The opposition parties, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, have obviously tried to fix some things. However, most of their amendments were deemed out of order because they went beyond the bill before us.

As I was saying, this bill severely restricted parliamentarians’ ability to do their job and review the Bank Act. Unfortunately, this opportunity only presents itself every five years. I hope that the department, the minister and the Conservative government will not wait five years to do something about these issues of considerable concern to the public.

Some other things too would have deserved further consideration, such as the question of the bank ombudsman, for example.

I quite liked the debate that started up where bank representatives explained what this system was and why the banks financed it. These representatives also explained that the ombudsman is quite independent and the banks have complied with fully with his decisions since the position was created.

Nevertheless, some consumer associations and individual consumers still appeared before the committee and said they did not think they had the protection they needed to proceed with some of the outstanding legal actions between consumers and the banks.

I for my part will not prejudge the issue. However, it seems to me that we should have pursued this further. Even after Bill C-37 has gone through the study phase, consumer associations will continue to think, whether rightly or wrongly, that the Bank Act does not protect consumers sufficiently. I think that they are right at least in regard to the fact that we have not studied this issue enough and did not go into it further. To this extent, their questions remain unanswered.

As I mentioned earlier, Bill C-37 is very technical and has limited debate on a number of questions. Furthermore, this bill was studied very quickly, I must confess. The committee did this work in three sessions. I do not think that the members of the committee needed a great many more sessions, given the technical framework of the bill. However, in my opinion, in future, when we study a bill like this one, we should have much more substantial debates, especially since the Bank Act is only reviewed every five years.

As I have already mentioned, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill. Although it does not affect the big societal debates surrounding banking institutions and the Canadian banking system as a whole, Bill C-37 will nevertheless introduce a number of measures on which the Bloc agrees. For example, it will introduce mechanisms for conveying information to consumers, and this will enable them to get more information so that they can make informed decisions regarding their use of bank services. This is a step in the right direction. More remains to be done, but we are headed in the right direction.

Also, a regulatory framework allowing the use of digital data in the processing of cheques has been introduced, and this will reduce the length of time cheques are held by banking institutions.

There too I do not think anyone will complain about the fact that, instead of their cheque being frozen for ten days or seven days, as provided under the voluntary agreement between the banking institutions and the Department of Finance, the funds will only be frozen for four days, if I remember correctly. I will come back to this. The members of the committee nevertheless wondered why the banks were continuing to freeze the funds of deposited cheques for more than 24 hours, in spite of all the electronic means at our disposal.

We will have to wait till digital imaging is put in place. We have not had any answers on this.

The time during which such funds are frozen must be reduced to a minimum. This creates a lot of problems, particularly for small investors and small and medium-sized businesses. Still, the possibility of imaging will be there. Let us hope that the banks will use it to reduce waiting times for releasing funds as much as possible.

There is a provision for reducing the regulatory burden on foreign banks, credit unions and insurance companies in order to make the regulatory approval regime more efficient. Obviously nobody wants regulations for the sake of having regulations. Everyone agreed that this was a good step, especially for the credit unions.

Facilitating the establishment of foreign banks in Canadian and Quebec markets can only be beneficial for consumers. We know that our banking market is extremely concentrated in Canada, with only five major players. Despite the efforts that have been made to create competition, in particular with the passing of Bill C-8 a few years ago, we have to acknowledge that there is not much competition, particularly in the regions.

In the case of Quebec, for example, it could be said that, in the regions, the Desjardins movement practically has a monopoly because the major financial institutions have decided to desert this market as it is not lucrative enough for them.

We find ourselves in a situation where competition does not have all the results expected and the arrival of foreign banks and credit unions provides an opportunity for real competition in the financial sector, which is quite desirable.

Regulations governing mortgage loans are also revisited: the insurable portion of a mortgage will be reduced. At present, up to 75% of a mortgage does not have to be insured; the remainder does. Naturally, that leads to additional costs for consumers who wish to purchase a home. The uninsured portion is being increased to 80%. Reducing by 5% the portion to be insured will make it easier for a number of individuals to purchase property and lower the cost of borrowing. We obviously cannot be against this measure.

Various other matters were also reviewed. They relate to the proportion of equity of a bank held by a single shareholder or groups of shareholders. This should make it easier for small banks to enter the market. That is desirable. As I mentioned, past legislation adopted has not yet led to the desired competitiveness in the financial market.

Therefore, we will support this bill. In the time allotted to me I would like to talk in more detail about certain matters found in Bill C-37.

My presentation will address the bill's objectives.

The first objective covers all matters affecting the interests of consumers. A certain number of measures in this regard were taken by Bill C-37. As I mentioned, we do not go far enough; however, some measures are headed in the right direction.

The second objective is to improve legislative efficiency and there are a certain number of measures in this regard in Bill C-37.

The last objective pertains to a group of varied measures in Bill C-37.

The first key objective, which is enhancing the interests of consumers, includes a first main element, namely to improve the system of disclosing information to consumers. I talked about it earlier, in my introduction. This will help consumers make informed decisions about the investment vehicles that they choose.

It was decided to set higher standards for disclosure of charges and obligations. Penalties that apply to various accounts and investment vehicles are also heavier. Moreover, once the act is passed, it will require institutions to clearly disclose this information in all their branches, through the Internet, and also in writing to any individual who requests it.

Some might think that it goes without saying, but these provisions were not yet included in the Bank Act. Since one can hardly be opposed to virtue itself, we will support this measure.

There is a second element in this key objective of enhancing the interests of consumers. It is, as I mentioned, the change made to the regulatory framework to provide for the introduction of electronic cheque imaging. This will allow financial institutions to reduce the hold period on cheques. That is also a change that was asked for.

As for legislative efficiency, I already talked about reducing the regulatory burden for foreign banks and for credit unions. We will have to streamline the regulatory approval process, and provide a more flexible framework for credit unions.

Finally, as regards the other measures, the most important one is, as I mentioned, to increase from 75% to 80% the loan-to-value ratio for which insurance is mandatory on residential mortgages.

In conclusion, as I said at the outset, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-37.

Anti-terrorism Act

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to rise and speak to this motion. I must say that I feel rather ashamed. I was here in the House in 2001 when we had the debate. I remember very well all the questions raised by the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, who was the opposition leader at the time, as well as those of our justice critic, Michel Bellehumeur, the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm.

We were worried about a number of things. The first was the very definition of terrorism and a terrorist act. I do not want to return to all that because the Supreme Court did not rule on it. The other extremely important questions that we raised had to do with procedural fairness, the right to a full and complete defence, and how best to achieve a laudable objective. We need to remember the situation in 2001 and how concerned we were, especially in view of what had happened in the United States. We know how close the historical bonds have been between Canada and the United States, bonds that led a former Canadian Prime Minister to say of our relationship that geography made us neighbours but history made us friends.

We could not remain unmoved by the collapse of the twin towers and all the information pouring forth about terrorist networks, real or potential. I would like to thank the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, by the way, for all the vigilance he has shown.

The speeches we heard this morning are pretty amazing in some respects. I should say, first, that for me the Liberals and the Conservatives are the same. We need to remember what the Liberals were saying. The Bloc was very clear. Not that we were great seers or prophets, but we did anticipate a few things. Some provisions of the bill that was being introduced, Bill C-36, were obviously incompatible with the basic principles on which our justice system is built.

I remember very well the questions and comments made by the justice minister at the time. They were even more unacceptable in that she was a former professor of constitutional law who had written articles on legal guarantees and procedural fairness, which I had had occasion to read.

