Bill C-1 (Historical)

An Act respecting the Administration of Oaths of Office

[Mario Dion]

It may well be another example of something that needs to be harmonized between the code and the act. They were developed at different times by different people, in 2004 and 2006. One was developed by the House and its committee, and the other one was developed by the government as part of Bill C-1, I believe, back in 2006.

That's why there are differences like that. I don't fully understand yet the foundation for those differences, because I haven't had time to really study it.

Canada Elections Act

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that protecting the public interest means making sure that people who show up to vote are who they say they are.

Making just the year of birth available on the voters list—not the complete date of birth—gives political parties an additional tool to ensure that the people voting are the right ones and to minimize electoral fraud. To do otherwise would be irresponsible.

If this measure were to increase voter turnout as well, I would have no problem with that. We cannot hide out and be hypocritical, thinking that we are here by the grace of the Holy Spirit and thanks to a few prayers. Our political parties worked hard to convince people in our ridings that we were the best candidates to represent them. However, we also need tools to ensure that the people voting are the right people. I see no contradiction in what the member said.

I would like to introduce another element. The system that enables candidates to keep track of who has voted on election day, known as “bingo cards”, is not necessarily linked to the personal identifier number. The Chief Electoral Officer himself has said that it would take at least 10 months, or maybe eight, I do not remember exactly. That is why the Senate replaced the words “two months” in the original version of Bill C-31 with “10 months”. I am told that it is indeed 10 months.

We think that this is about two different things. Clearly, once we have personal identifier numbers, it will probably be easier to implement this system to provide current information on who has voted. However, it would be easy to use current voters lists to implement this system, which has already been used in Quebec for several elections, and which increases voter turnout, which is much higher in Quebec provincial elections than it is in federal elections.

Having the highest possible voter turnout is also in Canadians' best interest. Political parties have a responsibility in this respect, so they must be given the necessary tools. I see no conflict between this measure and the interest of the people—quite the contrary.

Quarantine Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Quarantine Act. This is an opportunity for us to look at a bit of history at the same time, since the Quarantine Act is probably one of the oldest pieces of public health legislation in North America. We are very aware of this in Quebec. In 2008, we will be celebrating the 400th anniversary of Quebec City. Today, we have a sign: our health critic is in fact the member for Quebec City, and I want to recognize her. Her work on the Standing Committee on Health is outstanding.

This is an opportunity to see the work that we can do in this House: today we are dealing with the text of a law that was first enacted in 1872—and it is important that we remember this.

Public health, like health, has changed considerably over the years. I will offer a little history here. You know that health is a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. Over the decades, the federal government has encroached on this jurisdiction, as a matter of political choice. Remember that the universal health care system we have today was set up during the 1960s, at the initiative of a premier of Saskatchewan. This produced the health care system we have today, with all its ups and downs. In the 1960s, even though health was still within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, the costs were split. So when the universal health care system we have today was created, the federal government was supposed to foot 50% of the bill. That was the agreement in the beginning.

You understand that because this is a privilege of the provinces, or a matter under their exclusive jurisdiction, the federal government made its contribution by way of transfer payments. That has indeed changed over the years, as successive federal governments, particularly Conservative governments during the 1990s, built up deficits. The Liberals in Pierre Elliott Trudeau's time, however, had also done their bit to increase the deficit.

Consequently, in the beginning, the federal government paid 50% of the bill for our universal health care system, which is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. This federal-provincial agreement, with the transfer payments, had been properly negotiated. In 1993, in the middle of the big Liberal budget cuts, the federal government's share of health care, through transfer payments, was 13%.

So we have a system, one that was created during the 1960s. In Quebec, it was the time of the Quiet Revolution. It was when the Quebec that we know today emerged. We got on board with the universal health care system, based on one premise: that the federal government, under the agreements signed, would pay for 50% of it. We thought that it was always going to pay 50% of the bill, but as I explained, since this was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, the federal government used that to withdraw gradually from paying the bill, as its deficits rose. Little by little, we arrived at an agreement whereby in 2010 the federal government should be paying the percentage it was paying in the 1990s. That is the hard reality.

The latest agreement negotiated between the provinces and the federal government aims to re-establish or rebalance its percentage of the bill to what it was paying in 1990. This is one reason why Canadian federalism does not always work—at least in Quebec. Quebeckers learned very quickly that, any time we are dealing with Ottawa, Quebeckers are always the big losers. That is what happened with our health care.

Today we are debating Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Quarantine Act. From a health perspective, it is probably the only file that is truly a federal jurisdiction. A few years ago, we suffered a SARS outbreak, that is, severe acute respiratory syndrome. This disease from outside the country made the entire community, both the provincial and federal health networks, aware of the need to intervene.

In 2005, we therefore decided to make an important amendment to the Quarantine Act, in order to adapt it to the risk of epidemics from outside our borders or epidemics that we might export.

This still surprises me. Many decisions are made in this House and many discussions take place, but all the while, certain realities elude us and manage to slip through all the policies adopted here in Parliament or elsewhere.

At the WTO, discussions are currently underway concerning the agriculture file, which is not yet resolved. In this vast, global free trade system, the agriculture file is one of the most recent issues that the WTO is resolving.

The longer we wait, the more we will see that, theoretically, the only way a person can protect their health is by producing themselves what they eat.

I listened to my colleagues talk earlier about chemicals. The best way a person can protect their health is by one day successfully producing at home everything they put on their table. That is how it will be.

I am always shocked when I see the Liberals and the Conservatives trying to set aside the supply management system put in place by farmers in Quebec and the rest of Canada for dairy products, poultry and eggs. This system balances supply and demand within the provinces and Canada. Yet the Liberals and the Conservatives are tempted to set aside this system, which allows us to meet our own needs for products as important as milk, eggs and butter. These are things we eat every day. They are tempted to set aside this system, because some countries would like to sell us their milk and other products over which we have no control. We have no control over what other countries produce.

Today, we are talking about a bill on quarantine, epidemics and freight movement.

At the same time, we are letting our WTO negotiators set aside supply management, which would allow us to provide for our own needs and produce milk, butter, eggs and chicken, things we eat regularly. We need to be able to self-regulate in this area. Yet the system will probably be set aside one day. The Liberals were prepared to set it aside, and the Conservatives are tempted to do so in order to negotiate with other countries that want to sell us their products. One day, we will no longer be able to produce what we need, and we will have to buy consumer products from other countries, products over which we have no control. We do not know how animals are fed or what is used in producing these products.

This concerns me a great deal. Today, we are discussing a bill on quarantine, a public health bill. As I said earlier, it has been in existence since 1872.

Things were simpler back then. I realize that we must make sweeping changes today because, at the time, people and goods travelled by ship. When there was a quarantine, the ship would raise the quarantine flag. A law had to be adopted to deal with the people and goods on the quarantined ship. Thus, a bill was passed in 1872.

Today, over one hundred years later, we must revise the Quarantine Act. Section 34 establishes what kind of transportation will be covered by this Quarantine Act. It has taken us several years and that is understandable.

Today, this section applies to the operator of any of the following conveyances: a watercraft or aircraft that is used in the business of carrying persons or cargo. We have broadened the scope of the legislation to more than just ships. This had to be done.

In a few centuries from now, we will not be able to accuse the Conservatives of having looked too far into the future. Usually, they look in the rear-view mirror to see what lies ahead. We are recognizing new technologies for transporting goods. That is perfect.

That is why the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-42, which has the merit of involving operators and, as I was saying, “applies to the operator of any of the following conveyances: a watercraft or aircraft that is used in the business of carrying...or cargo”. This makes these carriers and operators take responsibility for their obligation to declare possible quarantines, illnesses or all manner of viruses that may be contained in their cargo, if they are carrying merchandise, or among the human beings travelling on board. This allows us to make adjustments.

However, as I was saying, it also requires us to take a look at our collective conscience. It is all well and good to pass quarantine bills. SARS showed us that despite all the good intentions of our health care systems, we are not sheltered from an epidemic or all sorts of unpredictable diseases. These are things that can happen. The severe acute respiratory syndrome or SARS epidemic that happened in 2003, was a sad event that showed us the flaws in our health care system. In my opinion, it was time for Canada to adopt a public health policy together with the provinces. I believe that the Standing Committee on Health did good work in implementing a public health coordination service that is able to intervene and help provinces deal with situations like the one Ontario experienced in 2003. This is good for public health and a good investment for our collective environment.

In the meantime, we never wonder what causes these epidemics. There were others that just fizzled out. Avian flu does not affect people, just animals, and we do not know whether it will affect humans one day or not. The same is true for mad cow disease. It affects animals, but we do not know whether it will affect humans one day. We have to be careful what we import and put on our tables. The main thing we have to take from all of this is that we can now be prepared.

In truth, we are reacting after the fact. SARS struck Ontario in 2003, and that is the reason why we have adopted this bill to amend the Quarantine Act. That is the reality. One day we must try to prevent rather than always trying to cure after the fact. To achieve that, we must ensure that we produce what we put on the tables in this country. That is the hard reality. It is a fine thing to do business with all the other countries of the world, to exchange goods and services, but when it comes to food, to what we produce to put on our tables, one day, our representatives at the WTO must stand up and say that is not negotiable.

Indeed, we cannot allow other countries to send us products, if we cannot be assured of the quality of those products. Genetically modified organisms, GMOs, are already being widely discussed around the world. We must be able to regulate what comes to our tables. Until we can do that, we must ensure that every country is capable of producing what goes onto the tables of its citizens, so that if ever there is an epidemic, a virus or something that stems from the food or the animals that we consume, we will be able to control all of that through our own regulation system.

We are not there yet and I find that disappointing. I say that very politely to everyone. I am disappointed in the way the Liberals defended supply management while they were in power, and the Conservatives are doing the same thing: trying to cast aside supply management. That means if dairy products, eggs, poultry and chicken are removed, there will be no more controls and those products will be imported from abroad. Some day we will be inundated with foreign products because those countries, owing to their population, will be into mass production. At that point, we will no longer be competitive.

One day, we will poison our population. That is what will happen. We will make our own people sick. The new way of doing things will bring viruses. If we do not adopt legislation similar to the bill we are discussing today, then some day we will have to adopt other bills to try to counter those plagues.

It would be easy to ensure consistency in everything we do by adopting bills like the one before us today to modernize the Quarantine Act.

We also have to take a stand with the WTO and say that agriculture—the food we put on Canadians' tables—is not negotiable. We must maintain complete control over the quality of the products we eat. That is the way it is.

We are talking about this for all kinds of reasons, one of which is that in order to make a profit, companies are going too far and genetically modifying products. They want things to grow faster, and they put all kinds of things in there to make them stronger and healthier, but in reality, they are making them less healthful by chemically treating them. That is a fact.

The Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-42 to implement section 34 as amended. I will read section 34 of the Quarantine Act, which will come into force when this bill is passed. I will then read the amendments. Section 34 reads as follows:

34(1) Before arriving in Canada, the operator of a conveyance used in a business of carrying persons or cargo, or of any prescribed conveyance, shall report to the authority designated under paragraph 63(b) situated at the nearest entry point any reasonable grounds to suspect that (a) any person, cargo or other thing on board the conveyance could cause the spreading of a communicable disease listed in the schedule; (b) a person on board the conveyance has died; or (c) any prescribed circumstances exist.

(2) Before departing from Canada throug h a departure point, the operator shall report to the authority designated under paragraph 63(b) situated at the departure point any circumstance referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c) that exists.

(3) If it is not possible for the operator to report before their arrival in or departure from Canada, the report shall be made at the entry or departure point, as the case may be.

(4) The authority shall notify a quarantine officer or an environmental health officer without delay of any report received under this section.

These are the operator's responsibilities, which are to be carried out upon entering or leaving the country.

The amendment introduced today in Bill C-42 completes section 34, which I read earlier.

34 (1) This section applies to the operator of any of the following conveyances:

(a) a watercraft or aircraft that is used in the business of carrying persons or cargo;

...

(2) As soon as possible before a conveyance arrives at its destination in Canada, the operator shall inform a quarantine officer or cause a quarantine officer to be informed of any reasonable grounds to suspect that

(a) any person, cargo or other thing on board the conveyance could cause the spreading of a communicable disease listed in the schedule;

(b) a person on board the conveyance has died;

(c) any prescribed circumstances exist.

...

The original section talked about the operator of a conveyance without specifying the type of conveyance. Now it mentions transportation by watercraft or aircraft. Furthermore, the original section talked about reporting at the entry point and now reporting is done beforehand, as soon as possible, so that quarantine officers are informed before arrival. The situation does not need to be reported upon arrival at the border, it needs to be reported beforehand, as soon as possible.

I want to acknowledge the work of my colleagues in the Standing Committee on Health, the hon. member for Québec, among others, and to say that it is good that we are updating legislation from 1872 to deal with reality.

These are diseases that can be transmitted by virus, epidemic or otherwise. However, it is also important to realize that this bill is a reaction to the SARS epidemic in Ontario in 2003.

I hope the WTO will make good decisions to ensure that our agriculture will be protected, so that the food we put on our tables will protect our constituents and that we will not have to pass another bill one day because we should have realized that what we put on our tables should be produced here, according to our standards, to ensure that food safety and public health are protected.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on Bill C-42. There was consensus on this bill in our committee. We worked in the best interests of the safety, and especially the health, of people who might be endangered by the transmission of contagious diseases. We need only think of the case that happened recently. A person in the United States had contracted tuberculosis and was at a stage when the disease could have been transmissible and been very contagious.

And so Bill C-42, which amends the Quarantine Act, is a bill that was intended to modernize a piece of legislation that in fact dated from 1872, although some amendments had been made to it in 2005. So the act was amended in 2005. It was modernized in the context of SARS after it hit Toronto, in Ontario. We know that in 2003 we were somewhat concerned about the transmission of SARS.

SARS led to a study, the Naylor report. That report recommended that certain parts of the act be revised to bring it in sync with a society that had changed, particularly in terms of transportation and the movement of goods and people. The act was not suited to meeting these new needs.

We know that the SARS period in Toronto was quite a hard time. Often when there are contagious diseases or an epidemic it can affect the economy of a country or a province. SARS affected the entire community of Toronto and Ontario because of the possibility the disease would spread. People were worried, but the worry was perhaps not grounded in fact. Was the problem exaggerated?

The Naylor report does a thorough review of that situation. The lesson we can take from it, looking in from the outside, is that we were perhaps not prepared to deal with this kind of challenge, to provide good information, and, especially, to make people feel safe. As to the possibility of contagion, SARS may have been a type of virus that it is more difficult to transmit casually, simply by contact with another person. All the same, we have to move forward, and that is why it was thought wise to revise the Quarantine Act in 2005.

Today, once again, we have to do some more work on it. Some of the previous speakers talked about section 34 which sets out the circumstances in which certain actions should be taken. We might think of people who travel frequently by airplane or boat and how we might be more aware of the fact that an individual or goods could be carrying viruses or diseases that could be contracted by people.

Now Bill C-42 seems to be a small bill, judging by the number of pages. It has very few pages, but at the same time the impact of this bill, if it is applied properly, if there are good regulations, could make all the difference, so that situations like SARS or the case of a disease as terrible as tuberculosis, for example, can be handled better. I am shortly going to talk about the case of Andrew Speaker, an American who was infected with a particular strain of tuberculosis. We do not know how far this may go, but we know that he was able to travel.

Here again, we have a bill, but when it comes to the mechanisms we put in place, there are people and authorities who very certainly have responsibilities.

It is necessary to act quickly and not take it lightly. Section 34 as proposed in Bill C-42 sets out the manner in which information is to be transmitted. The operator of an aircraft or land vehicle must first be informed that a carrier of a contagious disease is aboard the aircraft or land vehicle. Section 34 indicates very clearly the obligation to inform the operator of the fact that he could be responsible for the spreading of a disease. It also states how that operator must inform specific authorities that there is a person aboard the aircraft or vehicle who is a danger to the health of others.

The bill is also very specific concerning the operators of certain types of vehicles. The current act calls for the imposition of that obligation to all means of transportation. It goes much further than boats, aircraft and trains because the bill extends to all conveyances used to carry passengers or cargo. That was one of the amendments proposed by the parliamentary secretary and supported by all the members of the committee.

In section 34 of the act, the obligation of an operator to notify the designated authority in a reasonable manner before entering or leaving Canada, is replaced in the bill by an obligation to notify “if it is not possible for the operator to report.” We know very well that if someone is aware and is obliged to report, that party must still have the necessary means of notifying a quarantine officer. Accordingly, the bill provides that an operator must notify a quarantine officer rather than the designated authority, and it obliges the operator to inform the officer as soon as he becomes aware of the situation, but in a context where that is reasonably possible.

The case of Andrew Speaker led us to consider the different obligations of the responsible authorities who must transmit information. We should be concerned about the number of days that elapsed between May 10 and May 25. How was it that Andrew Speaker, who knew very well that he was a carrier of tuberculosis, was still able to leave the United States on May 12, even though he had been told on May 10 that it would preferable for him not to go abroad? Two days later, he left the country and went first to Paris and then to Greece.

However, on May 14, Mr. Speaker informed his doctor by email that he was in Greece. His attending physician knew full well that he had left the United States. On May 18, American health agencies were made aware of the fact that Andrew Speaker was in Greece with his wife. Between May 14—when he informed his doctor—and May 18, there was a danger and nobody, not even the American health agencies, had been notified. In addition, Mr. Speaker was the subject of an international search, and tests showed that he was carrying a form of tuberculosis that was extremely resistant to antibiotics.

Mr. Speaker was contacted in Italy by the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. They recommended that he present himself to Italian health authorities and told him not to take a commercial flight. However, Mr. Speaker did not report to the Italian health authorities, thereby breaking the law.

There may well be some legal proceedings. People cannot simply be left to themselves like this. We cannot say to them that they made a mistake but it is not so bad. There are consequences to this. Some people, and some Quebeckers in particular, are currently being subjected to tests by health agencies to determine whether they have contracted this form of tuberculosis. During the two weeks between when Mr. Speaker knew what he had and when he could have acted and turned himself over to the Italian health authorities, he contravened certain restrictions placed on him before leaving.

The American health agencies were told on May 18 that Mr. Speaker was in Greece with his wife. On May 24, the European health authorities and the World Health Organization were given the same information. Between May 18 and May 24, therefore, there was a vacuum between the American health agency and the European authorities and the World Health Organization. Action must be taken when it is known that someone may be dangerous because he is carrying a contagious disease, a communicable disease, like tuberculosis.

The American authorities gave a simple answer: they did not know where Andrew Speaker was. There is a system in place, but it was not rigorously followed. We need to be concerned when we know that there are systems in place but people are lax about following various directives. Did Mr. Speaker infect anybody? We do not know. However, some people have to undergo tests to determine whether they have contracted this disease.

The situation surrounding this case must be clarified. The United States bears some responsibility. If it does not provide information on time, how can the other stakeholders know what is going on? How can the European or Canadian health authorities get involved if they have not been notified? Canada also bears some responsibility. When we passed the bill, we asked the director of the Public Health Agency of Canada whether there could be some provisions in it that would protect us against this kind of situation. Could Canada take legal action against another country that failed to take certain steps? Here too, things were allowed to drift. There is an investigation.

Some American senators are trying to find out what really happened. When I asked Dr. Butler-Jones, the Chief Public Health Officer at the Public Health Agency of Canada, he told me that he was waiting to find out whether there would be an inquiry or an investigation and that there were lessons to be learned from this incident. However, we have to go a bit farther than just learning lessons. We may have to put in place mechanisms to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.

Does the bill need to be improved? We have said it does not. We do not need to improve it, at least, not by creating legislation that could improve this scenario. We will see what happens. I hope that in the coming months, we will learn that a better reporting mechanism has been put in place. A physician can notify his or her patient, but when a physician tells a patient that he or she does not know what sort of virus or infection the patient is suffering from and the physician does not seem worried, how is the patient supposed to react?

Should the patient not be given even just a written notice to prove that the physician really told the patient not to leave the country?

We can see that even if we have a bill with all sorts of guidelines to protect the health and safety of the travelling public and people who come into contact with someone who has a communicable disease, this responsibility must also rest with any individual who could pose a threat to other people's health and safety.

It was time to improve Bill C-42 by amending section 34 so that it applies to people travelling by air, water or land. This bill must provide conveyance operators with guidelines as to their reporting obligations, given the serious consequences of spreading a communicable disease here in Canada.

Income Trusts

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am seeking the unanimous consent of the House concerning Bill C-263, which has to do with eliminating the waiting period for employment insurance. I move: “That Bill C-263 be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage, and deemed read the third time and passed”.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we want to be able to pass a number of bills that we feel are priorities, and Bill C-52 on the budget is definitely a priority for us. The bill to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and to create a workers' wage protection fund in bankruptcy situations is also a priority for us. Those are two of our main priorities.

Other important matters are First Nations land management, the issue regarding the Inuit, and the issue of piracy. If we have time to pass other bills before June 22, we would of course agree to do whatever it takes. Our goal is not to recess as quickly as possible, but to ensure that the bills that we feel are priorities are passed before the summer break.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that in this context my speech was clear. I have nothing against adopting a report, but it is clear that in the choice between adopting a report and having a debate on Bill C-30 as amended by committee, that Bill C-30 not only is more important, but it has much more serious consequences for Canadian society, Quebec society and future generations. We must not lose sight of the fact that what we fail to do right now will have a negative impact in the future. We are already starting to feel it.

We must not get to the point of no return where our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will have to pay the price of our inaction for considerations that are sometimes rather questionable. More and more people truly realize that achieving Kyoto protocol targets and economic development go hand in hand. Not working on achieving the targets for phase I of the Kyoto protocol—and phase II when it is negotiated—will have a very significant economic cost. We see that with global warming and the effects that are already quite noticeable will only get worse over time.