The Liberals and Conservatives were animated by a common desire to move as quickly as possible and respond to the emergency because the situation was indeed very worrisome.

I read the Supreme Court ruling from beginning to end. What the Supreme Court told us is that in a democracy, and in a system where the rule of law means something, the end never justifies the means. As parliamentarians, we must respect that. The Conservatives and the Liberals were of one mind; we realize, with hindsight, that their position does not stand up to our most basic principles of justice.

It is demagogy, to some extent, to rise this morning in this House and to make it seem as though there are those who are concerned about the safety of citizens and those who are not. All parliamentarians in this House are concerned about the safety of citizens. However, it may be that, in our work as parliamentarians, we have to propose measures that push the boundaries when it comes to how we perceive the evidence or how we see the process unfolding.

I was in this House when Bill C-95, the first anti-gang bill, was adopted in 1997.

The definition of a criminal organization then was: five individuals who, in the past five years, committed offences punishable by more than five years' imprisonment.

At that time, there was also a sense of urgency. However, I would never have thought about rising in this House and voting for this bill, which was to be revised by Bill C-24, if the principal condition of the law had been to deny the accused access to all the evidence. That is the problem with this bill. I am surprised that no government members have noted this fact.

We will have an opportunity to mention this: the Criminal Code does contain mechanisms for preventive detention. First, common law recognizes this principle and the Supreme Court has recognized it several times. We need not go very far. Section 495 of the Criminal Code—if my memory serves me correctly—allows a police officer to arrest, on reasonable grounds, a person he believes has committed or is about to commit an offence.

Later, of course, the individual will have a trial and can be represented. All legal guarantees will be offered and justice will be served the way it should be in an adversarial system, in other words, the public prosecution lays charges and provides evidence and the accused can defend himself or herself. Getting to the truth is what this confrontation should be all about. That is not what is being proposed in the antiterrorist provisions.

We are not against the fact that measures are needed. I am sure that the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin never said anything of the sort. We acknowledge that some individuals may pose a threat to national security. It is true there are terrorist movements.

I remember attending lectures given by researchers from the Raoul Dandurand Chair in strategic and diplomatic studies. We know that terrorist movements have been at work and that they will be in the years to come. We are even told that the largest terrorist movements, which constitute the worst threat to the security of modern states, are those with religious motivations.

We know all that. We are not questioning the fact that in legislation, whether in the Immigration Act or in other legislation, a minister may be asked to review situations where individuals will have to be deemed threats to national security. We recognize that and we agree that in all modern countries, particularly in vast countries and countries where borders are porous, it is acceptable for these provisions to exist.

Nonetheless, there is something quite unbelievable in these provisions. The Supreme Court said that the way in which the antiterrorist provisions are set up, in their wording and the way the courts are called to interpret them, some procedural guarantees are being breached. I will come back to that.

This leads to the following question. Can these terrorist movements be dismantled by using the provisions in sections 83.27, 83.28, 83.29, and 83.3? Why have these provisions not been invoked? Logically speaking, just because they have not been invoked yet does not mean they will not be in the future, but this is nonetheless a measure of their immediate relevance.

Under the existing Criminal Code—as we were reminded—an individual can be arrested without a warrant. It even sets out that in individual can be brought before a judge, compelled to enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and prohibited from contacting certain individuals. This is set out in section 810 of the Criminal Code.

Section 465 even includes a provision that allows for the arrest of individuals on the basis of conspiracy alone and because there is a risk they will commit acts at a later date. It is not as though we are completely without any other legislative recourse, or as though there is nothing in our existing legislation.

Something is very troubling. While we may not agree on how our political system operates, we cannot deny that there is a recognized tradition of respect for human rights. This includes Diefenbaker's Canadian Bill of Rights, the Canadian Human Rights Act adopted in 1977 and, more recently, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In the National Assembly, in 1982, at the time the Canadian Charter was debated, we did not agree on the management of linguistic rights. Nor did we agree on section 27 pertaining to the enhancement of multicultural heritage. We nevertheless recognize the charter as a tool for the protection of human rights, particularly for judicial guarantees, which, moreover, already exist and were already set out in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. We recognize that it serves as a tool for the promotion and enhancement of human rights.

As legislators, how could we have let ourselves become distracted? The Bloc Québécois cannot be blamed because, based on the recommendation of the leader of the Bloc and our justice critic, we voted unanimously against BIll C-36.

Why did we vote against Bill C-36? Because we did not believe that an individual could receive a fair trial without access to the evidence, especially the most important pieces of evidence, the ones supporting the charges or leading to a guilty verdict. The Supreme Court spoke of “sensitive information”. That was the main problem with the proposed law.

I would like to quote what the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said on page 54. A unanimous ruling is significant, after all. In a decision written by Madam Justice McLachlin, the court said:

I therefore conclude that the IRPA's procedure for determining whether a certificate is reasonable does not conform to the principles of fundamental justice as embodied in s. 7 of the Charter.

This is serious. Legislators should be very concerned about this paragraph. I have difficulty understanding the government's obstinate refusal to recognize the proposed law. Of course, the Conservatives were not responsible for creating it; the Liberals were.

I hope that all Parliamentarians in this House will acknowledge that things have been taken too far, that due process is not happening and that even though we have a general duty to protect our fellow citizens, we must have safe communities. Specifically, we must protect our fellow citizens from possible terrorist attacks.

The court will explain what it means by the “principles of fundamental justice” embodied in section 7. This section is well known to us all. It concerns life, liberty and security of the person. The Supreme Court will say that those rights cannot be interfered with. First and foremost, we must ensure an impartial hearing.

The Supreme Court considered the question of the evidence being introduced ex parte, that is, the judge reviews the evidence, but not in the presence of both parties, specifically, defence lawyers for the person named in the certificate.

Is it not troubling to know that a person who does not appear before the judge—a judge who has reviewed the evidence, including the sensitive information—cannot refute that information, cannot correct the facts, cannot explain them, cannot respond to the quality of the information provided and the credibility of the informants?

Not only did the Supreme Court say that it was a miscarriage or denial of justice, as must exist for section 7 of the Charter to apply, but it also said that judges hearing the evidence ex parte are placed in a position where they cannot be impartial. Is this not tantamount to asking them to be investigators?

The court said that not allowing a person detained under a certificate to receive all of the evidence and be able to refute, explain and correct it, and to question the source of the evidence infringes section 7.

The court did not say that security certificates are unnecessary. Over the next year, the court invites the legislator to review the way in which certificates are issued. It is interesting to remember that the court gave the United Kingdom as an example. In committee, this was even brought to the attention of parliamentarians. The court even gives Canadian examples where the members of a House of Commons subcommittee, who were hearing from employees of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, were able to respect the security and confidentiality requirements and still carry out their parliamentary work.

The court also has the following observation, and again I will cite Justice McLachlin. Furthermore, no parliamentarian or minister has provided an explanation for this. I hope they will during our exchanges later. Justice McLachlin said, “—Why the drafters of the legislation did not provide for special counsel to objectively review the material with a view to protecting the named person's interest—as was formerly done for the review of security certificates by the Security Intelligence Review Committee, and is presently done in the United Kingdom...has not been explained”.

The United Kingdom has also passed antiterrorist provisions. The court wonders why we did not take the same route. The court proposes a compromise between complete denial of access to sensitive information about the person named in the security certificate and the possible confidential nature of certain information in thwarting terrorist attacks, in other words a procedural fairness requirement, a requirement for respecting basic justice. The court says that if we want to maintain these balances, these powers that have to be balanced between national security, confidentiality of certain information, but also the rights of those who may be charged—who are in fact charged in some cases—then we need access to information. I hope the government will take this into account during the review it has been given one year to do.

In closing, I cannot believe that people were detained for five or six years. I am running out of time. However, we have to remember that different rules apply depending on whether the person is a permanent resident or a foreign national when it comes to a review of detention. A permanent resident gets this review within 48 hours and every six months. A foreign national can be imprisoned for 120 days without ever having their detention reviewed. As the Supreme Court pointed out, this does not make any sense.

I will stop here, but, once again, I believe there is no reason to be proud today of Bill C-36. In my opinion, this House would have been better advised to listen to the Bloc Québécois when it gave these warnings. Fortunately, the Supreme Court was able to take an informed look at this legislation that offends human dignity and the best we can do is to review it.

Criminal Code

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks by thanking my fellow New Brunswicker, the member for Miramichi, for introducing this important animal protection bill in this House.

The members who spoke before me this morning have clearly described the legal reasons why we have now reached the point where we must take action to improve the protection of animals and prevent cruelty to animals. In fact, this Parliament has expressed that feeling on several occasions in recent years. It did so unsuccessfully, however; it was unable to receive royal assent for a bill that would modernize the rules regarding penalties and the concept of animal protection.

The author of this bill in the other house is Senator Bryden, an eminent legal expert. As the parliamentary secretary said this morning, the senator has worked very hard to build consensus among a number of groups, around this bill and around the serious need to expand and strengthen the penalties available to judges when someone is convicted under the cruelty to animals provisions of the Criminal Code.

I have supported other bills in the past, like those introduced by my government at the time, to modernize the animal protection provisions of the Criminal Code. As other members, including the member for Hochelaga, have mentioned, those bills were not adopted or given royal assent before an election intervened or before the term of a Parliament ended.

Our colleague in the other house, the author of this bill, rightly decided that there was one aspect of the subject on which there was significant consensus: the need to increase the punishment, to expand the tools available to judges and prosecutors for sentencing someone who breaks the law or dealing with someone who has been convicted of violating these provisions of the Criminal Code.

In the past, other bills may have been too ambitious. As my colleagues have said, that does not mean that Bill S-213, which is now before this House, should not pass just because we are waiting for some more comprehensive reform in the future.

It is my opinion that if this House decides to support this bill today, that is a very good start. It is an acknowledgement, and a clear message to prosecutors, judges and the police, stating that this Parliament believes in animal protection and has sent a message against cruelty to animals in all its forms.

However, we recognize the need for balance. I believe the member for Hochelaga talked about balance.

In rural regions like mine, there are hunters, commercial fishers, recreational fishers and farmers. There are also people belonging to first nations. It is my privilege to represent in this House a first nations community, the Mi'kmaq. They have a long-standing tradition of using animals for perfectly legitimate purposes. These ways of using animals do not constitute animal cruelty at all. Moreover, for many people, this is also a research-related issue. We have made major progress in medicine because researchers have used animals in their research. I think that balance is essential in this respect as well.

These cases do not constitute animal cruelty in the same sense as the examples my colleague from Wild Rose brought up when he asked the member for Miramichi a question. Those were examples of abhorrent behaviour. I think there is consensus in this Parliament—at least I hope there is—that the sentencing regime in the Criminal Code must finally be modernized.

I was very pleased to hear the parliamentary secretary support this bill on behalf of the government. As all members are well aware, striving for perfection can sometimes prevent us from doing what is achievable.

This morning colleagues have described some of the very important technical reasons that Bill S-213 merits adoption by this House. The other place has studied this question extensively. Senator Bryden from New Brunswick has done an outstanding job at building consensus around one element that received not much objection, which is the issue of modernizing the sentencing regime.

Bill S-213 in a very compelling way sets up a system of hybrid offences. This is a long-standing tradition in criminal law where prosecutors can decide based on all the circumstances of the case if in fact the offence is one of deliberate cruelty to animals and would obviously require a more severe sanction than perhaps might one of neglect. By allowing prosecutors to proceed by way of indictment as a more serious criminal offence with much more serious prison sentences attached to a conviction under indictment, Parliament sends a very compelling message to those who might seek to abuse animals either by committing an act that the courts hold to have been an abuse or cruelty to animals or those who may neglect animals and fail to provide the essentials which, in turn, also are offences under the Criminal Code and appropriately should be.

Colleagues should think carefully before seeking to achieve a more global reform of the legislation with respect to cruelty to animals and miss the opportunity before us today to modernize in a very important way the sentencing regime. This can be a very good first step toward perhaps finding at some future point another balance in terms of other bills that may come before the House. A great deal of work has gone into this.

Discussions lasted a long time, especially in the other place. A consensus was reached and I urge my colleagues to review the list of organizations across the country that support this bill. These groups represent, among others, urban communities, hunters, researchers and veterinarians.

I know that my time is running out, so in closing, I would like to congratulate the member for Miramichi, who took the initiative to introduce Bill S-213 in this House. I would ask my colleagues to acknowledge the work that has been done to find balance on this issue and to recognize, as I do, that this is an excellent first step that will modernize the animal cruelty provisions in the Criminal Code.

Opposition Motion--Citizenship and Immigration

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to participate in a debate that has been going on for a long time about a subject that is critical to this country's social and economic well-being. Although it is an honour, it is sad that it has come to this.

I support the motion tabled by my colleague from Mississauga—Erindale:

That, in the opinion of the House, immigrants to Canada and persons seeking Canadian citizenship are poorly served by this government.

Over the next 20 minutes, I will show just how poorly the Conservative government is treating immigrants. The fact is that the government talks a lot, but since it was elected to run this country, it has not done a thing to improve the difficult situation immigrants to Canada and persons seeking Canadian citizenship are experiencing. That was over a year ago. Actually, it has been a year and a half.

We have only heard talk, but seen no action. Immigration is a subject to which the Conservatives have paid lip service and which they believe they can sweep under the rug. They still think Canadians will be satisfied with the non-results.

I speak about the accusations the government has made against its own citizens living abroad in a time of their need, the promises for the recognition of their foreign credentials, the inability to deal effectively with the plight of foreign trained workers, in a holistic way, who are underemployed and unemployed.

The Conservative government has made promises that have not been kept. It has made non-announcements for the sake of making non-announcements. For example, it has offered a mere $18 million over a two year period to the provincial governments to support programs for the recognition of foreign trained professionals, and yet nothing is happening.

I will also speak about the lack of services to francophone minority groups living across the country, which the Conservative government has ignored under its own immigration agreement.

I will also briefly discuss the impact on small and medium-sized businesses who are not given any incentives to recruit and train new arrivals.

These concerns have been raised by the business leaders, unions, community groups and even the mothers I met during my travels across Canada over the past two years.

Small businesses cannot afford to bring in people for a year like big businesses can. Small and medium sized businesses need the training dollars because their businesses cannot afford to absorb these costs on their own.

Also, this includes the negative impact on these businesses if the Conservative government does not adjust the entry system to deal with the pressing need for semi-skilled workers and workers in trades that do not require university degrees. I am talking of the point system for prospective immigrants.

These skills that are needed to keep our economy thriving do not figure on the list of skills on the point system. How is the government then serving the underemployed and unemployed newcomers? As I travel across the country, the same story is told to me over and over again: the need for skilled workers upon which the Canadian economy depends. Yet the Conservative government, since it came to power, has refused to regularize the status of construction workers and has in fact deported many of them, even though there is a shortage of workers in many places.

I remember, for example, the Portuguese immigrants in Ontario, in Toronto specifically, who were deported by the government because they did not have the right papers. Yet their employers needed them to continue constructing houses in Toronto.