In closing, it is often said that a two degree increase in the planet's temperature is not so serious. What struck me is that during the ice age, the average temperature in Quebec was three to four degrees less than the current average, and it was covered in ice. In other words, with two degrees more, the environmental, economic and especially societal effects will be disastrous for the entire planet.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to join the debate on the subject of the government’s latest budget. As we all remember, this budget was tabled on March 19.

There are some things in this budget that really need to be pointed out. Among friends, colleagues, political parties and taxpayers, we must describe things as they really are to improve conditions for the people of Canada and, when an error has been made, we should make every effort to correct it. As you well know, enlightenment comes when ideas collide.

I want to talk about several points in the budget that deserve our attention. The first point deals with the Conservative government’s retention of the festival support program. I have had discussions today, and for several days, with representatives of volunteer groups and organizations which are organizing festivals planned for summer 2007.

This year, the federal government set aside $30 million for summer festivals. A large number of the organizers of these festivals have been told that the government—to be more precise, the Department of Canadian Heritage— is in the process of considering how the funds will be distributed. We are now into June and people have been told that it may be the fall before we have a clear answer on how the funds will be distributed. However, we must show some respect for the organizers of summer festivals in Quebec and elsewhere, because, after all, the seasons change. To find an analogy with what the Conservatives are doing, I think back to the Social Credit party. At one point, the Social Credit party said there were only four problems in Canada: spring, summer, fall and winter. Apart from that, everything would be fine. I must emphasize that summer festivals take place in the summer. An answer in the fall is of no use.

Specifically, I would like to underline the value of a festival. What does a festival mean to the population? Today, I debated with an economist from the Institut économique de Montréal. On a radio station in my riding, CJRC, not to mention names, I heard it said that—hold tight, Mr. Speaker, or you might fall off your chair—festivals were a means of preventing movie theatres from making money. The argument was that when people went to a festival, money was going to the wrong place. They added that festivals were not something very important in economic terms, because a dollar spent at one place is like a dollar spent at another place. A festival does not result in any value added.

Well, I really had to answer that. I would like you, Mr. Speaker, and above all my colleagues opposite—the Conservatives, of course— to understand that a festival is a way for a city, a community or a region to become better known. A festival can attract people into the community, into the region. It gets people moving from one region to another to take part in activities. That makes our region better known, and, at the same time, it brings money into the region.

For example, I think of the Festival de montgolfières in Gatineau, of which you are surely aware, and which for the past 20 years has taken place during the first weekend of September. It is celebrating its 20th anniversary in 2007. Last year, the festival generated revenue of $6 million. Since its creation, more than 3.3 million people have attended the festival.

The federal government invests in these programs. I must also mention that the organizers of these festivals do not count solely on the support of the federal government. They do their own fund-raising at various levels.

If the federal government does not step in as it used to, tourism will suffer. That is what the organizers told me. They will also not be able to bring in as many artists. That is another aspect. Festivals are a question of pride. People show off their culture and discover others, depending on the themes of the show, and this leads to a broadening of minds at festivals. The Conservatives are holding things up here for reasons that are really beyond me.

I just wanted to point all this out to our colleagues because I am sure that they will react quite quickly when they see that what they are saying does not make any sense, especially as the money for this was approved in the budget. It is very important, therefore, to point this out.

There is a statistic showing that, in Quebec in the year 2000, festivals got 18% of their funding from the three levels of government: federal, provincial and municipal. That same year in the United States—our neighbour to the south where capitalism is a kind of religion—the three levels of government subsidized festivals to the tune of 23% to 26%. Maybe they thought it was important for them to add value. In France, festivals are subsidized at a rate of 47%.

Our Conservative colleagues should say to themselves that even though they are not providing very much, they really should make it available before the end of the summer or else we will be in an absolutely ridiculous situation. In view of this, I would like my Conservative colleagues to understand that they have to keep the commitments they made in their budget.

In regard to a completely different issue, I would like to mention a very embarrassing situation. September 25 or 26, 2006 was a black day in human history because that was when the federal government cancelled the court challenges program. The Conservative government decided last March not to renew this program, even though a great many social stakeholders from both the English and French minority communities as well as citizens rights groups demanded that it be saved. This meant that $5 or $6 million could be cut from the federal budget.

I took some political science courses at the University of Ottawa in the 1980s, and one of my professors, Mr. Carrier, told us that $1 million in the coffers of the federal government of Canada was like a penny to an average worker in Canada or Quebec. When $5 or $6 million are cut from a rights program like the court challenges program, it is clearly not very much in view of the $220 billion budgets that Canada’s federal government generally has. So this is an ideological cut. The government wants to prevent something, rather than helping citizens challenge decisions made by the federal or a provincial government or even a school board, a town or municipality, or a department that was not complying with the law of the land, that is to say, the Constitution.

The government comes with all its lawyers and sets them on a parent or business person who wants his or her rights respected. Without the court challenges program, there is no level playing field.

People cannot spend the kind of money that the government, the federal State, can spend on its own army of lawyers. I could provide some pretty unbelievable examples of this.

That said, there is something even worse. We often hear our Conservative colleagues say that the Bloc Québécois did not support Bill S-3, which was in fact passed—on division, as they say—in the previous Parliament.

By eliminating the court challenges program, the Conservative government is failing to respect the Official Languages Act. I would refer the members to the Standing Committee on Official Languages, which just came back to life today. The Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, taught a very interesting lesson to all members of the committee—and we are very pleased that the Conservatives have decided to come back—about how eliminating the court challenges program violated legislation passed in this House. That is pretty serious. Those who violate laws must pay in the end. They have violated this law, and they must pay the price.

It is important to understand a few things about this program. The committee heard witnesses who work for the program. It also heard people who fought for the Montfort Hospital, for example. That happened in the mid-1990s. We were around then; this was not something that happened back in Louis Riel's day—which is another subject about which much could be said. This was back in 1995, when the Government of Ontario wanted to do away with the services of a French-language hospital right here in Ottawa. I was born in that province, and so was my youngest daughter, my baby. She was born in the Montfort Hospital.

The people who came to talk about this situation had been told by a Prime Minister whom we know well, our current Prime Minister, that the Government of Canada had no intention of continuing to pay for Liberal lawyers in the court challenges program.

Yet Ms. Lalonde and Mr. Gratton, who attended the committee meeting, demonstrated quite clearly that the lawyers who helped the Montfort Hospital fight the indignity foisted upon it by Mike Harris' government and three of his ministers, who are now known here as the Minister of Finance, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health, did it for free.

In response to the infamous criticism that partisan politics were involved, I would remind the House that Mr. Gratton was Brian Mulroney's press secretary. As far as I know, he did not belong to the Conservative Party, but rather to the Progressive Conservative Party. There are hints of this Reform-Alliance mindset still causing problems today. It is going to burst, sooner or later, like last time, but that is their problem. Gisèle Lalonde once ran—hold on to your hats—as a candidate for the Conservative Party of Ontario. This jambalaya—although jambalaya can sometimes be quite tasty—, all this mishmash being served up by the Conservatives, involving partisan politics when it comes to the rights of minorities, it is appalling. I see them turning red. They are ashamed, and I understand why.

That said, the elimination of the court challenges program, illustrated by the ideology reflected in the budget, seriously jeopardizes the recognition of the existence of French-language minority communities in Canada.

That is prejudicial. The day the Montfort Hospital file reached its full scope was the day that the Premier of Quebec—Lucien Bouchard of the Parti Québécois, not to mention any names—declared that, indeed, it was seriously prejudicial. Every fighting force for democracy and the respect of the rights of minorities from Quebec and Ontario, including myself, who was in Saskatchewan at the time as president of the Fédération des francophones de Saskatoon, we all signed petitions and raised money to tell the Harris government that it was unacceptable.

Of course the Liberal government—this was during the Chrétien years—looked at the issue and said it could not intervene because it was a provincial jurisdiction. Well, now would be the time for Canada to pull up its socks and get to work, because, under such circumstances, it is through the court challenges program and political action that we must ensure the rights of minorities.

The court challenges program also has an impact on the social aspect of the fight against poverty and injustice. For example, people with disabilities had to fight their own government, demanding that it install ramps so they could have access to the same services as people with full mobility. We must not forget this.

A broad range of services was provided to society. In 1997 and 2003, evaluations of the court challenges program determined that the needs of Quebec and Canadian society were well served by the program. Without it, we would not have rights of access to minority language education. The disabled would not be able to access certain areas and premises. It is very important to take note of these facts.

Today, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada is taking the government to court because it abolished the court challenges program and is not fulfilling its obligations under the Official Languages Act. My colleagues should hang on to their hats when they hear what I have to say. This government says that it wanted to abolish the program because, among other things, it no longer wished to pay lawyers who challenge federal or provincial governments, school boards or others who do not respect these rights. That is why it abolished the program. Now it is paying lawyers to ensure that it does not pay lawyers in future. Talk about unbelievable. The logic is rather complicated.

There is no question that the court challenges program must be reinstated. We must realize that society evolves. By way of illustration, consider that at one time horses ruled the road. Then along came the Model T Ford. Today, things are altogether different; we have other means of transportation. In terms of citizens' rights, we cannot predict how current situations will unfold in the near future. Therefore, it is important to have the court challenges program, precisely to protect the state from itself.

In the movie, The Name of the Rose, based on the novel by Umberto Eco, old Jorge, a professional criminal, believes only in sublime repetition. The Conservatives are the sublime copy of the Mulroney Conservatives. They are doing the same thing—abolishing the court challenges program in today's context. It is quite deplorable.

We should be emulating William of Baskerville. I recommend reading about the dialectic that belongs to society. In fact, we are evolving. I am thinking of Yann Martel who sends books to the Prime Minister from time to time. He should send more there because reading is interesting. We should read things that enable us to evolve in life.

As we evolve, things change and we must have mechanisms to protect ourselves.

I will say one last things about festivals: they have to get on with it. Summer is coming, it has already arrived.

The court challenges program is not in the budget and that is deplorable. It should be reinstated.

Criminal Code

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel on his erudition—let us not fear words—and on his willingness to dedicate himself so generously to the work of this House. He never declines an invitation to share his point of view, and I am sure that this is greatly appreciated by all of our colleagues.

Bill C-35 was the subject of much debate in the parliamentary committee. It seems to me that the underlying principle is a good one. The government is seeking to ensure that people who might be a menace to the safety of our fellow citizens cannot be released on bail before trial unless we can be certain that they do not present a danger to society. It is important to understand where Bill C-35 is coming from.

There are various stages in our criminal proceedings: arrest by a peace officer, court appearance, and preliminary hearing. At this stage, a magistrate or justice of the peace—in Quebec, at least—decides whether there is sufficient evidence to allow the Crown to take the matter to trial. So we have arrest, bail hearing, preliminary hearing and, of course, the trial. If the case involves murder or one of the offences set out in section 469 of the Criminal Code, there is a good chance that the trial will be held before a jury of the accused's peers, a group of individuals selected for that purpose.

If the case involves an offence set out in section 553 of Quebec's code, the trial takes place before the criminal and penal division of the Court of Quebec. There too, the stages are familiar: arrest, bail hearing, preliminary hearing, trial and, after that, sentencing submissions. Then, if necessary, a certain number of appeals processes are available.

The Bloc Québécois had some concerns about this bill. What does it say? We should start with the beginning. Under our legal system, bail is generally granted at the hearing stage. In some cases, though, bail cannot be granted by justices of the peace. Only superior court judges, that is to say, judges of the Superior Court of Quebec, can grant pretrial bail to an accused.

This occurs when a person is accused of a crime under section 469 of the Criminal Code. Justices of the peace cannot grant bail when the accused has violated the conditions of release. If a person is on probation, therefore, and is supposed to comply with a certain number of conditions but violates them, he cannot be given bail. For example, if a person is not supposed to be in possession of a firearm but is found with one, that person has failed to comply with one of his conditions of release and cannot be granted bail by a justice of the peace.

When someone is arrested by a police officer, taken before a justice of the peace and charged with an offence related to organized crime, of course, that person cannot be granted bail. For a very long time, all the organized crime related offences were listed in the Criminal Code. Actually it was not the Criminal Code but the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act where all the offences related to the possession of narcotics, drug trafficking, and the exportation and importation of narcotics were listed.

Around 1995, we had an extremely worrisome clash among criminal motorcycle gangs: the Hell’s Angels, the Rock Machine and the Bandidos. There were 35 Hell’s Angels chapters. It is not that there were an awful lot of them—just a few hundred people—but they were obviously very dangerous.

I can recall some conversations I had with senior public servants who thought that the criminal motorcycle gangs could be disbanded using just the existing conspiracy provisions in the Criminal Code. The former Bloc Québécois member for Berthier—Montcalm, who was elevated to the bench because of his great talents and had gone to law school at the University of Ottawa in the 1980s and 1990s, was our justice critic and was as convinced as I that new legislation was needed and some new provisions had to be added to the Criminal Code.

I remind the House that in the 1990s there was one thing that triggered our realization of the need to create new legislation in order to deal with criminal biker gangs. This was of course the car bomb attack that occurred in my area, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, on August 9, 1995, and that took the life of young Daniel Desrochers. From then on, there was a call by citizens seeking anti-gang legislation. Obviously we could not follow Italy’s example, since Italy did not have to worry about compatibility with the Canadian Charter of Human Rights. In Canada, however, we had to be concerned about compatibility with the Canadian Charter of Human Rights, which—I would point out—was never ratified by the National Assembly when it was patriated in 1982.

I digress here to remind you that René Lévesque, one of the greatest premiers in the history of Quebec—as we all know—was opposed to the unilateral patriation of the Constitution, because he was worried about language rights. There was the possibility of removing whole chunks of Bill 101, one of the first bills that René Lévesque had passed by his government following the adoption of the Referendum Act and, of course, an act on democratic election funding.

So we had to be concerned about the compatibility of the new provisions of the Criminal Code and the Canadian charter, which has never been accepted by the National Assembly because of the incompatibilities regarding language. Of course, with regard to section 27 respecting multiculturalism, there were some very great concerns. In any case, we will recall that René Lévesque became the spokesperson for this long line of premiers who wanted, before the charter was patriated, to give the National Assembly new powers. This was Jean-Jacques Bertrand’s position; it was Robert Bourassa’s position; it was Jean Lesage’s position; it was the position of Quebec’s intellectuals. Even a man like Claude Ryan who, as we know, was not a sovereignist, wanted there to be a new distribution of powers before patriating the Constitution, which was—we agreed—a colonial relic. Of course this was not normal, but it was not a priority.

I do not want to wander too far away—you know my discipline is legendary. Still, I want you to know that it is extremely important to remember that, in the 1990s, the Bloc Québécois rallied in order to obtain anti-gang legislation. The first anti-gang legislation was passed in 1997. We had created a new offence. I mentioned the Canadian charter. But it was not possible to make it a crime to belong to a group.

We cannot say that belonging to the Hells Angels, the Rock Machine, the Bandidos, the mafia or an Asian crime group, that simply belonging to a criminal organization constitutes an offence. This would never pass the Charter test and would not be compatible with the freedom of association. This was the challenge facing the public service and parliamentarians.

I was part of the committee that examined these things to find an offence that would work with the Charter. At the time, a new offence was created: gangsterism. Five individuals having committed an offence punishable by a five-year term, for a criminal organization within the last five years, could be charged with gangsterism.

As unbelievable as it may be, with these provisions, among others, municipalities can play an extremely important role in dismantling organized crime networks. I hope my colleagues will remember this. Municipalities legislated against bunkers. They legislated against fortresses in urban areas. Under municipal bylaws it was not possible to have fortified houses with cameras and bulletproof windows. Believe it or not, this is a good example of the link between federal law, criminal law, and municipal affairs.

If I may digress, one thing that makes a municipality dynamic is festivals. I am sure that the Minister of Labour will agree with me. There is nothing more important than tourism to our communities.

Take the example of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. It is a working-class neighbourhood with a rich heritage. I could tell you about the botanical garden and the Château Dufresne, the historic middle-class residence. It is important to provide public funding for festivals. I will conclude on this point by wishing all my colleagues a most cordial welcome to Montreal this year and this summer. I hope that the funding that will make it possible for us to spend a beautiful summer with tourists and all of the events we can organize in our communities will materialize. Of course I am counting on all of my colleagues to ensure that this scenario comes to pass.

This is the situation we found ourselves in in the 1990s. Criminal motorcycle gangs were running wild and the public was worried. I and other people persuaded the then justice minister, Allan Rock, to add new provisions to the Criminal Code. Those provisions made it possible for us to end the war that had caused several hundred deaths and claimed an innocent victim, Daniel Desrochers, who died on August 9, 1995.

Thus we can see that the Bloc Québécois has never been unwilling to legislate when it was necessary. The goal of Bill C-35 is to add a number of offences, the seriousness of which we can recognize as a society. I will list them: attempted murder with a firearm, discharging a firearm with intent to wound, armed sexual assault, robbery, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage taking, extortion, trafficking, possession for the purposes of trafficking, and any offence involving a firearm if the accused was under a firearms prohibition order.

We have to acknowledge that these offences are in fact serious in terms of criminal law. At the show cause stage, the trial has not yet been held. In Quebec, you appear before the justice of the peace. The accused will have to call evidence, because there is a reverse onus. Reverse onus does exist in the Criminal Code now, as I mentioned, for organized crime, terrorism offences and offences relating to section 469. Reverse onus exists. That does not mean—and we must be very clear on this point—that it will not be possible for the accused to be released.

What it means is that the onus is on the accused, and not the Crown, to prove that he or she is not a threat to society. The judge will then take a number of criteria into consideration.

If the individual is released, the judge must be sure he will appear for trial and will not destroy the evidence, abscond, reoffend or engage in violent behaviour. If the judge is satisfied that all these conditions will be met, in light of the submission by counsel for the accused, the individual can be released. If the judge is not satisfied, the individual—the accused—who will be tried for one of the offences I have mentioned, must remain in custody.

I repeat that this is not the rule in our legal system. As a rule, individuals are released pending trial. Hon. members may remember a famous ruling from early this decade, the Askov ruling, concerning a case in Ontario. The legal system was backlogged at the time.

When the Constitution was repatriated, the National Assembly did not subscribe to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Among the legal guarantees in the charter is the right to be tried within a reasonable time. Waiting for a trial causes anyone anxiety. Waiting for a trial is stressful, and there is also the risk that witnesses' memories will fade. With time, people called to testify could be slightly less accurate in their testimony.

The Bloc Québécois heard the witnesses who testified before the committee, and my colleagues know how reasonable, moderate and cooperative the Bloc is. We ask only to work in the spirit of brotherhood.

I take great personal pride in the fact that I have no enemies in this House. Mr. Speaker, if you were to ask members who consider themselves my enemies to so indicate by a show of hands, I am sure you would see none. I was afraid the member for Jonquière—Alma would raise his hand. That would have made me sad.

The Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-35 because, in committee, witnesses told us that in any event, the general practice at bail hearings for firearm-related offences is for the judge not to release the individual, or grant them bail. The Minister of Justice's bill confirms or recognizes something already being done by judges and the courts.

We do not see why we would be against this bill. A witness from the Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers even told us this was the current practice. There are very few witnesses who oppose the bill, two in fact. A University of Toronto professor, Anthony Doob, opposed the bill, saying there needed to be more focus on prevention. The Canadian Bar Association also voiced some reservations. For the rest, the witnesses were extremely favourable toward the bill.

The Bloc will support this bill since it recognizes a practice the courts have formalized. Of course, that does not mean we are not calling on the government to invest in prevention.

I recently learned that the Prime Minister entrusted, not to the Minister of Health, but to the Minister of Justice, the modernization of the national anti-drug strategy. I hope when the format of this new strategy is known, hopefully a few months from now, that money could be sent to the provinces for prevention, which is still our best defence as a society for living in safer communities.

Since I am running out of time, I will stop here. I want to reiterate my call for money to be allocated to this summer's festivals, more specifically those in Montreal, which is a major tourism centre. I hope my call will be heard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Order. Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting 55. The orders of the day are pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, November 7, 2006, Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Joining us today from the Department of Transport are Franz Reinhardt, Susan Stanfield, and Merlin Preuss; and from the Department of National Defence, Jacques Laplante and Alex Weatherston.

Welcome.

(On clause 12)

When we wrapped up the last committee meeting, we were dealing with amendment G-2, moved by the government. I think we were making headway. Is there perhaps another resolve out there, or are we going to continue to debate this?

Mr. Jean.

Motions in Amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, we are debating report stage of Bill C-52, the budget implementation act.

Of course, it is very important for the Bloc Québécois to see this struggle through to the end. We are the ones who raised the fiscal imbalance issue in this House. We feel that this government has taken some steps, thanks to the Bloc Québécois' support—because without this support, Parliament would not have passed this budget. In order to at least improve the fiscal, financial, monetary imbalance, it was to our advantage to support the government on this.

We continue to believe this, and we know that Quebeckers support our position. The Bloc Québécois has led other parties in this House to adopt the same position. Only the Liberal Party does not support this position. Furthermore, it is voting against this budget, when all is said and done.

Today's debate at report stage allows for an amendment that results from an ill-considered decision on the part of the Conservatives, who decided to eliminate the GST-HST visitor rebate, thereby reducing Canada's appeal as a tourist destination. As evidence that this step had a negative impact, the Canadian Tourism Commission has had to shift some of its budgeted funds intended for Canadian tourism within Canada and use them to attract tourists from outside our borders, because we are losing ground to the tourism appeal of other countries.

Given the criticism and arguments received, particularly from the Bloc, in order to allow outfitters and conferences, for example, to continue to benefit from such a program, the Conservative government decided to propose an amendment in the context of budget implementation. This will help correct the situation, at least for outfitters and conferences.

This does not address the issue of duty-free shops, which remain victims of the government's decision. Initially, in the fall of 2006, the government made a series of rather drastic cuts to various sectors without really analyzing the situation, and it got rid of this program—which cost something to administer but attracted tourists—instead of modifying it and finding other solutions. In response to representations from various organizations, supported by the Bloc, the government made a partial correction.

What has still not been corrected is the situation of duty-free shops, which also play an important role in promoting tourism. Previously, when tourists visited duty-free shops, they obtained a credit that they could spend in the shop right away. As a result, the money quickly went back into the system.

In my opinion, no one, not even the Conservatives, is denying the aim of this program. The problem lay in the cost of administering the program. Instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, the government should have let the program keep on attracting tourists and found other ways of funding it. I hope that discussions will continue and that a satisfactory result can be reached.

Today, at the report stage, adopting this amendment will correct the situation with regard to outfitters and conventions. Representations were made by groups including the association of Quebec outfitters. When a convention is being planned and organizers want people to hunt and fish with the help of our outfitters, we have to make this prospect as attractive as possible so that people will choose to come here instead of going to other countries.

One of the benefits of coming here had been removed. Now, thanks to the amendment that is before us, we can maintain that benefit. It will therefore be important to adopt this bill at the report stage. The Bloc Québécois will support the bill at this stage, as it has done at all the other stages, so that the bill reaches third reading as soon as possible and the government can finally finish putting in place the measures to correct the fiscal imbalance.

It is clear how much Quebec needs this money. An important debate was held in the National Assembly of Quebec last week and for good cause; in the end, additional money from Ottawa became available. However, that is a monetary solution. A complete, legislative, fiscal solution is needed, which would transfer tax points to Quebec in order for it to no longer be dependent on the federal government's decisions, the vitality of the Canadian economy and other such factors. As of today, this is a three-year program that will have a significant financial impact and that is why the Bloc supports this bill. However, it will not resolve the matter permanently.

In fact, the Conservative government itself, which says that the fiscal imbalance is solved, has run attack ads against the Liberal Party and its leader stating that, if the Liberal Party were to return to power, it could overturn the decision on the fiscal imbalance. The Conservative Party has contradicted itself. On the one hand, it says it has solved the fiscal imbalance and, on the other, in ads taken out to denounce the Liberals, it says that the decision could be overturned. The solution is to ensure that permanent arrangements are made and that the transfer of tax points is put in place.

The starting point remains the same: the needs are found in the provinces and Quebec, but it is the federal government that holds the money. The announcement last week that last year's surplus is about $13 billion illustrates this reality better than any explanation. The federal government still collects a great deal more money than it needs and allocates most of it to paying down Canada's debt.

It makes sense that some of the funds should be allocated to that, but in the meantime, the provinces need money. They need money to pay for their own services. They have to be able to develop multi-year programming and plans. The Bloc will continue to work toward eliminating the fiscal imbalance once and for all through tax point transfers. Then, when Quebec wants to implement social programs and programs to support business, it will be able to do so within its jurisdiction because it will have the necessary financial means.

After the report stage, the bill will come back to the House for third reading. It also includes measures that will affect the manufacturing sector. We followed a number of recommendations from the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. However, the Conservative government will have to do better than the positions it has put forward on this issue. For example, the committee recommended accelerated capital cost allowance over five years for businesses to buy equipment to improve their productivity. The government is only offering this over two years.

Nor is it giving refundable tax credits to businesses that do not make much profit, which is now the case in several sectors that are in trouble because of global competition. The government should be even more creative, and it should follow the 22 recommendations of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology instead of barely touching on them or following the ones that suit it best. That is the next step, to come with the fall economic update.

In the meantime, I think that Quebeckers have made their views known: they agree with the Bloc Québécois, which supports the Conservative budget because it delivers considerably more money to Quebec. Quebeckers want to truly correct the fiscal imbalance. Thus, the Bloc Québécois is representing the will of Quebeckers, and wants the budget implementation bill to be passed as quickly as possible. We have made a significant and positive contribution towards achieving that, and we want the money to be available this year and in years to come based on what was announced in the budget. So no matter what government is in power in Quebec, the necessary funds will be invested, the proper political debates held and the money spent on the right things.

But there is a big problem: we have no guarantee that these funds will be available. This is a weakness of the Canadian confederation and Canada's federal system, which must be permanently corrected by the transfer of tax points. Let us hope that the Conservative government will move in that direction as soon as possible so that we achieve this permanent and long fought for correction. For four years, the Bloc has been arguing for this. I remember the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and the member for Joliette, who preceded me as finance critic. We hammered away at this repeatedly. The parties in the National Assembly did the same thing, and today we are taking another step towards putting this in place. Let us hope that it will come about as soon as possible.

Canada Elections Act

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to commend my colleague on his speech. Since he is from Montreal, his situation is different than mine. My constituency is on the north shore in the Montreal area.

I have five municipalities to cover, including a regional capital, and the realities are truly different from one municipality to another. It is much easier to cover a regional capital than the small surrounding municipalities, because sometimes there are great distances to travel from one end of the municipality to the other. We therefore need more polling stations for people to get to.

The problem we often encounter is the absence of public transit, which is not an issue in Montreal. In our regions—except for the regional capital of Saint-Jérôme—there is no public transit to allow young people to travel to vote, if they want. It is extremely difficult to get a high voter turnout depending on where the polling station is located. This entire matter should be reviewed.

Reference was made to low voter turnout among our youth. Should we not consider having polling stations in CEGEPs, and allowing voting on more than one day? Should we not consider having polling stations in universities, where students could register? Students often come from other cities. If the fixed election date is in the fall, they are in school then. They do not necessarily go back home over the weekend, because they have homework to do. Also, if they got to register right at the university, that might act as an incentive to vote. The very low voter turnout among high school, college and university students is definitely a concern.

I have nothing against two additional voting days, but I do not think that will boost voter turnout. We know that, at the federal level, from the moment that a candidate's nomination paper has been filed with and approved by the Chief Electoral Officer, one may already vote at any time at the office of the Chief Electoral Officer. The name of the candidate may even be written by hand, if the ballots are not ready. It has been done, and it has been a common occurrence where I come from.

However, there is a single office of the Chief Electoral Officer and it is normally located downtown in the regional capital. People from outside that area are not likely to be able to easily get there to vote.

We also know that one can vote by mail. There are various ways one can vote. Many mechanisms are already in place at the federal level to allow people to vote.

Someone mentioned ID card and the voter cards earlier. There have been discussions for quite some time about the idea of a voter card for everyone. Voters would only have to show that card, instead of having to produce two pieces of identification.

I will give an example. I have an 18-year-old son who voted for the first time in my last election. However, he still does not have all the cards that we have, as adults. He still does not have a driver's licence, he has only his health insurance card. I had to identify him because I was asked to. He was asked for two cards at the polling station.

So this is a problem for young people. It is also a problem for some people who live below the poverty line and who may not have all these cards and all these tools to be able to go and vote. They will not take the trouble to go, either, because they will tell themselves that they would not be able to vote in any event.

When the bill is sent to committee, we may have to consider this possibility and examine it properly to be sure that we include it in Bill C-55 and improve the bill.

This bill is of some value, but it is very slight. It talks about adding only two days. There is not a lot in Bill C-55 that would prompt us to vote for it with any great enthusiasm because it is changing a lot of things.

On the contrary, it is not changing much. We said that we would vote for this bill at second reading to be able to study it further and in greater depth in committee. I hope that some ideas will come out of that committee for improving the bill.

There is also the whole question of the lack of interest in politics, as several of my colleagues have said. When it comes to federal politics, fewer people are voting. People have lost interest. Since 1993, I have taken part in five election campaigns. I have to say that I have been disappointed several times. There was even one time when the turnout fell to 52%, and that was disturbing because the percentage of people voting should be higher than 52%. This means that there is a lack of interest in politics, in representation in Parliament and in political parties. There is also a lack of interest in ideologies. This is disturbing. We have to find a way of restoring our fellow citizens' interest in voting.

The last campaign we had lasted almost 59 days. In the middle of that campaign we had Christmas and New Year. That made no sense. In my riding, during the holiday period, people had things planned for Christmas and New Year's Day. They had family and other people coming to visit. Of course people talk politics over Christmas, whether as a family or in other groups, but I have to say, sincerely, that the volunteers and people working on the ground needed a bit of time off to be able to celebrate with their families.

In my riding, we decided to take a break for those two periods. It made no sense to force volunteers to work on Christmas Day or New Year's Day. They are volunteers, they give their time, energy and enthusiasm to our election campaigns. We have to take all that into account too.

I am very happy with Bill C-16, which will give us fixed election dates so long as the government is not defeated because it is a minority government. Fixed election dates are a necessary and much less partisan approach. People might listen a bit more to what we have to say. People might have more confidence in us if the government cannot take advantage of being ahead in the polls to call an election and hand out goodies. We know how that works. As I said, I have been through five election campaigns.

I think that there will be some basic changes in this bill. I can well understand what my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel goes through. He has a huge riding. Mine is a little smaller, but I still have to deal with five large municipalities. If we want to make services available and heighten people’s awareness, we have to provide them with more places to go and vote. I know that my colleague has to deal, just as I do, with a lack of public transit. People must have a car. But not everybody has one. Poor people do not have the means. Not all young people have access to one. For my part, I went to get my son so that he could go to an advance poll in the last election in Quebec. If I had not done that, he probably would not have gone to vote. It is very important, therefore, to raise the awareness of our youth and do so while they are still very young and in secondary school. They should be told what politics is all about. I am not saying they should be able to vote at a younger age, but they should be informed in school.

I have toured around some schools. I have been invited to speak about politics and tell young people what a day in Parliament is like and what an MP is. They do not really have any idea. It should be part of what we do and our responsibilities as MPs to go and talk to young people in secondary school—I do not mean grade 7 but students who are 14 or 15 years old—so that they can ask questions, get informed and understand. They should also be invited to come here and see what happens. A lot of schools send students. They visit Parliament and see question period. That is not always so great, however, because they see us get very excited. It is not necessarily a good example, but I believe that we can connect with our young people.

I was also invited to visit a political science class in a CEGEP to answer questions from the students and to tell them about the work of an MP, in their riding and also in Ottawa. So, it is important to discuss these matters and to find a way to connect with them.

There are also people who cannot get out and who must vote at home because they have a serious disability. My returning officer personally went to a house to allow someone to vote in her own home. That was a fine deed. People may vote as they please, but everyone has an absolute right to vote and I believe we have to maintain that.

However, I do not believe that simply adding two days, as the bill proposes, will be enough. A great many other changes are needed. There are things missing from this bill. We must also avoid scandals and observe the electoral laws. Spending limits must be enforced and there must not be any slush funds. That is extremely important. Our transparency must be crystal clear. That is, perhaps, what will lead people to take a greater interest in politics. They will then say that their politicians are much more honest than they thought. They will look at us in a new way. I believe that is how we should engage in politics. I have always practised politics in an honest manner and I believe it pays dividends.

There is a great deal of work to be done with the media in terms of awareness. Returning officers already do that work. However, on the media side—television, radio, etc.—even more information is needed, perhaps targeted at young people and specific age groups, with very precise messages to seize their attention and give them a desire to vote. In addition, there is all the work that we do. When people hear about things like the sponsorship scandal, that does not help us, and it leaves people disgusted with politics and politicians. We all felt that in the last election campaign. That kind of thing should never happen again. I hope it will not happen again and that, in future, the rules will be tightened up to avoid things like Option Canada and the endless list of scandals.

Scandal after scandal, people are disillusioned and fed up with politics. They say that politics are not necessary and, in any case, politicians are all the same. It is a bit disappointing to hear people say that. There is not much use trying to explain because that is often the answer we get. I think that politics have to be made more accessible insofar as what we do is concerned. We are making progress. We are doing it by means of the householders we send out to inform our people four times a year. What we do here has to be made known, though, in a much more general way so that people really understand. If I am talking with someone about Bill C-55, he has to be able to understand exactly what that is.

Not everyone is highly politicized, of course, but I think that we can connect with people more and get through to them.

I am looking forward to this bill going back to committee because I think it can be improved. All the parties in the House surely have important suggestions to make. We can make them in a harmonious atmosphere because they are intended to make it easier for our fellow citizens to go and vote.

What I have seen in some places did not make sense. Polling stations were chosen in inaccessible places, sometimes even churches or little chapels when it was bitterly cold outside. People could not even get inside to wait. They had to stay outside in the middle of the winter in a snowstorm or in temperatures of 30^o C below zero. That is unacceptable. We need to review all that. We have to make sure places are found. I know that people cannot vote in schools in federal elections, but in Quebec they do. It is much easier that way. As a result, locations have to be found all over the place and sometimes they are very inaccessible. This is something that we really should review for Canadians. One result of all this is that people get angry. They go back home and say they will not vote because it does not make sense to be forced to wait outside for half an hour when it is 30^o C below zero.

Then there is the whole issue of homeless people, to which my colleague referred earlier. It is important that these people also be allowed to vote. A voter's card would be the best means to allow them to vote in an election. We must reach out to these people, and we must also find an effective way to do so. They must have a say in the election of their government, which is going to develop policies that may save them, or help them move away from homelessness. There are associations that look after these people, but we must do more to encourage them to vote.

In conclusion, I personally think that Bill C-55 does not do much. I hope the government will be open to constructive amendments that will truly increase the chances of seeing these people vote in large numbers. We must fare better than we currently do in this regard. Indeed, it is rather disappointing to see that only 52% of the population voted. Even when we win, it is disappointing to see that people are turning away from politics.

So, as I said, I hope we can improve this bill by using everyone's input, and by using our experience both in Parliament and in the community, because we also work in the community.

I am currently working as the assistant to our new election campaign director. We talk to people and we hear what they think. They have good ideas. We must follow up on these ideas with concrete measures. Of course, we should not expect miracles. We will not achieve a 100% voter turnout. However, the more the voter turnout increases, the better we can do our work as representatives of the public, as elected people, as members of all the various parties and, in my case, as member of the Bloc Québécois.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. This is meeting number 48, and we are meeting pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, November 7, 2006, Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Joining us again today from the Department of Transport, we have Mr. Franz Reinhardt, Susan Stanfield, and Merlin Preusse; and from the Department of National Defence, Jacques Laplante and Alex Weatherston. Welcome.

When we adjourned at the last meeting, we were discussing clause 4. The debate was surrounding NDP-3.1 as amended.

(On clause 4)

In discussions with Mr. Julian, we had agreed as a committee to change the letter from (d) to (b), but upon further discussion and discovery we found that the (b) should be (a). We're going to pass that around.

I welcome Mr. Julian. We are discussing changing the letter from (b) to (a). It was your amendment that we were discussing at that time.

Air Canada Public Participation Act

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-29, An Act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

While this bill certainly has some elements that could prove interesting, we must take into account the current situation.

I seem to recall that not all that long ago, barely a few months ago, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities appeared before the Standing Committee on Official Languages to discuss Air Canada's situation and its obligation to provide services in both official languages. This includes Air Canada as well as its subsidiaries and affiliates.

However, to my great surprise and to the surprise of my Liberal Party colleagues, many factors appeared to be overlooked by the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and therefore by the Conservative government, factors that are essential to ensuring that official languages policy is respected by Air Canada and its subsidiaries.

We were surprised to hear the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities tell us that Bill C-29 would not be sent to the Standing Committee on Official Languages but to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. The only thing not mentioned in the title of Bill C-29 is official languages.

As we know, the connection between Air Canada and official languages is important. This is not a transportation issue, even though Air Canada is in the business of transportation. We must look at the overall situation. If Parliament is to ensure that Air Canada and its subsidiaries comply with the Official Languages Act, the Standing Committee on Official Languages must be able to hear witnesses, examine evidence, give recommendations and make the required changes and amendments in order for this bill to be acceptable and in order to continue to defend the official languages throughout Canada.

The Conservative government is doing the exact opposite. We need only look back a few weeks to when the former chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages decided to cancel a committee meeting with just two minutes' notice. That was already an indication of what we would be facing.

Today it seems that the Standing Committee on Official Languages will not even be able to study the bill. It is a shame that the government is not giving this committee the opportunity to debate the bill and make the necessary amendments. It is true that the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities can do some work. I am convinced that the members of this committee can do a good job. However, this is not just about transportation, it is also about official languages. Matters pertaining to official languages must be dealt with by the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

In the next few days we will see if the government backtracks and reinstates the committee. The government may be tired of losing face with regard to official languages and official language communities outside Quebec. That may be the case.

I can hear people opposite who do not agree with me, but that is still the reality of the situation. The Conservative government has lost face on the official languages issue. Since I am still hearing them, I have to conclude that what I am saying does not suit them. Nevertheless, it is the truth. Official language communities are saying that the government should be ashamed of itself for not having replaced the chair of the committee so that we can continue our work.

What I am saying is important because the government is applying the same logic in trying to prevent the Standing Committee on Official Languages from studying Bill C-29. That element should never be shunted aside.

Let me be clear: the Conservative government says a lot of nice things. It talks a good game, but when the time comes to take action, it gets a failing grade. This government is good for nothing when it comes to official languages.

Members of the government can go ahead and laugh at what I have to say, but I can tell you that official language minority communities do not think this is funny. They do not think that the way they are being treated is funny. Official language minority communities have never been treated as badly as they are being treated now. Who is responsible for treating them so badly? The Conservative government, the government that is now in power. Thank goodness it is a minority government. If it were a majority government, one would have to wonder what would be left of official language minority community rights. Probably not all that much.

When we say that Air Canada must offer services in both languages, we are not just saying that for fun. In the not-too-distant past, Air Canada belonged to the federal government. Then it was privatized and Air Canada became a private company. Even so, it was not exempted from its obligations and had to keep offering bilingual services to the Canadian public. Not just part of the Canadian public. Not just anglophones. This was to ensure that francophones would also receive adequate service.

When Air Canada merged with Canadian International, I remember that, at the Standing Committee on Official Languages, some people from the company were rather unhappy, because of me. I even received some mail from people who were very upset about some of my comments. I will repeat them here today.

When Air Canada decided to merge with Canadian International, certain conditions had to be met. For instance, the new entity had to comply with the rules of the Official Languages Act and had to provide services to all Canadians in both official languages. People made up excuses, saying that they were in the process of restructuring, that they were nearly bankrupt, that they were having problems and that we should not be forcing them to provide services in both official languages.

I told them those were the rules of the game at that time and that they had not changed. It was a deal or no deal situation, as it were. Since the company decided to merge with Canadian International, it also had to accept the deal, which meant that the new entity had to provide services in both official languages. Yet it is still hard, even today, to get service in both languages. Many people have made comments about this, not just me.

In his 2006-07 report, the Commissioner of Official Languages said that most of the complaints received regarding service to the public had to do with Air Canada and its inability to provide services to its customers in both official languages. The Commissioner of Official Languages said this, but let us be clear. This refers only to those who filed a complaint, but there are many people across the country who are very discouraged by the service they receive. Ultimately, however, they wonder what good it does to file a complaint, because the service never gets any better.

We are not just talking about person to person service, because sometimes flight attendants will provide service in French, but there are also machines on board that give instructions in French and English. And then there is the written word. The other day I was travelling with Air Canada and I saw things that should not even be possible in this day and age. Everyone would be frustrated to see some of the written language on airplanes.

When we look at the situation, we see that some people are not happy about the fact that Air Canada employees are unable to offer bilingual service. Nonetheless, it is not up to the Conservative government to decide that Air Canada will not offer bilingual services. It is up to us, Parliament, to do so. We have said that Air Canada is required to provide bilingual services.

What do we now see in Bill C-29? The government does not want to consider the present or the future. We cannot discharge Air Canada from its obligation—which also applies to its affiliates—to respect the official languages.

If we do not take action today, it will be too late in the future to try to repair the damage.

The Conservative government is trying to repair damage in several areas. For months, the only thing it has been able to do is repair the damage it has caused. It can blame others, but it should take a look at itself before criticizing members from other parties. It keeps repairing the damage that it has caused. It is not the Liberals who are to blame. It is the Liberals who are waking them up. It is the Liberals who are defending the public so that it is well served, whether in terms of official languages or in terms of student initiatives, etc. That is a fact.

It is thanks to the work of the Liberals that the Conservatives can wake up. As I was saying earlier, it is a good thing this is not a majority government. Indeed, we would be able to wake them up, but they would be able to carry on their little dictatorship. We are here to ensure that the Canadian public has the services it deserves.

It is astounding that this government refuses to acknowledge that a company could purchase existing entities and not be subject to the Official Languages Act. Can you imagine Air Canada being snatched up by a foreign company? The Conservatives would celebrate because they love it when foreign companies buy Canadian companies. They love it when foreign companies take over Canadian businesses and lay off employees. It is just astounding. We can only imagine what it would be like if the official languages policy were also to disappear from Air Canada. The Conservative government does not even want to make the decisions needed to deal with these situations, even though they are so important that they cannot be disregarded.

These are issues that the Conservatives should be examining. They should also look themselves in the mirror and tell themselves that, if they truly want to protect official languages, they should stand up in the House and say that there is nothing to worry about because Air Canada companies, present and future Air Canada subsidiaries, will be required to provide services in both official languages no matter their organizational structure.

Mr. Speaker, try to find a travel agency in your neighbourhood. You used to be able to find one almost everywhere. You could easily find one, whether you lived in a city or village, and buy an Air Canada ticket. Today, their numbers are dwindling. There will be even fewer if this continues. We also have Air Canada Vacations and Aeroplan. Why is it that if you want to make reservations or obtain certain services, Air Canada Vacations is not required to provide service in both official languages? Why does Bill C-29 not address this? Why is Bill C-29 not moving in that direction? Why does the Conservative government not want to have the bill cover this? It is not magic, it is not complicated. If the Conservatives do not wish to include official language provisions in the bill, it is probably because they do not believe in official languages.