According to reports, at the point where the shortages are so acute, construction companies have been luring away workers from one site to another by offering them higher wage incentives.

We already know, according to Statistics Canada, that immigration is the cause of 70% of our labour market growth and if the trend continues, it will account for 100% of our growth. We also already know that all sectors in the Canadian economy rely on the immigration population. Topping the list is the manufacturing sector, which represents 57%. In that sector, 27% of the employed workforce is foreign born, while nearly one out of ten, specifically 9.4%, is a recent immigrant.

Within subsectors of manufacturing, such as clothing manufacturing, computer and electric products represents 39%, manufacturing plastics represents 33% and in rubber manufacturing, the share of employment held by immigrants is even more pronounced.

I am not inventing these numbers. I quote from the Canadian Labour and Business Centre, CLBC Handbook, “Immigration and Skills Shortages, 2004”, specifically page 13.

In the health and social services sector, immigrants account for 24% of net labour force growth.

Regardless of impressive qualifications, two major obstacles to the full participation of new Canadians in the labour market continue. First, many foreign credentials are not recognized nor valued by Canadian employers. Second, the governing boards of key trade and professional licensing boards have not been flexible in developing or ensuring there are the proper tools to access the equivalency of trained professionals within their respective disciplines from other countries.

Instead, what are these people doing? We have all heard these horror stories about doctors and engineers driving taxis in Saskatoon, for example. The accountants can probably be found sweeping the floors of big business. Instead they should be working in these businesses to the level of their own competencies. Where are some of the doctors? They are working in beauty salons as hairdressers and as estheticians. It seems as if I am exaggerating, but these are real cases that exist, and everybody knows about them.

It is ironic that while the credentials are part of the grid being used to allow access to Canada, that famous point system, these credentials also act as barriers to enter into the workforce. Therefore, what are the intentions of the government to balance the scales?

To the credit of the Ontario provincial Liberal government, under the Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act, passed December 2006, we see some improvement through internships, more focused language training, et cetera, all as a result of the Canada-Ontario Immigration Agreement signed in November 2005 by the previous Liberal federal government. We had reached a comprehensive immigration agreement with Ontario for the first time. The Liberals have also been responsible for signing an agreement, the very first of its kind, with my own province, Quebec.

With it, immigration agreements were firmly established between the federal government and each of the provinces. The planned investment of $920 million in Ontario over five years was designed to: increase the funding for services to help newcomers settle, integrate and receive language training; maximize the economic benefits of immigration and ensure that policies and programs respond to Ontario's social economic development and labour market priorities; develop the first ever Ontario provincial nominee program, which will allow Ontario to better match immigrants to its own labour market needs; and formalize the two levels of government, provincial and federal, to work together on immigration matters.

Where does the Conservative Government of Canada stand on this issue? I have heard from people in Saskatchewan, in British Columbia and in Alberta. These people who live in western Canada want to have more workers from other countries because they need the population. The Conservative government does not seem to be doing very much. Let us wait to see what the next budget will give us, but in its 2006 budget the Conservative government, in its attempt to reinvent the wheel, pledged $18 million to deal with the foreign credential dilemma, yet we have seen nothing so far. This was over a year ago. This is how poorly the new Conservative government works in serving immigrants to Canada and persons seeking Canadian citizenship.

What plans does the government have to systematically tap into the underutilization of our immigrant workforce? Instead of offering tax incentives to businesses to become more involved in training and retention of this workforce, the Conservative government continues to do short term fixes for short term gain but long term pain.

Businesses were astounded last November when the Conservative government went ahead and further expanded the foreign temporary worker's program. Even minimum wage jobs are included. According to reports at that time, and I quote the Winnipeg Free Press on November 15, 2006, the CEO of Winnipeg Airport Authority and other Canadian chamber board members, echoing each other, said that Canada “needs to build a plan that includes immigration and using under-utilized members of the workforce. We need to scour the country for people who will relocate”.

Again, I am asking the Conservative government what plans it has to systematically tap into the underutilization of our immigrant workforce. A recruitment strategy is needed for the entire country. The government has no real strategy to meet the needs of, for example, the Atlantic provinces or the west.

This is evident in the government's foreign temporary worker plan which I mentioned earlier. I checked the list. The Conservative government is offering a one year permit to businesses to bring in sales, marketing and advertising managers; retail trade managers; correspondence, publication and related clerks; loans officers; hairstylists and barbers. Surely, there are skilled and well-educated immigrants who are being ignored. Could they not be recruited?

What happens after the one year is up? Will these foreign temporary workers have to start the immigration process all over again? Businesses will no doubt have to start their recruiting process themselves. How much sense does that make? In the meantime, where are the training incentives for small and medium size businesses to train and retain people? We need a balanced approach to employment across this country and not one that would hurt one province and benefit another.

There is no end to the number of studies about the burden that will be put on the Canada pension plan by the small number of children of baby boomers who will not be able to contribute enough to ensure the longevity of the plan.

At the same time, the Conference Board of Canada study on the contribution of visible minorities released on April 4, 2004 noted that between 1992 to 2016, it is estimated that Canada's total real gross domestic product, the GDP, will increase to $794.7 billion in 1997 dollars. Visible minorities alone will account for $80.9 billion, or approximately 10% of that growth. If we attempt to extrapolate anything at all from these insights it is that new Canadians represent a consumer base worth at least $1 billion.

Several benefits will no doubt ensue that might have a positive impact within the local consumer markets, for example, housing. And yet, as I mentioned previously, the Conservative government has refused to listen to employers in the construction industry who say that the cost of housing has increased because of the ongoing shortages in this industry. Once again, what is the Conservative government doing about this?

If we pay attention at all to the 2001 census figures, they reveal that the number of household units developed between 1996 and 2001 grew by 7%. Further, almost one-third of the growth was due to an increase in households where the primary worker, that is, the person who pays most of the bills, is foreign born. In addition, over 40% of the households with immigrants who had arrived over the previous five years lived in a home owned by a family member. This shows that these people work hard and want to stay here.

We have known for a long time that Canada's baby boomers are now reaching retirement age, that our birth rate is below the replacement level at 1.2 children per family, and that young people cannot assume the costs of child care themselves and often choose not to have children at all.

This Conservative government thinks that $100 a month is enough to take care of a child. That is why it got rid of the plan devised by the Liberal government, which understood the principle of access to child care for minority linguistic communities outside Quebec, including francophone newcomers to various provinces. Is this any way to serve our citizens?

The Standing Committee on Official Languages recently heard witnesses from Yukon and Nunavut talking about the lack of services. They worry that the agreements signed under the action plan for official languages will not be renewed by this government after 2008. They are waiting for the government to offer explanations regarding the difficulties faced by the programs now in place and the measures that will be taken to ensure that services such as health are available to francophone minorities in these regions.

These linguistic minorities are not just minority communities; they continue to be, to a large extent, growing minorities in relation to the majority. These francophone minorities from across Canada want francophone immigrants to come to them. Francophones who immigrate to Canada will not go to these regions to help the minorities grow in numbers if services do not exist or are inadequate.

We have heard about the way in which the new government—as it continues to call itself despite the fact that it has been in power for more than a year—plans to serve people by remaining silent about the subject that counts most. Language is at the heart of our society. I represent a population that is mostly francophone, and in Quebec we know how not just important, but fundamental and essential an element it is. Without this language, our culture and our identity cannot be preserved. Language builds pride and self-confidence.