Aeroplan is a loyalty program. It enables clients to do more business with the company. In return, the company offers gifts or points exchangeable for more trips or gifts. This also affects online reservations. If we take Aeroplan as an example and if we want to exchange our points for a vacation service, but Aeroplan is not obligated to respect official languages, how will people be respected? How will official language communities be respected? This does not make sense. We cannot say that part of the company will do it and the rest will not. The entire company must do it, all of its current parts, and all of its future ones. Why is it so hard for Conservatives to understand that we are obligated to respect official languages? Why is it so difficult for Conservatives to ensure that official languages will be respected in the future?

I do not want my children, and I hope, my grandchildren and descendants to have to fight like we have had to against the Conservatives in order to be respected with regard to official languages. This is a reality that the Conservatives want to hear nothing about. If the government allowed a free vote on the official languages bill, I would like to see the reaction of members from the other side of the House and to see how many Conservative members would vote against official languages, because many of them do not believe in them.

The Conservative Party does not believe in the entire official languages issue and is not looking to ensure official languages are respected in communities outside Quebec. This is not something new; history is repeating itself. The current Prime Minister or the members of his party have made comments in the past. They should not think that because they are now prime minister or in government that history will be forgotten.

What did they say? Whether they said it a month ago, a year ago or 10 years ago, if they said it, it is too bad, but it is because they believed it. If they believed it, they said it and it continues. They are just trying to win votes. It is really unfortunate. We can tell the Conservative members and the Conservative government that official language communities across the country no longer believe in the Conservative government and no longer believe what the Conservatives are saying.

I am happy because sometimes reality reappears. The Conservatives helped francophones outside Quebec and all official language communities realize that the Conservatives were not able to keep their word and that they were not in a position to truly defend and respect official language minority communities.

As I said earlier, we must look towards the future. The future must be certain, not uncertain. A future that is certain would mean that the government must wake up and make the amendments deemed necessary. First of all, they should refer Bill C-29 to the Standing Committee on Official Languages. If they also want to present it to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, that would not be a problem. However, they must at least show enough respect for official language minority communities to let the Standing Committee on Official Languages have the opportunity to examine the situation, and make the necessary recommendations and amendments.

I am pleased that the other members of my party are supporting me in this file, because this is the reality. We do not see any Conservative members applauding this matter, because the Conservatives do not believe in it. They absolutely do not believe in services in both official languages.

It is sometimes interesting to see how things unfold. On February 21, 2002, members of the former Canadian Alliance, who were also members of the committee at that time, presented a minority report. They felt that the official languages issue should be removed from the Air Canada Public Participation Act. We are currently experiencing the first step. The Conservatives come along and limit the implication of official languages in the Air Canada Public Participation Act. I am convinced that they are dreaming of the day when the official languages obligation regarding Air Canada public participation will just disappear.

This makes no sense when we look at a situation like this, but we must look at the reality. Some say that this makes no sense, but nothing has made any sense for the past 16 months, ever since we have been dealing with this Conservative government, which has no common sense when it comes to official languages.

The Conservatives are going to come along and try to buy people with—

Senate Appointment Consultations Act

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, taking part in this debate on Bill C-43, is a little like going to the dentist. Personally, it is the last thing I want to be doing, but what can I say, sometimes we need to go to the dentist. However, we never need to go to the tooth puller.

I truly think the bill before us is of absolute no relevance. It addresses a very secondary matter to the detriment of more pressing priorities than the proposed reform, and that the Conservative government should be concerned about.

Bill C-43 provides for the consultation of electors in a province with respect to their preferences for the appointment of senators to represent the province.

Part 1 provides for the administration of a consultation, which is exercised under the general direction and supervision of the Chief Electoral Officer.

Part 2 provides for the holding of a consultation, initiated by an order of the governor in council.

Part 3 provides for a process whereby prospective nominees may confirm their nominations with the Chief Electoral Officer.

Part 4 addresses voting by electors in a consultation.

Part 5 sets out the rules for the counting of votes pursuant to a preferential system, which takes into account the first and subsequent preferences of electors as indicated on their ballots.

Parts 6 and 7 deal with communications and third party advertising in relation to consultations.

Part 8 addresses financial administration by nominees.

Part 9 provides for the enforcement of the enactment, including the establishment of offences and punishments for contraventions of certain provisions.

Part 10 contains transitional provisions, consequential amendments to the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act, coordinating amendments and commencement provisions.

As I mentioned from the outset, the bill is irrelevant. First, it is quite clear to us that the government, the House of Commons, cannot unilaterally change the Senate without the Constitution being changed. Since the Constitution is a federal constitution, all the stakeholders, in other words, all the provinces, Quebec, the federal government, the parliaments of these different jurisdictions, have to take part in the reform process.

As I said at the beginning, we do not think this bill is appropriate because what we really need is something that includes a review of the Constitution. In the late 1970s, the Supreme Court of Canada studied Parliament's ability to unilaterally amend the constitutional provisions concerning the Senate and, in a 1980 decision concerning Parliament's jurisdiction over the upper chamber, decided Parliament could not unilaterally make decisions about major changes to the essential character of the Senate.

It is likely this legislation will encounter opposition from the provinces, including Quebec. Quebec is not the only province that does not support this government's approach in tabling this bill. The government is heading down a path that leads to the reform of an institution whose relevance is in doubt. Even so, the proposed reform is a minor one.

Do they seriously think that a constitutional negotiation process—which would be necessary, as I said—makes sense right now when the government and Parliament should focus their attention on far more important issues? Just consider reintegrating Quebec into the Constitution that Pierre Elliott Trudeau unilaterally patriated.

All of Quebec's governments, regardless of whether they were Liberal or Parti Québécois, have refused to sign the Constitution as it was patriated in the early 1980s. I would note that there is a three-party consensus on this in the National Assembly among the Liberal Party of Quebec, the Parti Québécois and the Action Démocratique du Québéc.

It is clear to us that neither the powers of the Senate, nor the senator selection method, nor the number of senators for each province, nor the residency requirements for senators can be changed without going through the usual amendment procedure set out in section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which requires the consent of the Senate, the House of Commons, and the legislative assemblies of at least two thirds of the provinces, that is, seven provinces, making up at least 50% of Canada's population.

This is the famous 7/50 formula.

We can see that this bill is irrelevant and could even be harmful, setting in motion a round of constitutional negotiations on a relatively minor issue, as I said. On September 21, 2006, Quebec's intergovernmental affairs minister, Benoît Pelletier—who was recently reappointed—testified before the Special Senate Committee on Senate Reform, where he stated:

—from the Quebec government perspective, clearly any future transformation of the Senate into an elected chamber would be an issue that should be dealt with through constitutional negotiations and not simply through unilateral federal action.

He added:

If the Senate becomes a chamber of elected representatives, its original purpose would be changed. Whether this is achieved directly or indirectly, it becomes an extremely important change which must be debated within the framework of constitutional discussions.

So as I mentioned, Quebec's intergovernmental affairs minister, Benoît Pelletier, simply reiterated Quebec's traditional position to the senate committee by saying two things: first, that the federal government cannot reform the Senate unilaterally, and second, that the federal government cannot achieve indirectly what it cannot achieve directly. Clearly, introducing this bill is a way of doing indirectly what the government does not want to do directly.

As I said earlier, Quebec is not alone in its opposition to electing senators. The premiers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba have called on the government to abolish the Senate instead of trying to reform it. Even the premier of Ontario has expressed serious doubts, saying that electing senators would exacerbate inequalities, under the Senate's current mandate.

Electing senators indirectly would change the relationship between the House of Commons and the Senate and create confusion. I will come back to this. These changes cannot be made unilaterally without the consent of Quebec and the provinces, as Quebec is now recognized as a nation by the House of Commons. Everyone will appreciate that such a reform would be most unwelcome and would not be in keeping with the spirit of either the Constitution or what has been passed in this House.

I said that the first reason this bill is irrelevant is that it will inevitably lead to a round of constitutional negotiations, which do not make a great deal of sense, whether they concern the Senate or just the election of senators. Therefore, once again, if the government goes ahead, it will come up against this constitutional problem.

The second thing that, to me, makes this bill irrelevant, is that, even reformed by Bill C-43, the Senate is still an useless institution. Originally, the Senate was supposed to be a chamber of sober second thought. It was also supposed to protect regional interests. But when we look at the current makeup of the Senate, we see that the appointments were clearly partisan, which has distorted the nature or mandate of the Senate.

Introducing the election of senators will not resolve the issue, because senators will sooner or later have to affiliate themselves with a political party in order to have the necessary resources for the elections. So the Senate will become more partisan and we will depart even further from its original purpose, which, in my opinion, is no longer relevant in the 21st century.

As I was saying, the indirect election of senators would not improve this situation. On the contrary, the electoral process will tend to increase the role of political parties and indirectly elected senators could become concerned with things that now fall under the authority of the House of Commons. This would create a duplication, or, at the very least, confusion, at a cost of $77 million a year. We think this is an extremely high cost for an institution that is not only useless, but that , in the case of the proposed reform, would create confusion and a significant duplication of legitimacy.

It is important to note that because of the evolution of the democratic process in Canada, in the provinces and in Quebec, no province has had an upper house since 1968.

It is interesting to note that members of several provincial upper houses—unlike the Senate of Canada—once had to earn their election, for example, Prince Edward Island. Such upper houses have disappeared over the years, however. Quebec abolished its legislative council in 1968. That was nearly 40 years ago.

Furthermore, I feel it is important to point out another factor. Bill C-43 is irrelevant. Despite the amendments proposed by the bill, the Senate would not be truly democratic. The indirect election by Canadians would give the Senate a superficial democratic credibility. In many respects, the Senate would remain a democratic aberration.

First of all, public consultation is not binding. The bill provides for public consultation, but does not talk about an election, per se, in order to select senators. The Prime Minister maintains the authority to appoint or not appoint the senators chosen by the public and could therefore decide not to appoint a candidate selected in the election process. In one of the background papers provided by the government concerning this bill, it states:

The Prime Minister can take into account the results of the consultation when making recommendations to the Governor General regarding future representatives of a province or territory in the Senate.

Furthermore, how can we trust this Prime Minister, who did not hesitate to appoint Michael Fortier to the Senate, even though he himself criticized the Liberals' partisan appointments? We therefore see that this new Conservative government—which is no longer new, since it has been in power for 15 or 16 months—simply copied the Liberal method of appointing senators.

Also, I recall very well that, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister promised to appoint only elected members to the cabinet. With that Senate appointment, he broke the promise he had made to voters during the campaign. During the next election, voters will be able to judge for themselves how well the Conservatives can keep their promises.

One more factor is very worrisome. Voters will not be represented equally in the Senate. For instance, in the case of Prince Edward Island, one senator will represent some 27,000 voters, while in other areas of Canada—particularly in Quebec—that proportion will be much higher.

There will be virtually no way to remove senators.

The bill provides for the consultation of the population for the appointment of senators, although it is not binding, as we have just seen. They will be appointed for one term. I realize that some say that the bill provides for a maximum term of eight years for senators, which could solve the problem. But it seems to me that presenting oneself to the electorate only once in eight years is far from a guarantee that these so-called “elected” senators will reflect the concerns of citizens of Quebec or Canada.

In addition, the Senate is an institution that was created a very long time ago, and I find it ridiculous that certain restrictions on presenting oneself as a candidate for the position of senator have been retained. At present, you must be at least 30 years old and own real property worth at least $4,000 in the province and the riding that the individual is appointed to represent. Hence, all those under 30 are excluded. I find that very discriminatory. The rule about assets penalizes a part of our population that might seek to be candidates for such elections. This additional factor demonstrates that the proposal before us does not address the root cause of the problem and that it even seeks to rehabilitate an institution that has lost credibility in the eyes of a good number of Canadians and Quebeckers.

Indirectly, the elected Senate would even undermine the parliamentary system. I will come back to that. As you know, in the British parliamentary system, the executive defends the confidence conferred on it by the House of Commons, which is also elected. Thus, the election of the Senate alone would undermine the preeminence of the House of Commons and would create confusion. The election of two Houses would complicate the issue of preponderance and consequently would weaken the parliamentary system.

The Bloc thinks that this is an ill-conceived and irrelevant bill. Moreover, there is no set spending limit for the candidates. The government says that the individual contribution limits and the transfer limits imposed on parties will be sufficient to limit spending. However, since there is an unlimited number of potential candidates and election spending is subject to partial reimbursement out of public funds, it seems unreasonable not to limit individual spending. Lastly, some seats could be vacant for four years, unless there is a reserve. If a senator left their seat for health reasons, if they died or left for some other reason, we would have to wait four years for a new senator. As I said, unless a reserve is created, the bill is ill-conceived from this perspective.

For all these reasons, we would have preferred debating another subject today. As I said earlier, I feel as though I am at the tooth puller instead of being at the dentist. I do not want to alienate my dentist or dentists in general. It is good to go to the dentist, it is even recommended. But it is not recommended to go to a tooth puller.

I think we should be addressing real problems and real issues, such as the fiscal imbalance. In the budget—we continue to support Bill C-52, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007—there is a partial financial correction to the fiscal imbalance, but the crux of it is not corrected. The federal government has too much revenue in relation to its responsibilities. Its transfers related to matters under provincial jurisdiction continue to keep Quebec and the other provinces at the mercy of unilateral decisions made here in Ottawa, even though those jurisdictions belong to the provinces. The Bloc feels that the tax base corresponding to the transfers for health, social programs and post-secondary education should, quite simply, be transferred to the provinces as tax points, whether through the GST or income tax.

Still with the fiscal imbalance, the ability to control or even limit the federal government's spending power should be a priority. The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have repeatedly promised legislation to limit federal spending power. We are still waiting for this legislation. Such legislation would allow a province, such as Quebec for example, to withdraw from a program implemented, in a shared or unilateral manner, by the federal government in the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec. Quebec could opt out with full compensation and without condition. This is important for the people of Quebec and people who need a good health care system, a good education system and social programs that provide an adequate social safety net. For those people, the Senate is of little or no concern in their daily lives.

I would now like to talk about the environment. It seems to me that, ever since the plan was introduced by the Minister of the Environment, criticism has not stopped flooding in from all sides, including from scientists, environmentalists and industrialists alike. We just learned this morning about a poll conducted in Alberta that reveals that 92% of Albertans believe that the oil companies should make a greater effort to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Even more interesting, 70%—I am not sure about this percentage—of Albertans said that these reductions should be in absolute targets, and not intensity targets. What people want in the next few years is a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to what we have seen in recent years. They do not want to see merely a slower increase, which would still mean more in the end, even if we produce less per tonne. It is not only Quebeckers and the general population of Canada that are concerned about this. These are also the concerns of Albertans, who, as we all know, are closely tied to the oil and gas industry.

I would like to talk about foreign policy. This should have been a concern. We do not have a foreign policy statement. The Liberal government, before the election that brought its defeat, had introduced a foreign policy statement dealing with defence and international trade.

No one seems to know where we are headed with this, but we are still spending. The government has just announced the purchase of more tanks, but they were purchased on the sly. International cooperation, however, has not seen much development.

Lastly, employment insurance, assistance programs for festivals and exhibitions, the Saint-Hubert airport, these all deserved greater attention, but that attention has been diverted to Bill C-43.

Criminal Code

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to join the debate at the report stage of Bill C-22, a bill that raises the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age for non-exploitative sexual activity.

Debate surrounding the age of consent for sexual activity remains a sensitive subject. We all have some idea of what the age should be for consenting to sexual relations. As a mother of a teenager, this debate concerns me directly. I understand very well the concerns that other parents may have regarding this subject. The fact is that we cannot always be near our children to protect them from potential threats when they need it.

Protection of our young people has no price. For my parliamentary colleagues and me that protection remains one of our absolute priorities, if not the most important.

In short, the bill raises age of consent for sexual activity to 16 years of age. To avoid criminalizing relations between teenagers, 14 or 15 year olds could consent to having sex with another person, provided that the activity was non-exploitative and the other person was less than five years older than them. Clearly, a 15 year old person could have non-exploitative sexual relations with another person between 16 to 20 years of age, without leading to criminal charges. I would add that raising the age of consent does not affect the provisions known as “enticement of a child”, which forbid any adult in a position of authority from having sexual relations with a young person of less than 18 years of age.

Another exception of the same type would allow 12 or 13 year olds to have non-exploitative sexual relations with partners who were two years older; in other words, with 14 or 15 year old partners.

Finally, Bill C-22 also includes a transitional provision. It provides an exemption from criminal charges in cases where, on the day the legislation comes into force, youths 14 or 15 years of age and their partners five years older, are married, are common law partners or have had or are expecting a child. Then, and only then will they be allowed to continue engaging in sexual activity.

These exceptions are very important. From reading letters I received and listening to concerns expressed by social groups in my riding, I know that opinions vary concerning the age at which young people should start having sex.

However, it is important to recognize that a good number of 14 and 15 year olds have sex, mostly with young people their own age or group. Bill C-22 recognizes this and its goal is clear: it seeks to protect young people against adult sexual predators and not to criminalize sexual activity between consenting teenagers.

Bill C-22 targets adults who exploit youth, not consenting youth. In addition to protecting our young people against sexual exploitation, the bill seeks to send a message to sexual predators that Canada and Quebec do not tolerate sexual abuse of youth. In the same way, on the international scene, Bill C-22 clearly establishes that Canada and Quebec are not destinations of choice for sexual tourism. That brings me to the Internet, a phenomenal innovation that all of us can use to communicate and gain instant access to information and resources around the world. But even though it is an educational tool for our young people, it is also a new way for pedophiles and other predators to sexually exploit children and youth.

It is one of many methods used by people looking to take advantage of legislation on age of consent to sexual activity. Sexual tourism must not be allowed here.

Fortunately, the Criminal Code already has provisions on Internet luring, sexual assault and relations with a person in a position of authority. I believe that these provisions are used as appropriate. As well, Bill C-22 will make it possible for victims to tell the court, freely and above all under protection, what they have suffered. That is what I wish and it is also what the Bloc Québécois wishes.

For all these reasons, my colleagues and I will support Bill C-22 so that it can get through third reading and move on to the Senate. However, we need to look beyond a tougher Criminal Code for ways to address our social problems. The answers do not all lie in piecemeal changes to the Criminal Code. There are many barriers to overcome in the fight against sexual assault of youth, and many of them will remain even if the bill we are debating today is adopted.

For example, the low rate of disclosure and reporting by victims of sexual assault is a major obstacle in combating sexual offences. It will always be impossible to intervene if young people lie or hide their relationship to protect their offender.

I listened to the witnesses who testified before the Standing Committee on Justice during the study of Bill C-22, who said that various surveys suggest that about 10% of sexual assaults are reported annually to the forces of law and order. This shows that victims are generally reluctant to report their situation because they fear the negative reactions of those around them and their attackers’ reactions. Victims fear the problems they will experience in their role as witnesses in court.

Furthermore, I was saying how difficult it can be for parents to ensure the welfare of their children. Parents cannot always be at their children’s sides. I also respect the deep desire of youth to seek a degree of autonomy and intimacy. But I hope with all my heart that, as each of them learns about life, nothing will happen to them. And the parents’ responsibility must also be taken into consideration.

Hence the importance of prevention for our children. Sex education is a must if we really want to protect our youth from sexual exploitation. Not only must it teach them about their responsibilities concerning sexuality, that is, about the various sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies, but above all it must give them the tools to protect themselves better from unwanted or exploitative sexual relations.

Better sex education enables children and youth to avoid some difficult and trying situations. Sex education provides young people with information, causes them to think and helps them make enlightened decisions.

Parents, schools and social services must contribute to this learning, since they all share this important responsibility of ensuring children’s education. Effective sex education consists, particularly for adults, in delivering messages that are clear, unambiguous and appropriate to the age of the child or adolescent.

Bill C-22 is therefore a step in the right direction. The Bloc Québécois has always recognized the need to increase the protection of our children, and this bill does so.

In the circumstances, we will support this bill.

[Louise Aucoin, President, Federation of Associations of French-speaking Jurists of Common Law Inc.]

Good morning to all members of the committee.

My name is Louise Aucoin and I am the President of the Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de Common Law, also known as the FAJEF. With me this morning is Diane Côté, the Director of Community and Government Liaison for the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, the FCFA.

With your permission, I would like to talk to you briefly about the FAJEF. The federation is made up of seven French-speaking jurists associations and its mandate is to promote and defend the language rights of francophones in minority situations, particularly, but not exclusively, with regard to the administration of justice. The FAJEF therefore has a community mandate.

For your information, there are French-speaking jurists associations in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and they represent approximately 1,200 French-speaking jurists. The FAJEF is also a member of the FCFA. That is the reason why Ms. Côté is here with me.

My presentation today will deal with Bill C-23, particularly with its proposed language amendments to the Criminal Code.

To begin, the FAJEF is generally pleased with the amendments to the language provisions in Bill C-23. The amendments are positive, particularly the duty to advise the accused of their right to choose the official language used during their criminal court case. That being said, the FAJEF is still concerned by a number of amendments and would like to suggest a few improvements. We have drawn up four specific recommendations.

The first recommendation deals with subsection 530(6). This subsection automatically directs trials to be bilingual—and we insist upon the word "automatic"—when co-accused choose different official languages. Although it is in the interest of justice to occasionally hold bilingual trials, the FAJEF believes that bilingual trials should not become automatic, because they can significantly weaken the accused's language rights.

The FAJEF recommends that there be a very minor amendment to the wording of subsection 530(6), namely the addition of the word "may", at the beginning. Such an amendment to the wording would allow judges to exercise their discretionary authority by either agreeing or not agreeing to a bilingual trial, in light of the specific circumstances of each case.

Our second recommendation concerns subsection 530.01(1) of the bill. This subsection provides that, once the accused has asked to be tried in an official language that is different from that of the information and indictment, the prosecutor has to, at the request of the accused—and this is an issue raised by Mr. Fraser—provide the accused with a written translation of the text. The FAJEF believes that the accused should automatically receive a translated copy of the information and indictment, rather than have to ask for it, especially since the accused would already have indicated the official language to be used during his or her trial. It is the FAJEF's view that the accused should not be required to make several requests for proceedings to be conducted in the official language of his or her choice. A single request should be sufficient.

Our third recommendation deals with paragraph 530.1(c). This paragraph allows the presiding justice or judge to authorize the prosecutor to examine or cross-examine a witness in the official language of the witness, even though it is not that of the accused or that in which the accused can best give testimony.

The FAJEF is of the view that the prosecutor should, as far as possible, use the language of the accused to examine or cross-examine a witness, although at times it may be justified for the prosecutor to examine or cross-examine a witness in a language other than that of the accused. We believe that by adding "where circumstances warrant" to the wording of paragraph 530.1(c), the discretion of the judge or justice would be better delimited so that such a practice would not become automatic.

Finally, our fourth recommendation has to do with section 531. The FAJEF is concerned about section 531 of the bill, and its application in New Brunswick in particular, because this section could lead to trials being moved from one territorial division to another for reasons of language. Given the quite unique language situation in New Brunswick, the only officially bilingual province, criminal trials are suppose to be available in both official languages in all territorial divisions of the province, without requiring the accused to be tried in another division. The FAJEF would like to see the wording of section 531 of Bill C-23 amended accordingly.

So those are FAJEF's four recommendations. However, before closing, I would like to point out that Bill C-23 raises two other concerns that we would like to see dealt with in the near future.

First, since the right to be tried in the official language of one's choosing requires there to be a minimum number of bilingual judges, the process for appointing judges to the federal bench should be changed in order to better reflect that reality. For example, the level of bilingualism of candidates should be evaluated, and the number of bilingual judges needed to ensure equal access to justice in French in Canada should be provided for in every province or region. That's definitely not the way things stand right now.

Second, it is important that language rights at trial also extend, hopefully in the near future, to all of the procedures incidental to a trial and to other forms of inquiry and hearing under the Criminal Code, such as an application for variation in a probation or conditional sentence order, a dangerous offender application, or an application for judicial review.

By way of conclusion, the FAJEF supports the linguistic amendments set out in Bill C-23, subject to the reservations we have expressed.

I would be happy to answer all of your questions. Thank you.

[Peter Dinsdale, Executive Director, National Association of Friendship Centres]

Thank you.

I'd like to begin by thanking the committee for the opportunity to present before you today on Bill C-303.

My name is Peter Dinsdale and I am the executive director of the National Association of Friendship Centres.

In case you're not aware, friendship centres are community agencies that are mandated to improve the quality of life of urban aboriginal people. We are a service delivery body, not a political voice or representative body, and we are there for urban aboriginal first nation, Métis, and Inuit peoples.

Today there are over 117 friendship centres across Canada from coast to coast to coast and, hopefully, in most of these MPs' ridings as well.

According to the 2001 census, 50% of all aboriginal people live in urban areas, 50% of all aboriginal people are under the age of 25, and 50% of all aboriginal people do not graduate from high school. We are very young, very urban, and a very impoverished population. And according to research conducted by the Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres, 50% of all aboriginal children grow up in poverty in this country today.

In short, we work for an incredibly important segment of the Canadian population to be served by this legislation.

Friendship centres are active in early learning and child care as well. Across the country, there are over 30 friendship centres providing direct day care facilities through over $7.5 million in programming supports. These programs are only one portion of the $19.5 million spent on general family programs out of the total $114 million provided in programming across the friendship centre movement each year.

Like all who are here before you, we have certainly read Bill C-303 and are prepared to make our comments on it. I only want to raise for your attention that we have submitted a brief that details our support for early learning and child care programming. There is no question that the friendship centre movement sees the need for a national network to be in place.

But with Bill C-303, we would like to make a number of observations, and we have some concerns based on it. We're not sure that the appropriate framework exists for directing provincial areas of responsibility with such vigour. Will the appropriate resources be secured to fund the rigorous standards outlined? However, my most troubling question and the most troubling for us in general is how this bill impacts aboriginal people and the friendship centres that we serve. How will this bill apply on-reserve?

The bill does not discuss the challenge of this program, paid for by the federal government, monitored by the provinces and territories, and administered by local profit and non-profit organizations, to navigate the jurisdictional minefields that exist in this area. It is also not clear how this bill would impact friendship centres as potential non-profit partners for the delivery of these services.

Using the lens of friendship centres and the clients we serve, I'd like to comment on five troubling aspects for us.

The first is the notion of universality. What would this mean for urban aboriginal access? It needs to be understood that equal access does not always mean equal outcomes. Given the tremendous social barriers facing aboriginal peoples, it is essential that aboriginal-specific programming exists.

It is important for a number of reasons. Culture-based programs have been shown to be more effective at reaching aboriginal clients. Intergenerational reconnection is an important element to aboriginal programming. Positive role models, community reconnections, healing for the family and their extended family, traditional skills rediscovery, and comparable services all mean a more successful outcome for that child and the parents.

The second area of concern is the notion of tariff. Even the most modest of tariffs for access will be a significant barrier for urban aboriginal people. The average income for aboriginal people is $14,533, according to the 2001 census, versus $19,000 for non-aboriginal people. Aboriginal household income is 87% of that of non-aboriginal households. And aboriginal people's unemployment rate is 19.1% versus 7.4% for the non-aboriginal population.

We're impoverished. Any tariff for aboriginal families is a significant barrier that must be addressed.

Our third area of concern centres around the notions of indicators of availability. While it is clear that the minds of the bill's drafters are turned to ensuring that the widest possible geographic access is being considered, it does not once again provide any comfort that aboriginal people are considered an important client for availability and programming.

Our fourth area of concern rests with the indicators of affordability. It states that service fees should be set at a percentage of average wages for each jurisdiction. It simply reinforces that aboriginal people will have unequal access, as our wages are far behind any average in any jurisdiction.

The fifth area of concern is around the indicators of accessibility. Once again, the drafters' minds are turned to ensuring broad access in terms of eligibility requirements, with a percentage for special needs and other geographic considerations. There also appears to be an inherent contradiction in using income levels of parents as an accessibility measure. Single parents and their prevalence in our community will certainly skew our access, and the ability to pay the aforementioned percent of the region's average wage will further reinforce that.

Finally, and maybe most troubling, the bill does not recognize the jurisdiction of first nation, Métis, or Inuit peoples to provide for their own programming and to serve their own people. It seems not to have considered aboriginal people from either a governance, service delivery, or access basis. But we want to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is no question that more early learning child care spaces are needed across this country, and this is a noble attempt to do that. However, it is our assessment that should this bill in its present form become law, it will have a minimal impact for aboriginal peoples for all the areas raised.

Once again, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee. I look forward to any questions you might have.

[Sylvain Lévesque, President, Quebec's Private Daycare Association]

Good day everyone.

The Association des garderies privées du Québec is pleased to present its point of view to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in its consideration of Bill C-303, which passed first reading on May 17, 2006.

Bill C-303 is another step forward in the planned improvement of services to families in Canada. It is important for the 500 or so childcare centres in Quebec and for the association that represents them to provide information to the committee based on their invaluable contribution to the educational childcare service system that has gradually been established since 1997.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, my first question has to do with clause 12 of Bill C-6 which includes subsection 5.31(1) which reads as follows:

5.31(1) The Minister of Transport may designate, from among organizations that meet the conditions prescribed by regulation, one or more organizations whose activities relate to aeronautics to exercise or perform any of the powers, duties and functions set out in subsection (2). The Minister shall give a designated organization a certificate of designation...

Subsection 5.31(2) sets out the functions: the establishment of standards for the certification of persons, the establishment of rules governing the prescribed aeronautical activities and the establishment of standards for the issuing of approvals and authorizations, etc.

This brings us to subsection 5.31(3) which I will quote because I would like to hear your reaction to this:

(3) A designated organization has all the powers necessary to monitor compliance with the standards and rules that it establishes.

Minister, I want to know whether you fully agree with that.

Income Tax Amendments Act, 2006

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party, the Bloc Québécois, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-33. I am going to read the title so that the people listening will understand it. This is an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, including amendments in relation to foreign investment entities and non-resident trusts, and to provide for the bijural expression of the provisions of that Act.

Now, just from reading the title of the bill, it is clear that it is somewhat complicated, for everyone. This bill is over 400 pages long. I was not joking when I asked my Liberal colleague, a few moments ago, whether his party was for or against tax avoidance, because in the speeches we hear in this House, no one has taken a clear position as the Bloc Québécois has done.

This bill must be passed for the good and simple reason that at present, as we speak, as old age pensions are not being indexed by the federal government, as electricity bills are going up for families in Quebec and probably everywhere else in Canada, as registration fees for car licence plates are going up, as the cost of everything is going up, companies and individuals are using legal entities that are allowed in Canada either to transfer capital abroad or so as not to pay income tax on investment funds. This bill must therefore be passed.

Our position is clear, but we will never stop there. The Bloc Québécois has a single principle: all tax avoidance must be eliminated. It is not acceptable that while some people are having a hard time, others are taking advantage of the situation in order not to pay their taxes here. And then, once those taxes have been collected, we could index old age pensions and raise the various income supports so that people would be able to pay for what they need to survive and meet their everyday expenses.

That is why what some colleagues in this House are saying is incomprehensible. We must never distance ourselves from the public. Certainly this is complex, and we can try, as the Liberal member was just saying, to say that these 400 pages do not solve anything. It is not accurate to say that in 400 pages nothing is being solved. However, he is entirely correct, because tax avoidance is not being solved once and for all. As well, I am not sure that the Liberal Party, which was in power for 13 years, wanted to solve the problem of tax evasion. It did not want to solve the problem, and today, even though the Liberals are in opposition, they will not solve it and they will not do everything in their power precisely to recover all the money that is needed so that we can restore fairness.

I was pleased to hear the minister of the Environment say a moment ago that he wanted to try to restore fairness. This is true of this bill, in part, but the Conservative Party has to be logical in what it says, and restore fairness once and for all. The first aspect of fairness that it should have restored was to index old age pensions on April 1, so that at last everyone who has contributed to the growth of Quebec and Canada would be able to receive dividends on all the time, money and energy they have invested and all the taxes they have paid in the last 40 or 50 or 60 years. That has not been done.

It would be even better if we were told today that what will be recovered with Bill C-33 will be given to those most in need in our society. Never has a Conservative risen in this House, however, to tell us that money would be recovered so that it could be given to those who deserve it. No, that is not what happens. The money is going to be recovered and that is good. The Bloc Québécois agrees with these measures and supports them. You will have our entire support with regard to Bill C-33 and all bills that you propose to eradicate tax evasion once and for all. We will be there to help you, provided that afterwards we can take this money, reinvest it in programs to help those most in need, index old age pensions—as I told you earlier—and be able to reform employment insurance.

With regard to employment insurance, since 1994 the federal government has not invested one cent in the employment insurance plan. It consists of contributions from employers and employees. Believe it or not, the government has managed to generate over $51 billion since 1996, which it has used to reduce the debt and for all sorts of investments, except improving the employment insurance system so that those who have paid into employment insurance are capable of avoiding the famous black hole or seasonal gap, except in a few regions. It is true that the governments, both Liberal and Conservative, have listened to part of what we had to say, since in certain types of industry and in certain regions some pilot projects have been adopted.

The problem is the lack of jobs in all sectors. There have been massive job losses, particularly in manufacturing, in the past two years.

Furthermore no solution has been found for the problem of older workers who have lost their jobs and who deserve an assistance program so that they can enjoy their old age pensions with decent incomes. We have not been able to do that, even though we are swimming in billions of surplus dollars from the employment insurance fund.

All the Liberal and Conservative members will say today that there is no employment insurance fund; it is the government’s consolidated revenue fund. Obviously they collect more from the plan than it costs them, more than they expend on services or insurance for workers.

They make a profit, quite simply. They make money with the employment insurance premiums paid by employees and employers. The reality is that they make a profit. What do they do with the money? They do not give it to the citizens who need it most. They do not improve the plan. We are talking about seasonal workers and workers over 55 who have lost their jobs and who deserve some help until they are eligible for their pensions. We do not see any of that.

There has been no speech in this House, neither from a Liberal nor a Conservative, to say that if we ever passed a bill such as Bill C-33, we could help the least fortunate with that money.

I am not asking that we give this money to those who could benefit from a new employment insurance program. We could simply use the surplus in the fund to improve the EI system. And we could very well use the money saved or recovered through Bill C-33, which addresses tax evasion, to index old age pensions and any other assistance program for the least fortunate in our society.

Once again, and as usual, we are in for a long fight. Those watching us must realize that things do not progress very quickly in the Parliament of Canada. It is a big machine, a big, spacious box with many members and bills that are renewed from one Parliament to the next. Often bills come from previous Parliaments because of elections, etc.

A bill is introduced and then we are informed in this House that the bill did not go through, that we were unable to see it through because we ran out of time and it did not go through all the stages. It is very complicated. However, we must not forget that the party in power often benefits from this, in other words, it arranges things to ensure that the bill does not see the light of day. That is the harsh reality.

We work hard, we try to see bills through, but sometimes the government decides not to pass them quickly. A fast-track procedure exists. Many journalists and media report that we have fast-tracked a bill. What is fast tracking? It is used when we want a bill to pass and we set things up so that it does: we do it quickly and we skip a few stages.

This will not be the case for Bill C-33. The Conservative Party does not want to fast-track. It apparently wants to show an interest in correcting tax evasion.

The Bloc Québécois will give its full support to this bill and any measure seeking to advance the bill as quickly as possible on the parliamentary, jurisdictional, constitutional or any other agenda.

We are prepared to fast-track this bill so that it is enacted as quickly as possible. Why? Because Bill C-33 corrects various provisions of the Income Tax Act. These provisions are being corrected because they made it possible to circumvent tax rules and to evade taxes. The bill is 400 pages and is indeed complex.

Some follow what is happening in terms of tax evasion. Major tax evasion trials are often televised. Individuals have been accused of tax evasion and fraud. Do not get me wrong, but it does not constitute fraud because the law allows tax evasion.

Those who avoid tax have often paid consultants, professionals and a whole host of experts. They have a lot of money and they spend a lot of it to have experts find loopholes in the Income Tax Act, enabling them to avoid expenses and paying taxes.

Today, to deal with the problem, we could all just say that if the government wants to solve the problem of tax evasions it should go ahead and do so. More than 400 pages is needed just to correct some small paragraphs in each amendment. I will not read them all, unless I have the unanimous consent of the House to continue speaking until next week, which I will certainly not obtain.

Be that as it may I would gladly list the sections, paragraphs and sub-paragraphs that have been amended by this bill. In the end, the objective is quite simply to make it more difficult to circumvent the tax regulations and to avoid paying taxes.

The bill responds to the shortcomings identified by the Auditor General in her 2005 report.

It often happens that, here in Parliament, we need the Auditor General to tell us things that we all know. We know that there is tax avoidance in Canada. Cases are reported in the media. People find it maddening that investment money can be legally transferred to other countries without being taxed in Canada. In order to verify that a request was made to the Auditor General. In 2005, in her report, the Auditor General raised the very problem we are trying to rectify today.

The bill before us today will require disclosure of additional information about foreign trusts, which will allow a more rigorous analysis of the figures submitted to the Canada Revenue Agency, in accordance with the recommendations of the Auditor General.

This means data will have to be up to date in order to have all the required information. That is also complicated. We would be hard-pressed to find out how the money was moved, as was the case with trusts; where the money went; where it came from and all the rest. The government absolutely must adopt legislation to control that because, as I said earlier, the big financiers and all those who want to take advantage of the loopholes in the act can hire any number of professionals to help them.

The Auditor General said that this has to stop and that all the required information must be provided. The bill requires that foreign trusts and foreign investment groups must provide all the information required so that we can curb tax avoidance and put an end to it.

I listened to my Liberal colleague earlier and what seems to be the Liberal philosophy. They say they want to put an end to tax avoidance and go after the money offshore so that people pay the taxes they owe. That could take a long time because the money is already gone.

This bill at least has the advantage of allowing the money to be collected before it leaves. That is a good thing in itself. We agree with collecting money that is already in other countries and has not been taxed. We have said that we support any regulations or amendments to the bill for the purpose of recovering taxes from people who have not paid them. But let us start with Bill C-33 to collect taxes from people who want to send their money abroad. We know about foreign trusts, and about all of the foreign investment bodies and entities that transfer capital, and that should be declaring it. We will therefore be collecting the tax right at the start. That is the primary objective that this bill adopts and that the Bloc Québécois adopts.

Tax evasion is much more complex and significant than it appears. This is a principle of fairness. People have to pay their taxes on the money they earn, in Quebec and in Canada, on their sales or however they get it.

When someone sells a car, or a household item, or shares, or whatever, the Income Tax Act allows for exemptions, and that is good because it encourages investment. However, apart from those exemptions, once everyone has understood that after so much profit, they have to pay income tax, this is a simple principle of fairness. In order to redistribute wealth better, we must be able to collect all of the money owing.

We have to stand up. On the day when a government stands up tall, it can tell everyone that they have to pay their taxes, as the law requires them to do, and there will be no more tax evasion or signing of agreements with countries like Barbados, as was done in the past. We denounced the agreements with Barbados, which also allowed the former Liberal prime minister to transfer capital to foreign countries. We have already said a lot about that here in Parliament. This has to stop.

On the day when this message is sent, businessmen will understand that when they make profits, they pay taxes. Our problem is that we allow them to do things and we open the doors that they use. They pay professionals so they can use those doors. On the day when we stop and say that it is over, because we want to have fairness, we will require that they pay their taxes. Because the profits they make are thanks to all the taxpayers who make a lot of corporations wealthy. They often try to make even more profits. We can name them. We saw them when we were talking about income trusts. They are banks and companies that we are dealing with today. Even Bell Canada wanted to create a trust.

One day, we will say to all of them who tried everything they could to make their shareholders wealthy from dividends every quarter, that they have to pay their taxes as they should, and that after that has been done, they will pay dividends. That is it. Dividends will be a little lower, but they will have paid their taxes. When that time comes, the government will be able to resolve the fiscal imbalance once and for all, as we are calling on it to do, not half of it or part of it.

Yes, the Bloc supported the government because it fixed 60% of the fiscal imbalance. But maybe if it recovers all that, it will fix 100% of the imbalance. It will index the old age pension, as it should have on April 1. Maybe it will take a look some day at what an old age pension cheque is supposed to cover. Maybe it will look not only at the cost of living but more at the cost of medications for older people.

It will also look at the cost of housing. Safe housing, including services, is getting more expensive. But the pension has not been indexed for the last 10 years. We have never taken time to discuss the cheque received by older people. Is it really suited to the current needs of our older people, who find that it is getting more expensive to find safe housing. There are a lot of home invasions and people need housing with good security. Are we there yet? No, and we know it. The old age pension was not even indexed on April 1, and it will not be. People who did not know that know it now. I think that most people have already received their cheque and they know that it was not indexed.

In my view, there will have to be a debate some day and the richer people in our society will have to be told that they already have enough and are wealthy enough. They should therefore pay their extra share in taxes. After all, they are not losing all their perks. Corporations and trusts have their own tax rate, which is much lower than the individual rate. They already benefit from the largesse of the system. They already have their ways of saving a few bucks. They will just not get any additional gifts.

The problem is that people who make a lot of money cannot be prevented from wanting to make even more. When people find that the door is wide open and they can detour their funds through foreign trusts and invest their money tax-free elsewhere, why would they not do so, when they can see that their neighbours are doing it?

The income trust story is something like that. The Conservatives are now wrestling with a promise they did not keep and the Liberals with a promise they probably should not have kept. Why? Because originally it seemed like a good idea. But when everybody took advantage of it, they realized that if it continued, one day the big companies would no longer be paying any tax. All of that because they created a little loophole in the Income Tax Act to try to help out. That was done by lobbyists.

We often hear our colleagues tell us that MPs should no longer be there and that lobbyists should take our place. Income trusts have led to this. Lobbyists probably treated members and ministers to lovely evenings with a bottle or two where they had some fine chats about the future. However, lobbyists work for banks and large corporations. They try to find ways for them to make more money. Meanwhile, ordinary citizens sit in front of their televisions and may no longer be able to pay for a meal out. That is difficult to reconcile.

The Conservatives rise to tell us that the Bloc Québécois should disappear. We now have lobbyists. So, all MPs will be replaced. Members will all belong to the same party and the lobbyists will become the official opposition. That will be great, right? That will be just great. Usually, lobbyists do not speak or ask questions in public. Everything is done behind closed doors in order to obtain results.

So, that is how the Conservatives want to govern, and the Liberals before them were not much better. That is the harsh reality. We have allowed lobbies to take over Parliament. It is one of the hard realities faced by new members and they are aware of it.

We receive dozens, even hundreds of invitations every month from various lobby groups trying to take our place as politicians. Personally, I think it is quite something that we have let them take over. Today it has become such a part of daily life that members of the Conservative Party say that there should be no opposition members; the lobbyists will do their work for them. Well, that is how it is. That is what they want because they can be controlled and they have the money to buy them.

One thing is certain: you cannot buy members of the Bloc Québécois. We will always defend a bill, such as Bill C-33, that makes the rich pay their fair share in order to distribute it to those most in need.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand what my Liberal colleague is saying. To the Bloc Québécois, Bill C-33, which deals with foreign investment entities and non-resident trusts, aims, in part, to counter tax avoidance.