How does this Conservative government intend to preserve and integrate francophone minorities in this country? More specifically, how does this Conservative government plan to encourage the settlement of francophone newcomers in the provinces and territories if services in the minority language remain inaccessible, even to those who have moved from Quebec to other provinces? Is Canada really a bilingual country?

Although we are glad that the Conservatives used our action plan for official languages, which the Liberal government introduced in 2003, as the basis for a plan it unveiled in September 2006 to encourage francophone immigrants to settle in Manitoba, this government is continuing to do things in piecemeal fashion.

We are asking for a plan. I would like to believe that Canada has moved beyond the point where linguistic minorities were marginalized. We must not forget that the legislation in effect prohibited the use of French in the legal and legislative systems in the Northwest Territories in 1891 and prohibited French in Saskatchewan and Alberta when these provinces were created in 1905.

I would like to know why it is taking so long to put in place integrated services for minority language groups that want to move within Canada or come to Canada as immigrants.

I could talk all day about this issue—I know the members opposite may think so—and about how poorly this government is serving immigrants to Canada and people applying for Canadian citizenship, but I am almost out of time.

Before I conclude, I want to talk for a moment about a recent meeting of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration that I attended. The minister appeared before the committee. When a committee member asked her why $20 million had been cut from the budget to implement the Citizenship Act—the act my colleagues referred to—the minister answered that they had made choices. The Conservative government chose to focus on Bill C-14, which pertains to automatic citizenship for children adopted abroad by Canadian citizens.

This is a bill that we ourselves introduced.

I do not believe that the government has invested this $20 million in granting automatic citizenship to these children. The question is: whose interests are this government serving? In my opinion, this government is serving the interests of the majority and forgetting about immigrants and francophone minorities.

Canadian Human Rights Act

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I feel very privileged to have the opportunity to speak on the subject of Bill C-44. This is an important bill because it addresses an important aspect of first nations' organization and shared reality: their relationship to human rights and freedoms.

Any Quebecker who thinks about first nations cannot help but think about René Lévesque who, as we all know, was not only the founder of the sovereignty association movement, but was also a man with a very generous vision of our relationship with first nations.

When he was premier, René Lévesque introduced a motion in the National Assembly to recognize Quebec's 11 aboriginal nations as nations. The word “nation” implies recognition of a people's history, language, institutions, will to live, and territory. It implies that they deserve to be considered not just a society, a minority or a group, but a nation.

The term “nation” also implies self-determination. Self-determination is the right to decide one's own future, the right to decide one's own destiny, and the right to create one's own vision for progress.

We must support Bill C-44 in principle. This reminds me that a former Supreme Court justice, Justice La Forest, was given a mandate by Allan Rock or Anne McLellan. One of those former justice ministers chose him to oversee a working group on the modernization of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Justice La Forest came to two major conclusions. Like all New Brunswickers, he is very endearing.

Justice La Forest concluded that social condition should be added to the Canadian Human Rights Act as prohibited grounds for discrimination. As unbelievable as it sounds, social condition is not currently grounds for discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Eight provinces and territories have it. Quebec was the first to include it. Yet the federal government never updated the Canadian Human Rights Act by including social condition.

Since 1997, I have repeatedly tabled bills to ensure that this is done. Other members have done this as well. I know that in the other chamber, in the Senate, Senator Kinsella, who has become the Speaker of the Senate and is a professor specializing in human rights, has also tabled a bill to this effect.

Judge La Forest's second recommendation was to remove the exception made under section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act so that the act would apply. All Quebec and Canadian citizens, no matter what their origin or position in society, whether or not they are a members of a first nation, are subject to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

First, a distinction must be made. The Canadian Human Rights Act is not the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter is a constitutional document adopted in 1982. You will recall that this was a very unhappy time for Quebec because the charter was adopted without the agreement of the National Assembly.

At the time, under both René Lévesque and Claude Ryan, everyone was well aware that this was no the way to treat one of the founding peoples of Canada, that is, Quebec, which had significant experience in the protection of human rights; in 1977, it instituted the Quebec charter of human rights and freedoms, which continues to this day to guarantee judicial, social and economic rights. It is considered to be one of the most thorough documents on human rights. The Canadian Human Rights Act protects individuals who receive the services of the federal government or in areas where it has jurisdiction, such as banking, national transportation, financial institutions, the RCMP and the federal government itself.

Anyone who believes they are the victim of discrimination by a federal institution, agency or office can invoke the Canadian Human Rights Act, which has significant repercussions for intergovernmental affairs.

It is a pleasure for me to note how well my caucus is served in intergovernmental affairs because the member for Trois-Rivières is our critic and looks after this file with sensitivity and wisdom.

The Canadian Human Rights Act lists 11 prohibited grounds of discrimination. I am going to mention them for everyone's benefit. They are: race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion—regarding which the Supreme Court has handed down some landmark rulings—age, sex and sexual orientation. I was in this House when we amended the Canadian Human Rights Act. This was in response to court rulings and to representations from all the groups involved in the protection of major civil liberties. It was the then Minister of Justice, Allan Rock, who amended the Canadian Human Rights Act. Later on, he was appointed to the United Nations by the Liberals but, unfortunately, the Conservatives did not renew his mandate at the UN.

The Canadian Human Rights Act protects our fellow citizens who receive services from the federal government, or its agencies, against discrimination based on race, ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status—whether or not one is married; as we know, some very important rulings were made by the Supreme Court, including on custody and income—family status, disability and, what is more unusual, conviction for which a pardon has been granted.

When that act was passed, section 67 provided the following:

Nothing in this Act affects any provision of the Indian Act or any provision made under or pursuant to that Act.

When we passed the Canadian Human Rights Act, why did we want to exclude the first nations from its scope, and particularly people who live on reserves? This was meant to be a transitional provision, because we wanted to negotiate with the first nations to prepare them to develop conciliation methods, to prepare them for the fact that complaints might be made to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and, ultimately, a notice to appear before the Human Rights Tribunal might be issued.

Section 67 was meant to be a transitional, temporary provision, not a permanent one. The various governments that have been in office have all failed in their responsibility to negotiate with the first nations.

It is not the first time, as my colleague from Chambly just reminded me. He could give us countless examples, himself, with regard to employment insurance and the POWA, the Program for Older Worker Adjustment. Examples abound of governments that renege on their commitments.

The government did not negotiate to create any mechanisms suited to the first nations. We are talking here about areas such as culture, heritage, traditions and the justice system. How can we not think, for example, of what justice means to our aboriginal people?

As a matter of fact, the Law Reform Commission tabled an excellent report on the subject. The Conservatives have abolished that commission. Could we have ever thought that a government would be so mean-spirited as to abolish such an important consultative body? May I add that that body was chaired by the dean of the University of Ottawa law school, Nathalie Des Rosiers.

It was with astonishment that we realized that this government is not keen on doing intellectual work. It does not want to create situations where it would be confronted with its values and its vision, which is we know is a right-wing vision. That is the difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. I am not saying that the Liberals are above reproach, but since coming into office, the Conservatives have proven that not only the economic right is alive and well, but also the social right. We had not seen that from a government in a long time.

How can we not be outraged, for example, by the fact that the government is planning to cut $2 billion, not from tax shelters or subsidies to oil companies, but from literacy programs, from Status of Women Canada and from programs aimed at helping those in need?

Coming back to Bill C-44, what is really sad about this bill is not the principle. We recognize that aboriginal nations are different—as I pointed out—in terms of justice. On that, the Law Commission of Canada pointed out that restitution is possible, and not merely restitution in the form of fines and imprisonment. When an offence is committed in an aboriginal community, people sit down together and figure out how restitution can be achieved. Restitution could involve the offender putting himself or herself at the direct service of the victim. There are all sorts of innovative and more interesting ways to look at justice than our conventional sentencing mechanisms.