I understand that my colleague was talking about income trusts, among other things, and I see that he was trying to connect that with foreign trusts. But for us, this is a bill to counter tax avoidance.

I would like to know if my colleague is for or against tax avoidance, and if he is for or against the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Moffet, I recognize it is a package, but we have to take it a bite at a time. I think everybody is familiar with Bill C-30, and they're going to have to read ahead themselves, or think ahead themselves a little. We have to deal with what we're dealing with right now.

Mr. Godfrey, do you have a comment?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I appreciate that explanation, but isn't that precisely what the government is trying to do here in this bill? Hasn't the government, in Bill C-30, been telling Canadians that we want to distinguish between air pollution and greenhouse gases?

I'm sorry, I'm getting mixed signals. You're saying that the officials are concerned about the bifurcation of air pollution and greenhouse gases. Yet I thought that what we've heard for months and months, in testimony from the government members, in communications, speeches, and the media, is that Bill C-30 is reframing for Canadians the entire question of air pollution and greenhouse gases. Do I have that wrong? The message incoming from the parliamentary secretary, the minister, and the Prime Minister is that we need something new that in fact bifurcates and splits the two, because the government has been saying that there's an air quality component and a greenhouse gas component.

Do I have something wrong here? Are the officials concerned about that entire split?

[John Moffet]

Mr. Chair, may I take the opportunity to reiterate the officials' concern. Our concern is not at all with the objective of trying to maximize the ability to gather information about climate change. Our concern is with the actual impact of these three words, “or climate change”, which would read down or distinguish from “air pollution”.

We've written Bill C-30 with the words “air pollution” throughout, with the intention that those two words include climate change. As soon as you distinguish the two, then you come back to Mr. Cullen's point: you have to go back and add them everywhere or else you have this dichotomy that maybe air pollution doesn't include climate change.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I'm just curious. I need some clarification, Mr. Chair.

We talked about an amendment brought forward by the Liberals, which quite frankly wasn't particularly that bad an amendment. However, it was found that it needed a royal recommendation. Then we had another one brought forward that required relevancy. What I'm looking for is confirmation. I'm not particularly saying this is a bad idea either, but where are we drawing the line on royal recommendation? Does it have to be a direct or indirect expenditure?

As for relevancy, this particular one is saying we're going to have a new body established by this. What does that have to do with Bill C-30 if it's outside Bill C-30?

I just want to make sure I have clarification from the chair as to what a royal recommendation is. Is it a direct or indirect expenditure, and what is the relevancy, for instance, in this particular case, which has nothing to do with Bill C-30 at all and has to do with CEPA?

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Earlier, we asked you what you thought of a government that did not do this or that. What do you think of Bills C-9 and C-10? C-10 included minimum sentences, particularly in cases involving luring. The piece of legislation was castrated, as Mr. Ménard said on the CPAC television channel.

What do you think of Bill C-9 and conditional sentences? Bill C-9 that has been completely gutted. We have two major pieces of legislation. How can you expect, even with Bill C-22—

Canada Pension Plan

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is my second opportunity to speak about Bill C-36. I am happy to do so, particularly because I am the critic for seniors' issues.

I would simply like to remind members, as others have done before me, that in 2006 we introduced Bill C-36, but I think it should have been introduced long ago, since five years earlier the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities examined the guaranteed income supplement, a non-taxable monthly benefit, which is supposed to be paid, based on household income, to low-income beneficiaries of the old age security pension.

In its December 2001 report, the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities observed a number of deficiencies in the application of the guaranteed income supplement program, which is among the three income-maintenance programs for seniors administered by the Department of Human Resources and Social Development. The three programs are not perfect, but today I will only address the guaranteed income supplement, because there are some serious deficiencies in its application.

First of all, in order to receive the guaranteed income supplement, citizens had to apply for it every year. Eligible individuals usually applied for a renewal when completing their tax returns. It is precisely this last point that is the source of a grave injustice.

In its analysis of the matter, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities referred to a study conducted in Toronto in early 2001 by social statistician and policy analyst Richard Shillington. The study found that only 15% of seniors who were using food banks were getting the guaranteed income supplement, though nearly all were eligible for it. Furthermore, a news report in the August 23, 2001 edition of The Toronto Star stated that more than 380,000 Canadians eligible for the guaranteed income supplement were not receiving it.

Personally, I find these statistics appalling, since seniors are vulnerable individuals who are often unable to stand up for themselves.

The question was simple. Why did so many people fail to apply for the guaranteed income supplement, something that could be so beneficial to people who are poor and without resources?

The answer was equally simple. For one thing, it is not easy for elderly people with low literacy levels or failing eyesight to understand the complexity of the eligibility criteria, the content of tax returns and the information pamphlets written for them. For another thing, many people did not know that they had to renew their application every year.

The guaranteed income supplement is for seniors who have physical or mental health problems, physical limitations, language barriers, or limited literacy skills who receive complicated documents, written in language that is often inaccessible and difficult. It is therefore not surprising that 85% of eligible individuals do not take advantage of this income.

Furthermore, Human Resources Development Canada apparently had difficulty contacting particularly disadvantaged clienteles, such as people who have never worked outside the home—often women at that age, and a significant number of them—, people who do not file income tax returns—also numerous—, aboriginal people, residents of remote communities, people with limited literacy skills, people who do not read or speak either official language, people with a disability or who are ill, and the homeless.

Most absurd of all is no doubt the fact that HRDC had been aware of the under-subscription of GIS since at least 1993, but never did anything about it, as evidenced by the fact that the problem persists, or at least did so at the time when Bill C-36, which has yet to come into force, was introduced.

There are not very many options to solve this problem. First and foremost, potentially eligible individuals, whether they file income tax returns or not, have to be contacted directly.

Naturally, it is easier to contact those who file income tax returns, given that their income is already known to the government. However, the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities noted that the human resources department refrained from using information from tax returns for fear of contravening the provisions of the Income Tax Act governing the protection of taxpayer information.

Had this money been owed to the government, I think that this fear would have been quickly alleviated.

The Privacy Commissioner had to intervene to lift this fear, stating before the committee that, under section 241 of the Income Tax Act, the provision of information was allowed for the purposes of the administration of the Old Age Security Act, because the GIS is nothing more than a component of the OAS.

This means that HRDC had not only the means but also the authority to check. So, for the past 14 years, the department could and should have been helping tens of thousands of people among the least fortunate in our society, but has not. That is bordering on scandalous.

Simply put, by its lack of action, HRDC financially penalized individuals among the most disadvantaged. It is mystifying to see that, at the time when this study was tabled, in 2001, officials admitted that the government had been aware of the situation for at least eight years and, yet, HRDC did not manage to take appropriate steps to remedy the problem.

Luckily the Bloc Québécois was there. Over the past few years, the Bloc Québécois has noticed that seniors are among those the most affected by the federal government cuts to transfer payments. The quality of life of older persons quite often depends on the care they can receive. This quality of life also depends on their income.

That is why the Bloc Québécois harshly criticized the irregularities in the guaranteed income supplement program, which guarantees low-income seniors additional income. The negligence of the Liberal government in managing the guaranteed income supplement program was such that in 2001, more than 68,000 seniors in Quebec, who are among those who needed it the most, were still being short changed up to $6,600 a year. I think that would be a significant amount of money to a low-income person.

A major operation by the Bloc Québécois has so far uncovered roughly 42,000 of these people, several of whom did not receive the money they were entitled to for years under the federal guaranteed income supplement program. This effort represents roughly $190 million more, redistributed to the least fortunate in our society. What is $190 million compared to the billions of dollars invested in the military?

A lot of work still needs to be done. In the riding I have been representing for almost four months, I have been in contact with the owner of a retirement home, who is aware of the issue, to ask him to approach the seniors in his establishment to determine their financial situation. The man in question sent a short letter to all his residents explaining that if their income did not exceed a certain amount, they could verify whether they were entitled to receive the guaranteed income supplement. Believe it or not, after three weeks, we have already met three people who were entitled to this supplement who were not receiving it. And that is just in one retirement home. Imagine what we would find across Quebec and Canada.

That means that in Quebec, and elsewhere in Canada, a number of people have been swindled by the federal government. These people should be reimbursed.

The Bloc Québécois plans to continue its efforts to ensure that older persons who are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement receive it, and that the government reimburses the $3.2 billion that it stole from them over the years by feigning ignorance.

In 2001, the committee studying the guaranteed income supplement issued seven recommendations. I would like to review them briefly. Unfortunately, these suggestions and recommendations were not included in Bill C-36 as tabled.

The first recommendation in the committee's report was to ask HRDC, in conjunction with other relevant federal departments, to work immediately to develop an automatic notification process so as to ensure that all potential guaranteed income supplement applicants, prior to their 65th birthday, are apprised of the availability of this income support.

Second, the committee recommended that HRDC, in conjunction with the Canada Revenue Agency, take the necessary steps to develop an automatic process for renewing guaranteed income supplement eligibility, and that the department take immediate steps to simplify the initial application for the guaranteed income supplement.

Third, the committee recommended that the government consider adopting a variable retroactive guaranteed income supplement payment period.

The Bloc Québécois found that this recommendation could be improved and suggested that the committee recommend that the government pay out full retroactivity for the guaranteed income supplement and the allowance. Such a policy would have ensured retroactive payments for the entire period of entitlement. The Bloc Québécois' recommendation was not adopted.

Fourth, the Committee recommended that the Government of Canada define “occasional income” and exempt a certain level of occasional income for the purposes of the guaranteed income supplement and the allowance.

Fifth, the Committee recommended that HRDC undertake an extensive and systematic public awareness campaign to ensure that all seniors receive clear, simple and easily understood information on how to access information on the guaranteed income supplement.

Sixth, the committee recommended that HRDC and the CCRA continue to work together to identify and directly contact seniors who may be eligible for the guaranteed income supplement.

Seventh, the committee recommended that all future annual departmental performance reports of HRDC include an estimate of the number of eligible seniors who do not receive the GIS, the spouse's allowance, the OAS or CPP. In addition, HRDC should prepare a special report, to be tabled in Parliament by October 2002, outlining the progress it has made to address the GIS under-subscription problem.

After having been introduced, having received second reading on January 29 and having been referred to committee, the bill is now coming back to the House to be passed. The Bloc Québécois recognizes that Bill C-36 will make it easier for disadvantaged seniors to have access to the guaranteed income supplement program by allowing for automatic application renewal and payment of the guaranteed income supplement to couples on the basis of only one spouse's income tax return.

The Bloc Québécois also recognizes that Bill C-36 allows seniors who suffer a sudden reduction in employment or pension income during a fiscal year to submit a GIS application based on an estimate of their employment and pension income.

The Bloc Québécois further recognizes that Bill C-36 amends and fine-tunes certain sections of the Old Age Security Act in order to deal with inconsistencies that it contained.

Finally, the Bloc Québécois recognizes that Bill C-36 introduces certain measures amending the Canada Pension Plan, which does not at all affect Quebec and its constitutional jurisdictions.

Therefore, the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of this bill. However, it is opposed to broadening restrictions on new Canadian citizens who have immigrated to this country. To the Bloc Québécois, there cannot be different classes of Canadian citizens, regardless of how they came to be here. Every citizen has access to the guaranteed income supplement.

The Bloc had also recommended that the committee look at requiring the government to pay full retroactive guaranteed income supplement benefits, rather than a maximum of 11 months, as provided under the legislation on guaranteed income supplement and allowance benefits. This would mean a retroactive payment covering the whole eligibility period.

The Bloc also had reservations about the discretionary power, about waiving the requirement for a renewal application for the guaranteed income supplement and allowance benefits, once an initial application has been made. The relevant wording reads, “The Minister may waive the requirement”. We wanted it to read, “The Minister must waive the requirement”, but that was rejected by the committee.

The Bloc Québécois will ask that the Privacy Commissioner testify with regard to the expanding the list of third parties to which the contributor's personal information may be forwarded. We will also ensure that amendments to the current regulations will not restrict access to the guaranteed income supplement.

The Bloc Québécois will continue its longstanding battle with the federal government to ensure that it puts in place all the necessary elements to allow seniors entitled to the guaranteed income supplement to have access to it. With regard to interest charged on overpayments, the Bloc Québécois will ensure that the bill treats all taxpayers equally.

Lastly, the Bloc will make sure that the limitation period for claims of government overpayments is proportional to the period during which individuals can claim amounts owing. The government is not proposing full retroactivity, yet it seems to do away with any limitation period when it comes to the money it is owed.

In conclusion—as I know that my time is almost up—there has been progress. In fact, we are pleased to recognize that progress has been made on several points.

After the report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities was tabled in 2001, forms were simplified and sent by the Department of Human Resources and Social Development to pensioners who might be eligible for the guaranteed income supplement. Seniors only have to sign the document to give the Department of Human Resources and Social Development permission to examine their file.

Renewal application forms are now more readily available, especially since they are found on the Department of Human Resources and Social Development website. Unfortunately, seniors do not often use the Internet.

There is much more to be done. It is deplorable that, for all these years, the successive Liberal and Conservative governments neglected, muzzled and ignored the most vulnerable seniors in our society. Fortunately, the Bloc Québécois was there to ensure that our most vulnerable seniors were heard by the government. Through its numerous interventions in the House, in committees and in the media, the Bloc Québécois was able to keep the spotlight on a group of individuals excluded from the priorities of the Liberal and Conservative governments.

Some progress has been made. However, these few measures will not silence the Bloc. We will continue to fight the federal government in order to obtain justice for all those individuals who made it possible for Quebeckers and Canadians to form the nations that they have become.

Canada Labour Code

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this morning to this important bill to foster more harmonious labour relations between workers and employers under federal jurisdiction.

First, I want to congratulate my colleague from Shefford for his speech, which, in my opinion, put the entire issue into context quite well, and my colleague from Gatineau who agreed to champion this important bill. He did so with much dedication and skill. Since I represent the neighbouring riding, I have the honour of rubbing shoulders with my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, who also championed this bill. She did so not just during the debate, but she also contributed to preparing it and ensuring that all parliamentarians were well aware of the extent of the problem.

Today, some are still against this bill, but not for lack of trying by my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert to make them understand. In my opinion they are against it because they did not want to understand.

We are dealing with a situation that is unacceptable on many levels. First, we are repeating what is happening in a number of other jurisdictions when it comes to sharing power between the provincial, Quebec and federal governments. We see what an imbalance this causes. We have seen this with the fiscal imbalance and with various positions on health, education and national defence. In that sense, a certain number of provinces, but Quebec in particular, have values and principles that often differ from those that are defended in this House and that do not represent what the public wants in any way.

We know that the Bloc Québécois circulated a petition to support Bill C-257. Some 46,000 people signed it in order to call on the House of Commons to pass this bill. It is therefore surprising today, after trying 10 times to get a similar bill passed, that the hon. members of this House are still opposed to it.

The purpose of this bill is to civilize labour relations among a certain number of employers because employers in businesses operating under federal jurisdiction do not all act accordingly. On several occasions, my colleague has mentioned a number of conflicts that have dragged on for a very long time but that should not have lasted for such a prolonged period. She has spoken of the conflicts at Vidéotron, Sécur, Cargill, and Radio-Nord Communications—which lasted 10, 3, 38 and 20 months respectively—and we could add others.

These conflicts were marked not only by their duration but also by the events that took place during the conflicts. The use of scabs—or replacement workers for the purists—leads to deep animosity, not only between the replacement workers and the strikers but also between the strikers and their employers. We must remember that, once the conflict is over, the parties that make the company function must resume harmonious labour relations and contribute to the profitable operation of the company.

Some employers give little thought to this. They are the employers who habitually use an iron hand, ruling by decree, and who rely on the fact that, once the strike is over, they will succeed—through the governance structure or even by outside means and often by long legal disputes and proceedings—in imposing their will even though labour relations remain strained.

In this House, worst case scenarios were described in an effort to get parliamentarians to vote against the bill. But none of those related to actual events. They remain hypothetical situations.

At the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, of which I am a member, we studied this bill and heard from 13 or 15 unions and other organizations which support the bill. Three times as many people appeared before us to oppose it; they did so at the request of the Conservatives to try and justify maintaining the status quo.

We heard the same bunch of examples that do not hold water, like the one about banks no longer being able to operate. The fact of the matter is that less than 1% of bank employees are unionized, and there has never been a single dispute.

We also heard the one about railways. Even without anti-scab legislation, locomotive operators and railway employees, who are skilled workers, could not be replaced in the event of a work stoppage.

We saw it recently. There was a labour dispute that lasted two weeks. The employer could have replaced these employees with replacement workers. The problem was that, in fact, there were no specialized workers with similar skills to do the job. This resulted in a shorter conflict. But had replacement workers been available, and considering that the act still allows the use of such workers, the CN labour dispute would still not be settled, based on the examples that I mentioned earlier.

They are also giving us the example of telecommunications, including the 911 line, which comes under provincial jurisdiction. That is not a good example. During the debate, when they saw that the testimonies given by these companies and organizations were not going anywhere, they talked about the mines that could stop operating. We were given the example of a diamond mine in the far north. They gave us a spiel about how tragic it would be if we did not manage to get the diamonds out of there at the same pace. It would not be possible to use winter roads, because these diamonds can only be transported over ice bridges.

They never cared about the people living there. They never used these people as an example. Yet, when it comes to essential services, the provisions of the Canada Labour Code, particularly section 87.4, do provide such measures. The legislator included these measures to help those who could become more vulnerable following a dispute. The Canada Labour Code already provides that.

I find it unfortunate that they invoke the fact that it was not possible to insert a provision on essential services into Bill C-257 and say this prevents the provision of essential services. But such a clause already exists. It would be better for those members who are opposing the bill on the grounds that it does not include a provision on essential services to say openly that in fact they oppose the principle of anti-scab legislation. Their position in this debate would be clearer for everyone, and also more honest.

Like all my fellow Bloc members, I will support Bill C-257, and I invite other members—

Divorce Act

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-252 authored by the member for Lethbridge. Like my colleague from the Bloc, I would like to acknowledge the hard work that he has done on this file. The bill addresses an important point.

It was interesting to see the positive response from all members who sit on the justice committee to this particular amendment to the Divorce Act. Although it would have limited usage, it is an important one.

I feel as though I am back teaching a family law course at the university.

What is really being said by the bill is if a custody award has been made, and if an application is made to change that custody award, more specifically the visitation rights by the non-custodial parent, the judge must take into account the health of the non-custodial parent, especially if the parent is terminally ill or in critical condition. The judge hearing the application for visitation rights will have to take that into account.

I fully expect this bill will pass. At this stage, the court is not mandated to see what we call in family law as the legal principles, a situation involving a terminally ill parent as a change of circumstances. That is the vernacular within the legal principles under family law in this country. This bill mandates the judge to treat a situation involving a terminally ill parent as a change of circumstances and the judge will have to take that into account.

We heard not only from the member for Lethbridge but from other members about a number of cases where parents, for whatever reason, had not been given access to their children. They were terminally ill, but they were not given the opportunity to see their children before they passed away. More important, and this goes beyond any consideration, the children were denied the right to see their dying parent. That is a personal tragedy in a lot of cases. It also causes psychological trauma which in all likelihood will stay with the child for the rest of the child's life.

I want to be clear, as was the member for Lethbridge, that this provision cannot be used, and a court would not order, a child to see a parent in circumstances where it was not in the best interests of the child. I use as an example a bill which was brought before the House in the last Parliament by a Conservative member. In effect, it was trying to prevent a father who had killed the mother of his children from forcing the children to visit him in prison where he was confined for life. That is clearly a situation that is not in the best interests of the children. This section would not in any way prevent a judge from determining that it was not in the best interests of the children and therefore the judge would continue to deny visitation rights.

In the circumstances where it is a valid conscientious claim by a terminally ill parent, and it gives the children the opportunity, perhaps only once, to see that parent before the parent dies, I am sure in most cases a judge would find it in the best interests of the children and would make that determination accordingly.

I am quite happy to support private member's Bill C-252. I commend the member for Lethbridge for the work that he has done on this. It is an important point. It will cover a small number of cases, but they are crucial cases. In that regard it is work well done.

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?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'm quite disappointed by the response from Mr. Rodriguez. Hopefully, he's taking his bill seriously. We have some serious concerns with Bill C-288. That's why we've been opposing it to this point.

But it's a legitimate question. I'm sure he is not intending this as a meaningless bill. That is a legitimate question--what is his intent?--and this clause deals with that. Is part of this plan with Bill C-288 to provide increased taxation to support his plan?

Marriage

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, like a number of my colleagues in this House, I would like to take part in the debate on the following motion:

—That this House call on the government to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions and while respecting existing same-sex marriages.

Many Canadians must be wondering why it is important to consult this House again on this issue. After all, less than two years ago, this issue was debated and voted on in this House, in the form of Bill C-38, the Civil Marriage Act. At that time, Parliament passed a law defining marriage as follows:

Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.

This definition of marriage includes same-sex unions. As I had not yet been elected at that point, I can express my opinion on this issue today.

First, I would like to say a few words about the motion itself. It is important to point out that the motion will not change the definition of marriage. It seeks simply to ask members whether they want to reopen the debate in order to develop a bill to restore the traditional definition of marriage.

The members of this House have two choices when they vote this week on this motion. For those who support the traditional definition of marriage—the union between a man and a woman, which excludes all same-sex couples—the choice is to vote for the motion. For those who believe that the definition of marriage goes beyond the traditional definition and includes same-sex couples, the choice is to respect the existing law on civil marriage and vote against this motion.

I want to respect the current law, which is in line with my personal values and protects the fundamental rights of Canadians.

I am convinced that we do not have to amend this law, because it still respects the traditional definition of marriage.

I, myself, have been married for more than 25 years. I am the mother of three children and I believe that this act in no way undermines the importance of my union and the solidity of my family. I sincerely believe that the Civil Marriage Act continues to enable all heterosexual couples to marry, as they have done for a long time. The current legislation enables same sex couples to benefit from the same right.

The real question that needs to be asked is this: does the government have the moral authority to decide whether two people, a man and a woman, or same sex partners, can be legally united? In my opinion, the answer is clear and simple: two people who want to live together within a civil marriage, regardless of their sexual orientation, must be able to do so without the interference of the State.

I am one of those who firmly believe in the separation of church and state. In my view, one person’s religion must not become another person’s law.

While the debate deals with a motion that was tabled by the government, I want to emphasize that the government has taken no position on this question. Unlike the previous government, all members on this side of the House, including ministers, are free to vote according to their conscience. In that regard, I must severely criticize the Liberal government for having presented that legislation to the House without allowing a truly free vote on such a sensitive issue.

I am proud to belong to a government that believes that matters of personal conviction should be decided by a truly free vote. As a minister in this government, I feel privileged to be able to express my views on this issue and to vote freely on the motion tabled by this same government.

In closing, I congratulate the government for allowing members of this House to express their points of view of in a spirit of mutual respect.

I take this opportunity to inform the House that I do not wish to reopen the debate, that I intend to respect the current legislation on civil marriage and, consequently, I will be voting against this motion.

[Tina Marie Bradford]

I had better speed up then.

The statutory declaration is a form prescribed by the Canada Evidence Act. It is similar in nature to what people know as an affidavit, something that you would submit to court, but because it is not going to court, it is called a statutory declaration.

The statutory declaration contains the person's name, their residence, their signature, the three requirements that are set out by the current act, and then the person swears the statutory declaration in front of the lawyer, because in B.C. lawyers are able to act as commissioners for taking oaths.

In the last two federal elections we have sworn approximately 350 to 400 statutory declarations for each election. So we've allowed approximately 350 to 400 people to vote who might otherwise be turned away from the polls.

Bill C-31 removes the ability to rely on only one piece of identification, such as the statutory declaration, and now creates a requirement that you have two forms of identification. So the work we've been doing helping these people would no longer work. They would be turned away if they showed up to the polling station with only the statutory declaration.

The effect of this is that, of course, a large number of these people would be turned away. When we swear the statutory declarations, we do a precursory investigation to confirm that they are who they say they are. We'll ask them to go through their pockets to see what kind of identification they have, such as a rent receipt, a court document, a promise to appear if they have been released on bail, or a prescription in their pocket with their name on it. So we would confirm their eligibility before we took their oath and swear the statutory declaration for them.

Now, if these people have anything at all, they would take that to the polling station, and it is not likely that this form of identification would be accepted.

Canada Elections Act

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act.

This is a bill that the committee has studied exhaustively. When there are things that are not working, the role of the opposition is to point them out. However, when things have worked well, then as a matter of intellectual honesty they should also be pointed out. This is called not engaging in shamelessly partisan politics. Here in the House of Commons there is of course adversarial debate, by definition. It must be noted that if a lot more discussion and a lot more collaboration among the various political parties were sought, by all sides, we would be able to produce better bills, bills that were an improvement on what was initially proposed.

Bill C-31 is a good example of what comes of excellent collaboration among the political parties. I will explain what I mean by this.

At the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the government responded to a report. To summarize the sequence of events for the benefit of the people listening to us, the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Kingsley, has to submit a report after an election campaign. The report is submitted to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. That report was studied in committee and all parties are represented on that committee. Our report was tabled in the House. On October 20, the government responded to the report. The response was in writing, in the form of a formal response. There was also a legislative response. Bill C-31 represents that legislative response, which reflects a majority of the points raised in the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

In the opinion of the Bloc Québécois, when the bill goes back to committee, we will have an opportunity to suggest amendments to our colleagues in the other parties, to improve the bill once again.

The reality of a minority government means that there should be a lot more collaboration and consultation with the other parties, as I said earlier. In my view, the government should follow the example of Bill C-31 to amend the Elections Act and follow the same course for other bills.

For example, instead of insisting on pushing its law and order agenda, its right-wing agenda, the Conservative minority government should listen to the Bloc Québécois, which is calling for more emphasis to be put on rehabilitation rather than punishment. Instead of digging its heels in on its right-wing agenda, it should do the same thing with the opposition parties that are calling for the Kyoto objectives to be upheld. The Conservative government should also do the same thing for the gun registry, when it is bent on dismantling it.

I wanted to explain this point during my introduction in order to illustrate how it is possible to come up with better legislation by consulting the opposition. Why are we of the opinion that Bill C-31 is appropriate? The Bloc is in favour of it in principle. We are in favour of it because there is a whole aspect where the possibilities of fraud and error are reduced. Now, thanks to this bill, voters will have to present government issued photo ID, with the bearer’s name and address.

At home, in Quebec, the basic document could be the driver’s licence, which contains this information.

It seems to me that colleagues from New Brunswick mentioned that their driver’s licences do not have photos. I am not sure, but I think that my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst drew attention to this. The goal is to have a document that is issued by the government and bears personal information making it possible to identify the person. It is true, unfortunately, that when voter identification procedures are inadequate, some situations may arise in which people are tempted, often in exchange for money, to go and vote for other people.

There was the classic case that occurred in the Quebec riding of Anjou. I think that someone voted 34 times in the Quebec elections in Anjou. If I recall correctly, the candidate, Pierre Bélanger, lost by fewer than 50 votes. Since then, this flaw in the Quebec electoral system has been corrected.

Voters who do not have photo ID will have to provide two acceptable pieces of ID so as to establish their identity and address. The Chief Electoral Officer will publish the list of acceptable ID. In a recent election, in 2004 or 2006, someone came to a polling station to vote, armed with a pile of magazines like L'Actualité, Macleans, Femmes d'Aujourdhui and 50Plus. These magazines can be purchased every week at the supermarket. In this case, this person received them at home because she was a subscriber. On the covers was the Canada Post seal. This person managed to vote, thanks to her pile of magazines.

When people live in an apartment building, they have no guarantees that no one will go through their mail. In multiple dwelling structures, the mail is not always protected. Anyone can take the mail. So we can understand the absurd example that I gave. This person wanted to vote using this process.

Under Bill C-31, each voter's date of birth will be added to the official list of electors used in polling stations.

For example, a person might know the Speaker's name. I know the Speaker is young; I believe he is not yet 30. A person could try to pass himself off as the Speaker. At the polling station, he says he is that person. The list of electors makes it clear that that person was born in 1918. Perhaps the Speaker remained young thanks to a fountain of youth or an elixir of youth even though he was born in 1918. The birth date provides some indication that there might be a problem. This raises a flag, perhaps not a red flag, but a warning flag nonetheless. The bill includes this improvement.

Given that we believe Bill C-31 can be improved upon, I wish to announce that, subject to consultation, we intend to amend it to ensure that voters lists provided to political parties also contain date of birth information, as is the case in Quebec.

Bill C-31 will also improve the accuracy of the voters list because the chief electoral officer will assign a unique, randomly generated identifier to each voter.

This is a continuing demand of the Bloc Québécois, which has been calling for a unique permanent identification number for each voter for a long time. We would have preferred that the bill was more binding on the Chief Electoral Officer and clearer on this subject. We give notice that we will also have some suggestions for amendments on that point.

Bill C-31 also seeks to remove the deadline after which voters who have a functional limitation can no longer request a transfer certificate to a polling station offering level access. In our opinion, voters in wheelchairs or with a physical disability should have an equal opportunity to democratically express their choices. Unfortunately, when voting places are located in facilities that do not have full and free access or that involve stairs, by definition, they do not in any way promote access by voters in wheelchairs.

It is our view that Bill C-31 will improve communications between election officials, candidates, parties and voters.

Bill C-31 will give candidates a right of access to common areas of public places for election campaign purposes.

I believe that all of our colleagues here today have encountered situations where the owners of some shopping centres have refused permission for us to meet and introduce ourselves to members of the public. An election campaign is a special opportunity to call attention to ideas, to talk about our record as a member or as a party, regardless of which party is campaigning. The government can speak about its record. In the present case, the record of the Conservative government includes the torpedoing of the Kyoto protocol and a disposition in favour of war, similar to the Americans. We will have the chance to return to that record at the proper time—in an election campaign.

Bill C-31 will also provide election officials with a right of access to multiple residence dwellings and to gated communities to revise the voters list. Gated communities are dwellings to which access is controlled by a gate. How can voters be enumerated if no one is able to enter, or barely so? The accuracy of the lists then poses a problem.

Other provisions deal with certain operational and technical improvements, but I cannot list them in detail since my time has almost expired. In any case, we will have an opportunity to return to this topic. I wish simply to remind members that the Bloc Québécois will re-examine some aspects in committee or at third reading.

[Bernard Shapiro]

I think the issue I was trying to raise was that there is--and this would be something, incidentally, dealt with by Bill C-2, at least in its current form--a certain difficulty in the sense that, normally speaking, the people in my office would not have access to job opportunities in other parts of the civil service because they're part of the parliamentary system. They would have access, for example, to Library of Parliament, House of Commons, or Senate positions. That was the issue I think I was referring to. But at the moment, it is not a problem for us.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

As we're waiting for the clerk to share some guidance with us from the procedure manual, I do have a question. Again, in the spirit of wanting to cooperate with Mr. Rodriguez' motion, we were talking about the amendment, and we'll go back to that. I do have a question.

Mr. Rodriguez' original motion said we would begin studying his bill, Bill C-288, no later than Thursday, November 2, which is this week--two days from now--and that we would proceed to clause-by-clause no later than Thursday, November 21. I'm looking at the calendar and see that this would leave us, with a break week in between, only two meetings. I am ensuring I understand the original motion and why I have raised an amendment. What the work plan would do would allow for two meetings for witnesses. Am I interpreting that right? If I am, that's why I have great concern.

The original work plan presented by Mr. Godfrey had seven meetings; what you're proposing has only two. There are only two scheduled meetings, which would be November 7 and November 9, and Mr. Cullen's motion was to invite the minister before she went on her trip to Kenya, and that could be on November 7 or November 9 as well.

We have a lot of pressure on the committee. I think your original motion is not realistic. It does not provide adequate debate, adequate witnesses, adequate meetings. That's where I think we're having a huge problem, in that Bill C-288 needs to be done properly.

If we vote on my amendment, which we will do--when, I'm not sure--and then go back to your original motion.... If the amendment doesn't pass--hopefully, it will pass--but if it doesn't and we go back to the original motion, what are you proposing? That's my question to you.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I think Mr. Pacetti is right. I'm kind of puzzled that anybody would be resisting having a.... It seems to me the way you do things is that you have witnesses, then you have amendments, and then you go to clause-by-clause. I thought that was the way you did legislation. We had the first cut at Bill C-25 this morning. I thought a lot of members on both sides of the House raised legitimate questions. Even the Conservatives raised legitimate questions, which was novel in and of itself.

I think we should just proceed on this bill in the normal fashion, which is that you hear witnesses, and then we'll schedule clause-by-clause.

Criminal Code

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to participate in the second reading debate of Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (age of protection) and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Records Act.

There are many reasons that Bill C-22 is so welcome. It realizes an important component of this government's tackling crime commitment to safeguard Canadian families against sexual predators. This commitment in turn reflects the importance that Canadians ascribe to the protection of children and youth against sexual exploitation. Most important, Bill C-22's reforms will finally provide 14 and 15 year olds with much needed additional protection against adult sexual predators.

Bill C-22 proposes to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16. Age of consent, or age of protection as Bill C-22 now calls it, refers to the age at which the criminal law recognizes the capacity of a young person to engage in sexual activity. All sexual activity with a young person below the age of protection is prohibited, and of course any non-consensual sexual activity, regardless of age, is prohibited.

It is not unusual for the law to prescribe lawful conduct based upon chronological age. For example, in the criminal law context, the age of criminal responsibility is 12 years. In other contexts, conduct is regulated by age for various purposes, including for example, attaining the age of majority, driving a motor vehicle, consuming alcohol and tobacco, mandatory attendance at school, and working.

Such legislation clearly recognizes that children and youth need to be protected. This is the framework within which the existing Criminal Code prohibitions against sexual activity with children and Bill C-22 operate.

Currently, the age of protection is 18 years where the sexual activity involves prostitution, pornography, or it occurs within a relationship of authority, trust, dependency, or one that is otherwise exploitative of the young person. For example, sexual activity between a teacher and his 17-year-old student, even if she purported to consent, is prohibited and has been since 1988. I am glad that Bill C-22 will maintain this age of protection.

The present age of protection for other sexual activity is 14 years. The Criminal Code currently has an exception for 12 and 13 year olds. They can consent to engage in sexual activity with another person who is less than two years older but under 16 years and with whom there is no relationship of authority, trust, dependency, and it is not otherwise exploitative of the young person.

Bill C-22 will not change this close in age exception for 12 and 13 year olds, but will increase it from 14 to 16 years of age so that 14 and 15 year olds will benefit from the same protection that 12 and 13 year olds have now.

Bill C-22 also proposes to create a new close in age exception for 14 and 15 year olds. Under this proposed new exception, 14 and 15 year olds could still consent to sexual activity with another person, provided that the other person was less than five years older and that the relationship did not involve authority, trust, dependency and was not otherwise exploitative of the young person.

I am very pleased to see this proposed close in age exception for 14 and 15 year olds. It reflects an appreciation of the basic realities, namely that, like it or not, young persons, specifically 14 and 15 year olds, are sexually active.

In February 2006 the Canadian Association for Adolescent Health and Ipsos released the results of a national survey of 14 to 17 year olds on their sexual behaviour and knowledge. The survey revealed that 27% of youth between 14 and 17 years of age reported being sexually active and 20% of youth age 15 reported being sexually active. It found that on average, teens have had three partners since becoming sexually active.

While some may find these statistics startling, the government has clearly said that the objective of Bill C-22 is to criminalize adults who sexually exploit youth and not to criminalize teenagers who engage in consensual sexual activity with their peers. Bill C-22's proposed close in age exceptions ensure that this is the case.

Bill C-22 also proposes another time limited exception for defined relationships that already exist when the new age of protection act comes into effect, relationships that would otherwise become illegal by virtue of the fact that the partner is five years or more older than the 14 or 15 year old.

Specifically, Bill C-22 proposes that existing marriages involving a 14 or 15 year old and a spouse who is five years or more older be excepted from the new age of protection. Similarly, if it is an existing common law relationship as defined and it is not a relationship of authority, trust, dependency or one that is otherwise exploitative of the young person, it will benefit from a time limited or transitional exception.

This means, if the couple had already been cohabitating in a conjugal relationship for the period of at least one year or for a period of less than one year but the relationship had already produce a child, whether born or is expected, when the new age of protection comes into effect, the relationship will have an exception that is otherwise illegal. I want to reiterate, though, that these exceptions would be transitional or time limited and would not apply to such a couple, for example that seeks to marry or establish a common law relationship after the new age of protection comes into force. Clearly, to allow such a relationship would be contrary to the objective of Bill C-22.

I have gone into some detail in describing the exceptions proposed by Bill C-22 because it is very important that they be fully appreciated and understood. During the previous debates on private members' bills and motions that sought to increase the age of consent, a major criticism of those efforts was always that they had not adequately addressed what is clearly the objective of Bill C-22: how to prohibit adults from sexually exploiting teens without criminalizing teens themselves for engaging in sexual activity with other teens.

Bill C-22 does exactly that. It builds upon the existing Criminal Code framework for age of protection and it provides the necessary safeguards to prevent the criminalization of teenagers who engage in consensual sexual activity with other teens.

The message in Bill C-22 is very clear. It is directed at adults, not at youth, and it is this. If one is five years or more older than a young person, one is prohibited from engaging in any form of sexual activity with that young person. Under Bill C-22 there is no more uncertainty about whether 14 or 15 year olds consented or purported to consent to sexual activity. Their consent becomes irrelevant. The focus and onus is on the adult as it should be.

I believe it is in the interest of all hon. members to support Bill C-22. It sends a clear message now to adult sexual predators, namely that Canada protects its children and will deal sternly with those who threaten them.

I would like to move on to another big reason why I am so supportive of Bill C-22. The bill is good for the people of my riding. Residents from all over my riding, be they from Peterborough, Havelock, Norwood, Ennismore, Bridgenorth, Curve Lake or anywhere else, have been telling me that they want their children protected from sexual predators. They are frustrated with laws enacted by the previous governments, which fail to keep their children safe, which fail to recognize exploitation for what it is and which undermine one of the key building blocks of our communities, the family.

Bill C-22 is in line with what our government has promised to do, namely to restore balance in the justice system and crack down on crime. Getting tough on crime involves protecting our children and citizens from those who threaten them. This is a two-pronged approach. The first is to ensure that imprisonment is imposed on those who commit serious crimes. The second is to ensure that what constitutes a crime is properly defined by the lawmakers of our country.

It is the duty of the lawmakers of Canada work in line with the sentiment and demands of the Canadian public. I happen to be one of those lawmakers. I would be remiss in my duties, as a representative of all people, including those in Peterborough, if I did not support the legislation.

As I have indicated, a provision of Bill C-22 provides a close in age exemption for teenagers who engage in sexual activity with other teens. This is a very worthwhile thing to consider. Governments cannot absolutely regulate human behaviour, in this case the sexual activity of minors.

While not speaking from personal experience, some teenagers are not always the most well behaved when dealing with authority regardless of the issue. Bill C-22 recognizes that teenagers will be teenagers and without explicitly sanctioning sexual activity, keeps the government out of their private lives. This is the correct approach. Young people are not likely to read any government legislation before deciding whether to engage in sexual activity with a partner. This is why our government has taken the lead on this issue, providing protection for young teenagers, not seeking to criminalize them.

Keeping the streets of Peterborough and the country safe has always been and remains a very high priority for me. The people of my riding deserve to walk the streets without fear. Bill C-22 is part of a wider initiative to provide safe streets and communities in Canada. The idea that everyone can walk down George Street in Peterborough and feel as safe as if they were in their backyard is something that is very important to me. Knowing that proper laws are in place to keep sexual predators off their streets will go a long way in Peterborough by showing constituents that their government is governing with their well-being as its primary focus.

A couple of weeks ago I had the honour to attend the 17th annual CSC Chaplaincy Conference held at Sir Sanford Fleming College in my riding. The guest speaker that evening was Jim Stephenson, the father of Christopher Stephenson, a young boy whose tragic and preventable death provided the motivation for Christopher's law. Christopher's law was revolutionary in Ontario as it established a sex offender registry. Christopher's law works to protect our children from sexual predators, and so does Bill C-22.

Bill C-22 has been a long time coming. It recognizes the concerns of Canadians, including those in the Peterborough riding who want to see their children protected from sexual predators by raising the age of protection from 14 to 16 years of age. The bill should be unanimously supported by all members of this House, and I call on all members to do just that.

Age of Consent

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition from hundreds of my constituents asking that the age of consent be raised from 14 to 16. As timing is everything in politics, it is certainly apropos today with the debate on Bill C-22, the age of protection, which would see exactly that happen.

I ask all members to support this petition and to support that bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Dewar.

I believe the committee is ready for the question. It's proposed that Bill C-16, in clause 1, be amended by adding after line 17 on page 1 the following:

(3) Despite subsection (2), if the third Monday of October is a holiday, the general election must be held on the following Tuesday.

(Amendment negatived)

Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps my colleague from Hull—Aylmer wanted to ensure that I had a good audience for my speech. Then again, perhaps he asked for a quorum call because I was talking about the Liberal Party, which claimed to be the great defender of citizens' interests because of its fight to protect personal information even though it failed at the task when it was in power.

Under that party's mandate, more personal information than ever ended up in foreign hands, largely because Canadian banks were allowed to do business with affiliates in the United States. Laws protecting personal information are not the same in the United States as they are in Canada.

Honest citizens were sometimes harassed by foreign parties trying to sell them all kinds of products, especially banking services. Canadian banks allowed their American affiliates to make personal information available. This all happened on the Liberals' watch. I hope that the member for Hull—Aylmer wanted more people to hear my speech. I hope it was not because of the part where I said how poorly the Liberal government performed when it was in power.

The Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-25 in order to protect personal information and privacy. Quebeckers and Canadians can count on members of the Bloc Québécois to defend and protect their interests in committee by having the Privacy Commissioner and the Access to Information Commissioner appear before the committee to explain what is good about the bill and what should be added in order to protect personal information. It is all very well to take action against money laundering, terrorist activities and organized crime, but we must also protect honest citizens who could end up under investigation for nothing.

I will provide some background, since Bill C-25 did not come out of nowhere. Despite the Conservative government's good faith, it did not invent the wheel. One thing is for certain, the Conservatives did not invent Kyoto. Everyone agrees on that.

Bill C-25 is a successor to Bill C-22, which was introduced by the Liberal government and broadened the coverage of the act. Bill C-25 amends Bill C-22. In other words, Bill C-22 made it mandatory for federally regulated financial institutions, currency exchange businesses, casinos and other intermediaries to report suspicious financial transactions. Suspicious financial transactions are cash deposits exceeding $7,500.

The former government's Bill C-22 applied to financial institutions, currency exchange businesses, casinos and other financial intermediaries. The Conservative government is broadening this coverage and therefore increasing the responsibility of all agencies which, in addition to dealing in securities, also deal in other financial instruments, and of all persons and entities engaged in the business of remitting funds or transmitting funds by any means or through any person, entity or electronic funds transfer network, or of issuing or redeeming money orders, traveller’s cheques or other similar negotiable instruments.