We can surely agree, in 2007, that the specificity of aboriginal peoples cannot preclude offering impervious guarantees concerning human rights. We can no longer tolerate the notion of two categories of citizens: those who are protected by the Canadian Human Rights Act and can invoke it when discrimination occurs, and those who are excluded.

The Bloc Québécois agrees that section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be removed from the act, as Justice La Forest recommended.

However, there is one thing we do not understand. Our critics who sit on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development know what this is; we do not understand why there was no prior consultation with aboriginal groups and the first nations.

It is true that the bill provides for a six month transition period as soon as section 67 is repealed. Nonetheless, that is not very much time considering the adjustments that will be necessary.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court, in Delgamuukw, in Mitchell and in so many other cases, reminded us that the federal government has a specific responsibility toward aboriginals: it is their trustee. When the charter was passed in 1982, section 35 recognized specific ancestral rights for the first nations stemming from the fact that they were the first inhabitants of this land. It is unacceptable that the federal government, in its capacity as trustee—as part of its fiduciary responsibilities—is not consulting the first nations.

Again, the Bloc Québécois does not have a problem with the principle of the matter. We agree that 30 years after the Canadian Human Rights Act was passed, it is conceivable, normal and desirable for the first nations to enjoy the same protection, same rights and the same constitutional guarantees. When discrimination occurs, they have to be able to lodge a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and ultimately call for a human rights tribunal, if necessary.

This is the federal government's responsibility as a trustee. Moreover, if the member for Abitibi were with us today, he would remind us of that fact. Our colleague who sits on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development would do the same. If the federal government has one fiduciary responsibility, it is that it must never take action without first consulting extensively.

This is what is so sad about the current situation. No one in the first nations was consulted, be it their authorized spokesperson, Phil Fontaine, Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, the women's groups or young people. We believe that this is not the way to do things.

Failing to consult these groups is a black mark on the federal government in its relations with the first nations. Obviously, it is not the only one. We know that this government has a very poor record when it comes to the first nations, especially on the issue of housing.

We know that the first nations are a young people. Demographically and statistically, they are undergoing great changes. They are a people with an extremely high birth rate. Young people make up a large segment of the aboriginal population. This reality raises the whole issue of equitable access to housing.

The government has a fiduciary responsibility to the first nations. Sadly, it is doing a very poor job of living up to its responsibilities and has not put sufficient resources for housing on the table.

Since I see that my time is almost up, I will conclude by saying that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C-44. It was in favour when Justice La Forest issued his recommendations in 2002. We believe that human rights and freedoms should apply equally to first nations people living on reserves and people living throughout Canada and Quebec. Nevertheless, it saddens us that the first nations were not consulted. We hope the government will learn its lesson and will not introduce other legislation without holding consultations.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Today we are examining Bill C-30, which deals with targets. Over the next few weeks, the government will probably be announcing, as part of its fight against climate change, targets for the industrial sectors which it feels to be quite audacious. However, in its notice of intent on October 16, 2006, the government was clear that its targets would be intensity-based. Consequently, greenhouse gas emission reduction indicators must take production into account. However, the Kyoto Protocol does not give any consideration for intensity-based targets, but rather the absolute value of the reductions.

My question is for Mr. Martin in particular. Have you done any projections regarding the gap that will be created between the intensity-based targets and those based on the absolute value as provided for in the Kyoto Protocol? To what extent will the method that the government is proposing to use push us further away from the Kyoto objectives?

Opposition Motion—Kyoto Protocol

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on the Bloc Québécois motion on air quality, the environment and the Kyoto protocol. I have listened to our Liberal colleague speaking of the green plan and so on. I believe he has neglected to say that their environmental plan has been a failure, and I will give him an example. Moreover, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development has pointed out that, even if the reduction measures set out in the Liberal government's 2005 plan had been fully implemented, it is hard to say whether the planned reductions would have been sufficient to allow us to fulfil our obligations. This was in the report tabled by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development on September 28, 2006.

The Liberals are busy patting themselves on the back and saying that they would have solved the environmental and air quality problems if they had been in power. This raises some questions, particularly since the environment minister at that time is now the leader of the Liberal Party. Now he thinks donning a green scarf is going to change Canada's environment.

I do not want to dwell on the Liberal position for too long. I do not believe they managed during their 13 years in power to demonstrate that they considered the environment important, considering that greenhouse gas emissions increased by 30% over that period. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development has even stated that the measures for 2005 could not achieve the Kyoto protocol objectives.

Regrettably, when we look at the new government—as it still wants to be called—one which was at one point totally opposed to the Kyoto protocol, we see it has been forced to set aside the Minister of the Environment in favour of another.

My congratulations to Canadians, to all those who have realized that the environment has become a priority for our country. A person cannot open a newspaper or listen to a news broadcast these days without realizing that the environment is becoming one of our priorities.

It is not a normal situation in our communities all over the country for little children to have asthma, and for children, adults and seniors to be sick because of environmental pollutants. It is our fundamental responsibility, as citizens and as human beings, to preserve our planet for our children, for future generations. How can we not make the environment a priority?

I can see that the Bloc Québécois wants to be the champion of the environment in Quebec, as if it had all the answers. As I recall, just before the election, the Sierra Club and Greenpeace said we were number one in terms of the environment. They did mention the Bloc Québécois, but never said this was the doing of the Bloc alone.

I should remind the House and the people of Canada and Quebec that we all have to work together, because environmental pollution is something that does not affect only Quebec. It is happening worldwide. We must therefore work together and collectively to prevent pollution. As a member of this House, I was very disappointed when the Bloc Québécois voted against a motion put before the House by the NDP to ban the use of pesticides on people's lawns.

I was very disappointed with the position taken by the Bloc Québécois, saying that this was a provincial jurisdiction. I find it hard to believe that pollutants fall under provincial jurisdiction.

Quebec had good legislation respecting pesticides. We even commended it for that. But in this House, in this Parliament, here in Ottawa, by voting against our motion to ban pesticides, Bloc members have prevented the rest of Canada from enjoying similar legislation. It struck me as unfortunate, especially since they paint themselves as saviours of the environment and of Kyoto. They opposed a motion going to the heart of the issue of health in the regions, as it dealt with the banning of pesticides on grassy areas in municipalities and towns. How could they oppose that?

It is almost as if they can think of only one thing: Quebec, and only Quebec. That is unfortunate. The motion before us is a case in point: it talks only about Quebec. An amendment might be put forward later. This time, one would hope that they will not vote the same way they did on pesticides. Hopefully, they will say that they are prepared to work together with the rest of Canada and agree with this benefiting all the provinces.

Let us talk about some of the amendments proposed by the NDP to Canada’s Clean Air Act. Canadians want us to act immediately to reduce pollution so their families can breathe cleaner air and Canada can do its part in the international effort to combat climate change at a world-wide level.

Re-writing the ineffective and inadequate Bill C-30, an Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Energy Efficiency Act and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act (Canada’s Clean Air Act) within a special legislative committee offers an important opportunity for Canada to get back on the road to reducing pollution and to combating climate change.

Once again, the NDP proposed the creation of a special legislative committee on the environment, on air quality, to study the Conservative bill so that we could deal with the problem immediately through this bill. A special committee would not have to follow the same procedures. So, in that sense, we could go faster. The NDP proposed that we could present amendments to the bill within 30 days.

Earlier, I listened to the Liberals telling us that Bill C-30 would do nothing to improve air quality in Canada. Unless I am completely mistaken, the opposition now forms a majority in the House of Commons and also on a special legislative committee. As a result, the opposition could present amendments to improve the bill so that it goes in the right direction.

We wanted to do that within 30 days to ensure that we had a bill before the budget is tabled in the House of Commons, because there could be a vote of non-confidence in the government after the budget is tabled. We wanted to be sure that the bill is through the House of Commons and sent to the Senate.

However, the other political parties, the Conservatives, the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois decided to delay review of the bill until March 31, or after the budget. This position of the other parties is regrettable. The Conservative party wanted to hear 40 witnesses in committee, and the Liberals wanted more than 40 witnesses. I do not know how many witnesses the Bloc Québécois also wanted to call.

If we do not already know what we need to improve the bill, if in 30 days we could not review the bill and agree on what needs to be done, instead of playing politics, then we are missing the boat. That is my sincere belief.

With a new bill, Parliament can ensure significant and immediate action enabling Canadians to see improvements in the air they breathe throughout their lives, in addition to protecting the planet for their children and their grandchildren.

The NDP is proposing a series of detailed changes to Bill C-30, which again commits Canada to respecting its short-term commitments under the Kyoto protocol and ensures the development of an exhaustive plan for it to meet internationally recognized scientific objectives in the medium and long term.

The NDP will continue to seek comments and other amendments from environmental experts and Canadians both during the period leading up to the work by the special committee and while it is working.

The amendments proposed by the NDP are to impose, by legislative rather than regulatory means, short-, medium- and long-term targets for absolute reductions of greenhouse gases by requiring that Canada: meet the 2008-2012 target under the Kyoto protocol; ensure an 80% reduction, based on scientific research, of 1990 levels by 2050; achieve the interim five-year targets between 2015 and 2050; and impose, by means of legislation rather than declaration of intent, an earlier-than-expected timetable for regulation of the industrial sector. Such regulations should be put in place by 2008.

The NDP also asks that Canada: impose, through legislation rather than regulation, a fixed cap for greenhouse gas emissions from the industrial sector of at least 45 megatonnes a year; require, by legislation, the establishment of mandatory standards for air contaminants in the year following the adoption of this new law, in addition to a plan for complying with these standards, including mandatory emission standards for large industrial facilities; require, by legislation, an energy efficiency standard for vehicle fuel that comes close to that of leading North American jurisdictions, which will be published by 2008 and which will be in place for production year 2011, so that vehicle manufacturers have sufficient notice concerning the expiry of the voluntary agreement. This would be accompanied by a new authority for the government to establish a fair transition fund for the automobile sector.

The NDP also asks that, by legislation, the government set a carbon cap and establish a carbon-trading system in Canada and that it eliminate key tax incentives for the gas and oil sector, particularly the accelerated depreciation deduction given for tar sands development.

I think this is a very unfortunate situation for Canadians. A few weeks ago, I listened to a program in French on Radio-Canada about the research done in Alberta. Rivers there are polluted and this has posed a threat to an aboriginal community. It seems that the government is prepared to agree to increase oil production in western Canada by five times more than current production. We are told that production today, with current technology, causes an incredible amount of pollution.

We must therefore ask ourselves the following questions. Is the Conservative government serious? Is the Prime Minister of Canada, who is from Alberta, really serious? Will he do what is best for the environment? Will he take the requests of Canadians to heart and respond to them sincerely, with concrete action?

Here is an example of concrete action: in north-eastern New Brunswick, along the Baie-des-Chaleurs, and in the Gaspé near Matane, windmills have been built to generate electricity. That is one way of combating pollution. The area I come from is ideal for that.

People always say that politicians make promises that they never keep. I can promise that there will be plenty of wind for the rest of our days and for future generations. There will always be wind. That is a promise we can keep and windmills need wind.

What sort of investments has the government made so far to fight pollution and to help the environment? Whether we like it or not, we need light, electricity and resources. However, we could be doing more. What is the government doing to encourage so-called green cars, which do not pollute? What is it doing about that? We hear nothing about it and even if they do talk, the talk is not followed by action.

In my area, for example, there is a coal-fired power plant in Belledune. Why would the federal government not invest for the longer term in natural gas in northern New Brunswick? The cuts it made in EI benefits paid in that area amount to $85 million a year. It could invest that in the environment. These are concrete measures that would do good, create good jobs and be better for the environment than coal use.

Since the Bloc Québécois introduced the motion I would like to ask its permission to propose an amendment to promote cooperation in the interest of all Canadians.

I propose, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, the following amendment:

That the motion be amended by adding the word “minimum” before the word “sum”, and by adding immediately after the words “Kyoto Protocol targets”: “, and that, after negotiations, the Government of Canada should provide appropriate funds to all other Canadian provinces and territories to make the transition towards Kyoto”.

I would like to ask for the support of the Bloc to introduce that amendment.

Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

On February 2, 2007, prior to debate on report stage of Bill C-288, An Act to ensure that Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, a point of order was raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader and Minister for Democratic Reform .

He said that amendments to this bill reported by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on December 8, 2006 required a royal recommendation. Interventions were also made by the hon. members for Don Valley West, Wascana, Honoré-Mercier, Cambridge and Mississauga South.

The Chair thanks all the hon. members for having addressed this matter.

In his submission, the parliamentary secretary referred to my ruling of September 27, 2006 where I concluded that Bill C-288, as it was introduced in the House, did not require a royal recommendation. He did not dispute this decision, but argued that two amendments adopted by the standing committee created a new and distinct purpose which involved new spending, and that comments by the sponsor of the bill in a CBC interview confirmed the fact that significant new spending would result from the adoption of the bill.

The Chair has examined the two amendments reported by the committee. The first one modifies clause 5 of the bill. That clause requires the minister to prepare a climate change plan and lists measures to be taken to ensure that Canada meets its Kyoto obligations. The amendment adopted by the committee adds a provision to the list of measures regarding transitions for affected workers. It results in an additional element that the minister must address in the climate change plan.

As I mentioned in my September 27, 2006 ruling, the measures which this bill obliges the minister to bring forward may or may not entail spending. The Chair cannot speculate on what those measures may be, for they are not contained in this bill. Therefore, the amendment does not require a royal recommendation because it does not contain any authorization for spending; it merely directs the minister as to what should be addressed in the plan.

The second amendment modifies clause 10. That clause deals with the review of the Minister’s Climate Change Plan. The amendment gives the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy the responsibility of analyzing the plan and advising the minister. The Parliamentary Secretary argues that this is a new and distinct purpose for the National Round Table which will involve new spending.

In examining the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act, the Chair notes that section 4 establishes its mandate as follows:

… to play the role of catalyst in identifying, explaining and promoting, in all sectors of Canadian society and in all regions of Canada, principles and practices of sustainable development by

(a) undertaking research and gathering information and analysis on critical issues of sustainable development;

(b) advising governments on ways of integrating environmental and economic considerations into their decision-making processes and on global issues of sustainable development….

In determining whether a royal recommendation is needed for a new and distinct purpose, the Chair considers whether some entirely new activity or function is being proposed which radically diverges from the activities already authorized in existing legislation.

In the present case, section 4 of the act calls on the national round table to perform activities relating to an analysis of sustainable development issues and to advising the minister on environmental and economic considerations.

The terms of the amendment to Bill C-288 appear to me to fall precisely within its ongoing mandate: that is, to analyze the climate change plan and to advise the minister. Now it might be argued that this would increase the workload of the national round table, but even if this were so, an increase to its budget would be sought through existing appropriation arrangements.

In summary, then, on the arguments related to the text of the bill, as amended, I must conclude that the amendments to Bill C-288, adopted in the standing committee, do not constitute new spending for a new and distinct purpose, and the bill, as amended, does not require a royal recommendation.

Let me now deal with various ancillary points raised during interventions on Bill C-288.

The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the transcript of a CBC interview where the member for Honoré-Mercier alleged to have confirmed the fact that Bill C-288 would result in significant public expenditures. The hon. member for Honoré-Mercier disputes this interpretation.

The Chair is of the view that this is a matter of debate and not germane to the point of order itself.

Another matter was raised by the hon. member for Mississauga South. He asked how the House is formally informed that a bill, amended and reported from committee, requires a royal recommendation. The Chair would strongly encourage any member who has doubts in this regard to raise a point of order shortly after a committee has reported amendments to the House. In this manner, the Chair would be able to return with a decision in time for the appropriate action to be taken at report stage.

Once again, I thank the House for its assistance on these matters and its patience in permitting me to deal with this particular complex question.

Motions in amendment

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to discuss Bill C-31 at the report stage.

Before stating our position on the motions in amendment, I would like to provide an overview of Bill C-31 and the work that has been done.

The purpose of this bill is to improve the integrity of the electoral process by reducing the opportunity for fraud or error. As a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I participated in the work leading up to the introduction of this bill in the House of Commons, so I can say that a lot of work went into it.

The committee includes representatives of each political party, all of whom cooperated effectively, thus enabling us to achieve our goal of improving the electoral process and strengthening the public's faith in it.

This bill will reduce the opportunity for fraud or error and will improve the accuracy of the list of electors. It will also make it easier for people to exercise their right to vote and will improve communication among election officials, candidates, political parties and voters.

I would suggest that the Conservative government approach other files with the same attitude and the same level of respect for other parties' ideas. The Conservatives' ideological agenda did not dominate our work, which probably explains why we were able to cooperate so well.

I would like to discuss in detail some of the provisions designed to reduce the opportunity for electoral fraud and error.

Electors must now present government-issued photo identification showing their name and address. In Quebec, a driver's licence is an excellent example of acceptable identification.

An elector who cannot produce such identification must present two pieces of identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer showing both name and address.

Potential electors who cannot produce two acceptable pieces of identification may swear under oath that they are who they say they are. They must also be vouched for by another qualified elector.

The bill also provides that in case of reasonable doubt concerning whether a person qualifies as an elector—for example, if the person's age or citizenship are in doubt—that person must sign an affidavit. Only citizens over age 18 qualify to vote; currently, no proof of age is required, not even if there is reasonable doubt that the person qualifies.

We think that such a simple and clearly defined procedure will improve the electoral process by preventing more fraud.

The elector's date of birth will be added to the list of electors. This will help better identify the person wishing to exercise their right to vote.

In Quebec, the lists of electors include date of birth. This system works and fosters the objectives we want to achieve with this bill.

The bill also limits vouching so that an elector may vouch for only one person. This measure will help prevent a practice referred to as “serial vouching”, which could result in fraud.

What is serial vouching? Serial vouching is when an individual who was not originally registered to vote is vouched for by someone—whose name is on the list of electors—in order to be added to the voters’ list, and then vouches for someone else who was not registered, and so on.

The bill also contains another change that the Bloc Québécois has been calling for for a very long time and that is assigning a unique identification number to every elector. This unique identifier will be included on the list of electors and will improve the quality of the lists by ensuring that duplications are eliminated.

It is important to point out that this unique identifier will be randomly generated and assigned by the Chief Electoral Officer.

Bill C-31 also proposes measures to facilitate the right to vote. The time limit within which an elector with physical limitations can request a transfer certificate to vote at a polling station with level access has been removed. There will no longer be a deadline for disabled electors to apply for a transfer. I want to emphasize that this amendment does not give licence to avoid making polling stations accessible.

Bill C-31 permits an advance polling station to serve a single polling division rather than two or more polling divisions, in order to improve accessibility to advance polling stations for voters, particularly in remote regions.

It can be difficult for voters in these regions to get to advance polling stations. Year after year, a growing number of people choose to go to an advance poll to exercise their right to vote. It is therefore necessary to enhance accessibility.

The bill also seeks to improve communications between election officials, candidates, political parties and voters. It gives candidates a right of access to common areas of public places for election campaign purposes.

It is important to be able to meet people where they are. An election campaign is a unique opportunity to call attention to ideas and to talk about our record as members of Parliament. We must promote this, while also respecting the public.

Bill C-31 also improves access for parties and candidates to up-to-date lists of electors, which they can use to communicate with voters and encourage them to vote. In order to do so, it is important that they have access to accurate and up-to-date lists.

Various motions were presented to amend this bill. The Bloc Québécois reviewed all them and has taken a stand.

The Bloc Québécois opposes Motion No. 1, because it would imply not indicating the date of birth on voters lists, thus reducing the chances of properly identifying a potential voter.

The Bloc Québécois is also opposed to Motion No. 2, because it increases the risks of electoral fraud by opposing the simple and clearly established procedure of identifying potential voters by requiring appropriate pieces of identification and having them take an oath.

In conclusion, I want to mention the successful cooperation that led to this bill. I hope the Conservative government will follow this example in the future.

The Bloc Québécois supports this legislation. However, we oppose the motions presented at report stage.

My Bloc Québécois colleagues and I are proud to have proposed some elements of the Quebec electoral system to help the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in its work. The Quebec electoral system has proven its effectiveness. The elements found in Bill C-31 that are patterned on the Quebec model will help improve the federal electoral system.

The objective of this bill is to improve the integrity of the electoral process. I believe that, in this sense, the bill is a step in the right direction.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll try asking the question through you to Mr. Rodriguez again.

We are on clause 5. The title of clause 5 is “Climate Change Plan”, and there are a number of parts to clause 5. They have laid out their plan, and my question is again about this plan. What is the intent?

Now, we heard very clearly from him and the people...Mr. Ignatieff was quoted, who he was supporting. He very clearly said that they support a carbon tax, higher taxes for Canadians. It's a very clear, direct question. Is part of his climate change plan, part of Bill C-288, to increase the taxes of Canadians?

, he didn't answer that question, Mr. Chair. Mr. Godfrey answered for him and, in a vague way, shared with this committee.... It sounded as though, yes, it is part of their plan. He's trying to justify increased taxes for Canadians for a carbon tax or an environmental tax or whatever they want to call it. And I just want to make it very clear to Canadians that this is part of the Bill C-288 plan: to increase taxes substantially for Canadians.

Now, would he be willing to do a yes or no, or is he going to ask Mr. Godfrey to answer for him again?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I believe Mr. Rodriguez is attempting to answer the question.

Again, I ask members, let's try to get back to what we're talking about here, and that's Bill C-288.

Mr. Rodriguez, perhaps you could finish your thought, and then we'll go to Mr. Warawa.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

The very interesting amendment that we passed here....These are fair and legitimate questions we've been putting to the members on the other side, because we want to find out what the intent is. Words are one thing, but what's the spirit of it, I guess, behind that? On the previous amendment, there was something about emissions that way.

Mr. Rodriguez, a question that I'm very curious about is this, and you may choose not to respond. But certainly people have said in recent days, individuals--Liberal candidate Mr. Ignatieff--have said that there's a trade-off between jobs and the environment. So I guess, Mr. Rodriguez, in view of your bill, Bill C-288, do you agree that there will be a trade-off between jobs and the environment and that's why we have this particular amendment in the bill?