We can offer our congratulations to the Conservative government for having extended monitoring activities to include not only banks and institutions that transfer money regularly, but also to other entities that are often not openly included. This applies to electronic funds transfers and businesses that sell or purchase money orders, travellers' cheques and other negotiable items. Thus, monitoring activities have been extended. We do not want these organizations used for money laundering. I think we can support this.

It also extends to government departments and agents that sell precious metals under regulation. Members of the Bloc Québécois pointed out that there is some degree of illegal trade in diamonds and gold, among others, which are not necessarily liquid assets, but are precious metals that can be used as currency in money laundering.

I believe that the Conservative government listened closely and covered these potential complaints from various stakeholders.

Previously, all the entities targeted by the legislation had to contact the centre, under section 83(1) of the Criminal Code, which sets out the obligation to inform the RCMP or CSIS of any property that belongs to a terrorist group. The new bill adds section 8 of the United Nations Suppression of Terrorism Regulations. Those entities must therefore contact the RCMP and CSIS.

The new bill prohibits all entities from opening an account for an individual if that person's identity cannot be established. Not only is there no obligation, entities are in fact prohibited from opening a bank account. The bank must then contact the RCMP or CSIS directly to launch an investigation.

Furthermore, the bill states that prior to doing business with a politically exposed foreign person—a judge, head of state, minister or other individual who has held a specific office—the institution must obtain the approval of senior management before entering into any transaction with the individual.

Thus, one cannot do business with exposed persons from another country or who would be likely to carry out types of transfers or financing for terrorist activities. They are required to obtain specific authorizations from senior management of banks.

In addition, if a Canadian organization does business with a foreign bank, it is required to take measures to ensure that the foreign bank is not a shell bank, to obtain senior management approval, and to set out in writing all transactions.

In short, there is an obligation not only to know with whom one is doing business but also to scrutinize the banks with which one is doing business. Consequently, when a client wants to conduct transactions with foreign financial institutions, the bank is obliged to verify the credentials and to ensure that the sales, transactions or other operations are not fictitious. Its responsibility has been increased.

In the case of electronic funds transfers, the bank or other business must include the name, address, and the client's account number or other reference number, whether sending or receiving such transfers.

Electronic funds transfers are very popular now. The old bill was implemented in 2001 by the former government, which, once again, did not do its job. The new bill has been introduced for a reason. The Liberal government did nothing for five years. It did not manage to bring a bill into being. Obviously, things have changed since then, and significant numbers of financial transactions take place through electronic funds transfers. That is why the government introduced this new bill, which covers electronic funds transfers.

This new bill follows the United States' lead by requiring entities to establish a program to evaluate their ability to detect transactions that involve laundering the proceeds of crime and financing terrorist activities.

That is what the Bloc Québécois has trouble accepting. If we want to do what the Americans do, we should not only do what they do right, but avoid doing what they do wrong. That is why the Bloc Québécois is being so careful. This is about the ability to detect transactions that involve laundering the proceeds of crime. It would be nice to have that ability and to intervene, but we have to make sure we protect personal information.

Obviously, we will not be investigating. As we saw with the Maher Arar affair, we have to be careful with our investigations. Even with bank investigations, we have to be sure we have a situation that requires it. We cannot investigate just for the fun of it. We would risk arresting honest citizens who might find themselves under the microscope because we want to be just like the Americans, who figure that while they are at it, they might as well investigate a whole bunch of people. We must also avoid American-style mistakes, like casting too wide a net. They often proceed on the basis of race, religion, gender and so on. We are better off using a case-by-case approach and having really good reasons for investigating. Otherwise it is too easy to make mistakes.

The members of the Bloc Québécois will continue to defend the interests of Quebeckers and ensure that the Canadian government does not make the same mistakes as the American government. Any investigations with respect to detection must be justified, not conducted without good reason. Any evaluation of certain bank transactions cannot be done carelessly, because this could lead to honest citizens being investigated without cause.

Furthermore, we must ensure that no information on citizens who should not even have been investigated is shared with the United States, or any other country. In short, we must ensure that the Canadian government does not make the same mistakes as the Americans. Once again, only the Bloc Québécois can guarantee this to Quebeckers.

Bill C-25 subjects Canadian banks' foreign subsidiaries to the same rules as the Canadian banks themselves. It was high time, because the Liberals made the mistake of allowing our Canadian banks with foreign subsidiaries to share information, even though foreign laws often do not have the same respect for privacy. This is true of American laws.

To that end, Revenue Canada agents will now have the authority to give the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre any information they receive from another agent, under the Charities Registration (Security Information) Act. The aim of this new authority is to better fight against the financing of terrorist groups through charitable organizations and through businesses that perform electronic funds transfers. Once again, I would like to point out that the registration of charities must be carefully monitored, although charities are normally made up of honest citizens.

That is why the Bloc Québécois will fight tooth and nail for privacy and personal information protection. One may be open to the idea of all categories of organizations being monitored for money laundering, but efforts have to be made to ensure that charities, which bring together law-abiding citizens, not be subject, as they are in the United States, to a systematic analysis of their data bases or have their members subjected to money laundering analyses.

The Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-25, as long as honest citizens, honest Quebeckers are free from undue monitoring by government organizations eager to copy the Americans, who seem to think that, while they are at it, they might as well monitor or investigate just about everyone. We do not want that. That is not consistent with the philosophy of life and values that the citizens of Quebec have chosen for themselves. We want the privacy and personal information of honest citizens to be protected. Once again, they can count on the Bloc Québécois.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

I want to take your comments a little further. This bill was sent to this committee after second reading. That means that we can't introduce another concept into the way the paragraph...because it's a one-paragraph bill affecting some 160-odd parts of the code.

But in Bill C-70, we did. I want to make sure that you're clear that this was affecting criminal organization offences, which would capture some large drug operations, the serious personal injury offences in section 752 of the Criminal Code, and terrorist activity.

I know you've answered directly to Bill C-70, but I'm asking you about the limitation on a smaller group. It effectively takes out the property crimes and some of the other lesser crimes. It drastically drops this list. Would you think those are the right areas? If there were a wish by Parliament to take away some of the things the probation officers are telling us about, would this be the place you would go?

[Christiane Théberge, Vice-President, Public Affairs and GM Eastern Canada for the Association of Canadian Travel agencies (ACTA) , Travellers' Protection Initiative]

The second concern we would like to address is with respect to airfare advertising transparency. We were here earlier on and heard a great deal about the matter. We believe that the proposed amendments in Bill C-11 will only give the minister power to prescribe regulations sometimes in the future. TPI does not believe that the airlines will willingly change their advertising practices. We see every indication that they increasingly tend to break up their airfares and announce one way fares when these are not even available. We have seen cases where consumers, upon completing the transaction, had paid 25%, 50% or even 90% more the amount initially advertised by the airline.

In the past, the airline industry has promised to take voluntary measures, but they never delivered the goods. We are therefore skeptical of arguments put forward by the airlines, in other words that the airline industry can be self-regulating with respect to consumers' interests. Despite years of discussions with the airline industry and a series of false starts, the airline industry has not moved voluntary on this issue.

We believe that the requirement to full disclosure, with details, should be firmly entrenched in the legislation and apply to all airlines which advertise in Canada. After all, air carriers providing services in United States are already subject to these requirements. There is indeed American legislation requiring that air carriers disclose their fares in full. It is stipulated that any advertising or solicitation by an air carrier or by one of its agents or middlemen will be considered an unfair or deceptive practice, unless the price stated is entire price to be paid by the customer to the air carrier, or the agent. In subsequent interpretations of this requirement, the US DOT has issued notices to clarify that the intent of the rule is to ensure that members of the public are given proper fare information on which to base their airline travel purchasing decisions.

It should also be noted that the US DOT just recently refused to change its rule and enforcement policy that have been in place for 21 years. The Department concluded that the current practice protects consumers and helps them compare prices. It also found that the current rule promotes healthy competition while leaving airlines with freedom to innovate.

Because Canadian airlines are not covered by any provincial regulations, they perpetuate a situation where consumers often experience “sticker shock” when they see the final travel bill. As was mentioned earlier by Michael Pepper, several provincial jurisdictions including Quebec and Ontario, already require that travel agents and wholesalers be fully transparent when it comes to their advertising, something which air carriers are not subjected too, I might add. In Ontario, there is the requirement that the advertised price indicates clearly and in an obvious manner to the consumer all additional fees , with the exception of provincial sales taxes and GST. The same applies in Quebec.

It is important to remember, when we refer the healthy competition within this industry that the current situation gives airlines an unfair advantage over , in many cases, largely small businesses, creating an uneven playing field at the expense of travel agents and wholesalers and also consumers.

TPI is therefore of the view that transparency in advertising needs to be entwined in the legislation and not left to the discretion of the Minister of Transport and the agency.

One other issue is with respect to the air travel Complaints Commissioner. TPI members certainly supported the position and role of the airline Complaints Commissioner when it was created. While we believe that the Commissioner was hampered in his/her position by a lack of powers to take substantive action, having a visible place for consumers to voice their concerns and issues, and having the Commissioner annual report, added an element of transparency to the system, that cannot be replaced by the officials at the Canada Transportation Agency. While we have confidence that the CTA can adequately carry out this function, we are concerned that the issues will loose their public focus., through what was referred to earlier as the “embarrassment” that such an annual report could bring about. We do believe that this balance is important to the consumer, in a way, finally giving consumers some power.

For these reasons, we are prepared to take a “wait and see” approach with respect to this new way of dealing with complaints. However, we expect that the CTA will take a proactive role in ensuring that passenger complaints are appropriately addressed, and that this role is well-known to airline passengers,so that they may know where to lodge their complaints.

In closing, we recognize that this bill addresses many important transportation issues. TPI believes that it is in the public interest that these consumers' concerns about air travel have a proper hearing and debate. By adopting our recommendations and amendments to Bill C-11, we believe that it is possible to adopt measures that would booster consumer confidence and promote competition by ensuring a stable market with transparent and measurable standards applicable across the board. We have all seen the statistics with respect to our main air carriers and that the numbers have been rising from month to month. So this is a stable industry, at the moment.

We thank you for your attention.

[Gilles Dufault]

The minister decided to appoint a certain number of members in order to comply with the Official Languages Act.

[Patrick Altimas, Director General, Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec Inc.]

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for this invitation and the opportunity to share our thoughts with you.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss Bill C-9 with you. Thank you again for the invitation.

The Association des services de rehabilitation sociale du Québec represents over 50 community organizations actively involved in crime prevention and working with adult offenders in most regions of Quebec.

We want to ensure that a fair balance is struck between the needs of victims in our communities and those of offenders. The association has been in existence for over 40 years, as have some of our organizations. Over fifteen organizations are currently involved in monitoring conditional sentences in the community. We therefore have direct experience with this particular clientele.

The ASRSQ is working with the Elizabeth Fry Society of Québec and Canada as well as defence counsel associations in Montreal and Quebec City to consider the issues raised by Bill C-9. We are pleased to share with you the fruit of our considerations. You have them before you. I will not read the brief in full, but I would like to draw your attention to a few points.

Our brief focuses on the fact that Bill C-9 wants to limit eligibility to conditional sentences despite the fact that there is no evidence today to show that that is needed. Conditional sentences seem to work. Judges seem to respect the provisions of the Criminal Code and the limits imposed therein.

Second, access to conditional sentences is being limited based on one sole criteria, in other words maximum sentences provided by the Criminal Code. Very different type of crimes would be treated in the same way. For instance, the possession of counterfeit currency and incest would be treated identically. This would involve one sole criteria, and the use of only one criteria goes against the very principles of sentencing within our justice system.

Third, we believe that conditional sentences are severe. Fourth, they are safe. Fifth, we consider them to be consistent and preventative, and so does the Canadian public in general.

No evidence has been put forward to suggest that the problem the bill aims to correct is widespread. There are no serious studies to show that conditional sentences are a problem today nor that there has been an increase in crime and recidivism.

Sentencing judges must consider the relative seriousness of an offence. They must also consider the dangerousness of the individual. Even though some offences may seem violent, judges must consider both the offence and the offender.

Bill C-9 strays from fundamental Canadian sentencing principles such as the use of incarceration as a last resort, proportionality of sentencing based on the seriousness of the offence, the degree of responsibility and the need to tailor sentences to individuals.

The bill could reduce the period of time during which offenders are being monitored. Some studies show that, in some cases, conditional sentences lead to longer prison terms than if the judge had decided to impose a custodial sentence.

Take, for instance, a person who is in prison for one year. Under the law they are released without being monitored after having served two thirds of their sentences.

Conditional sentencees, however, must complete the entire year of their sentence and the monitoring period lasts twelve months.

By providing identical treatment for offences like the possession of counterfeit currency and incest, as I stated it earlier, the bill contributes to a growing sense of confusion about the notions of seriousness and dangerousness. We do not believe that reducing access to conditional sentences will make our communities safer. On the contrary, over the medium and longer term, the safety of our communities could be jeopardized.

Allow me to explain. Some people today could be entitled to a conditional sentence, but would not be under Bill C-9. The economic and social impact of that would be significant. Jobs could be lost, families could be shattered, etc.

We therefore believe that this bill is unnecessary. We do however believe more studies should be undertaken on conditional sentences since their inception. This will allow for better understanding of the issue and an accurate assessment of the effect of conditional sentences over the last few years.

According to the experience of workers within our community network, the conditional sentencees they work with are not necessarily violent people. They successfully complete their conditional sentences and, when they do not, it is because of breach of conditions rather than recidivism.

So, what is the problem? That is the question we have been asking ourselves. We believe that further study, or even larger studies than those we currently have access to, should be carried out before any changes are made to the system.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, for having given me this opportunity to speak to you.

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I feel very bitter as I rise to participate in this debate.

Everything we see today, the whole mess, is the fault of the Liberals and Conservatives. Things could have turned out very differently if Canada—as it behaves at the WTO and in all the international trade forums—had not acted like a peewee, if not an atom, in the negotiations, starting with theMinister of Industry and his far-fetched statements last spring that opened the way to this cut-rate agreement.

I rise as well to be very responsible. When the agreement with the Americans was signed, we went around to the industries, unions and communities in Quebec. They told us, contrary to what the parliamentary secretary claimed, that the agreement was not perfect and needed to be clarified, but they were exhausted. They said that the Conservative government had smothered them and they were on the verge of bankruptcy. They asked us, therefore, to vote in favour of the bill based on this agreement but to go on saying that the agreement was cut-rate and far from the original objective. That objective, back in 2001, was for free trade in the softwood lumber industry.

This responsible approach led us to go and listen to what the industry, the unions and the communities had to say. This approach also means that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-24.

I rise today not only to be responsible but also to be constructive. Everyone said throughout Quebec that this agreement was not enough to resolve the structural crisis that the forest industry is going through, especially in Quebec. It is probably the same everywhere in Canada, and the parliamentary secretary must have heard about it. We will need much stronger action to help the softwood lumber industry and our workers to survive this crisis.

If the Conservative government just sits on this bad agreement, thinking that people will forget the rest, it is sadly mistaken. I reach out to the Conservatives so that they proceed with the post-agreement phase and institute a real plan in support of the forest industry. It is true of Quebec, and I am sure it is true of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. If the Conservatives are happy just to pass Bill C-24 and think that that solves the problem, they will pay a heavy price in the next elections, which, I can assure the House, will not be long in coming. Our responsible, constructive approach should not lead the House to forget that we have not achieved the objectives that Parliament set for itself in 2001.

I myself introduced a motion, which passed unanimously, asking the Canadian government to do all it could to ensure that the softwood lumber industry was finally included in free trade. Unfortunately, as I said, the attitude, policies, approaches and directions of the previous government and the one that followed have led to this dead end. The industry needs a little oxygen.

Remember that Guy Chevrette said the industry needs some breathing room. He also said that if there were loan guarantees, he would refer the issue to his association for a vote, and that he thought people would be ready to fight to the end. The Conservative and Liberal governments refused to help the industry. They forced it to its knees and then suggested it accept the agreement, without which it would surely face ruin.

We refuse to let it be ruined. Saving it from ruin means more than just adopting Bill C-24; it also means instituting a whole series of measures to help the industry survive the structural crisis that, in Quebec, resulted from the Coulombe report, as the parliamentary secretary should know. Cut volumes will gradually be reduced by 20%. Energy costs have risen, the dollar has reached great heights, and there are a number of other problems Quebec alone faces. I will come back to this later.

I would like to review the order of events briefly. On March 31, 2001, the previous agreement fell. It, too, was a trade agreement administered with the United States. At the time, companies belonging to the American protectionist coalition submitted a petition. The Department of Commerce responded by imposing a 28% duty.

What was the Liberal government's strategy? That is the root of the problem. That government adopted a two-pronged strategy: negotiation with the Americans and legal proceedings.

Once the Canadian government sat down at the negotiation table, the Americans—both the American authorities and the protectionist coalition—expected to reach an agreement like the one before us now, which led to Bill C-24. The responsible thing to do would have been for the minister in charge at the time, Mr. Pettigrew, to say that we intended to pursue all legal avenues to resolve the issue once and for all. Indeed, sooner or later, we will have to find out who is in the right: the Americans, or Canadians and Quebeckers.

As you know, all of the courts, both the WTO and NAFTA, ruled in our favour. Our lumber is not subsidized and is not harming American producers. As such, the duties are illegal. However, we did not pursue this course to its end.

And a few months later, as I mentioned, the industry itself asked us to vote in favour of Bill C-24. Why? Because the Liberals not only pursued both paths, which sent a bad message to American authorities and the American industry, suggesting that we were going to bend sooner or later, but the government also refused to implement an aid program for the industry, although the Bloc Québécois has been requesting this since May 2002. I proposed this plan along with my colleague, the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup. I would remind the House that if we had achieved those elements, our situation would be different today. But, no, the Liberal government refused, just like the Conservative government.

First, to allow businesses to avoid bankruptcy, we demanded an aid program with loan guarantees on the basis that illegal duties levied by the Americans constituted accounts receivable. We were told that that was impossible, that international trade legislation did not allow for loan guarantees. Two weeks before the election, the Liberals, sensing they were in hot water, agreed to offer $800 million in loan guarantees for the next five years.

Even worse than that, in the agreement and in the legislation, the federal government is going to operate precisely through loan guarantees. It will buy back the illegal duties levied by the Americans because they are accounts receivable. We could have been doing this since 2002.

Second, we also asked for a relaxation of employment insurance requirements. We are still asking for this and still have not obtained it, not from the Liberal nor the Conservative government. Third, we also asked for support for processing activities in order to offer more job opportunities in Quebec forestry. We never obtained that support. True, the Liberals established a program to diversify economic activity in those areas suffering from the softwood crisis. However, not one business affected by this crisis received a single cent in aid from the government, apart from $20 million for legal fees, if memory serves. This was, moreover, the fourth point in our action plan, namely, that Ottawa would pay the legal fees of any businesses that fell victim to American legal aggression. At that time, legal fees totaled $350 million. As we know, that figure is now much higher.

So if this plan had been put in place, on the basis of our legal victories—we were not far from the end—we could have got through the legal proceedings. When all options had been explored, there would have been a legal victory. It is clear that a legal victory, and the Minister of Industry said so to us—and he is right on this—does not guarantee that the Americans were going to act on these legal victories. Still, they would have put us in a much better negotiating situation than what happened to us when, in early April or late March, theMinister of Industry went and said that, actually, we did not expect to receive all the duties collected illegally by the Americans. What a great message! That creates some negotiating power!

I have been a negotiator for a long time. When we say to our opponent, to the party across the table, that we know that ultimately we will not get everything we are asking for, even though it is our own money, there is a problem. Obviously, the Americans leapt at the agreement and, oddly, a few weeks later, on April 27, we had an agreement that was slightly improved—it must be admitted—on July 1, and that led us to Bill C-24.

As I said, if the Conservatives had continued on the path I have indicated, that is, right to the bottom of the legal issue, with an assistance plan for the industry, we might have been talking about a few months. We would have been able now to have negotiations with the Americans that would have enabled us eventually to go back to free trade. Unfortunately the agreement may be terminated in three, seven or nine years. We do not know. Let us hope that it will last as long as possible. I am not one of those who wish the worst for our industry, on the contrary. I want what is best so that we can have stable and flourishing communities, businesses and jobs.

As I mentioned, when it ends in three, seven or nine years, we will have to do it all over again. Do you think that the American coalition will stand around idly with this $500 million we have just given it? No, certainly not, it is going to start building its case. We can be sure that in maybe three, seven or nine years a fifth dispute concerning lumber will start again.

What are we going to do then? Is it better to give in immediately and say that we Canadians—not Quebeckers—are prepared to accept everything the American coalition wants, because we are not prepared to fight to the finish?

We have some lessons to learn from this episode, and the first one is never to open negotiations before exploring all the legal options. But the only way to explore all the legal options in this issue is to provide solid support for our lumber industry.

Unfortunately, in three, seven or nine years, I will no longer be here since Quebec will be a sovereign country. However, I want to leave Canada's parliamentarians with a constructive lesson that I am taking from this softwood lumber saga; during negotiations, never extend the hand of friendship to the American authorities and softwood lumber industry until the legal process is over. From day one there has to be an assistance plan with teeth, as the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup and I suggested in 2002.

I was saying that we had a responsible attitude in this case, that we toured the regions and the industries. The leader of the Bloc Québécois and I phoned big businesses, talked with people from the associations, presidents of the major unions, and representatives of the municipalities affected by this crisis. As I was saying, no one spoke publicly to encourage the Bloc Québécois to vote against the bill resulting from the agreement—the future legislation—or to say they were out of money, out of breath and in the process of suffocating.

Although the agreement is far from perfect, it is in this context that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-24. As I said, the crisis is huge. In Quebec there have been 7,000 layoffs since 2005. In my riding, there were 400 layoffs just a few weeks ago. Louisiana-Pacific closed its sawmill and waferboard plant. In my opinion, there is not one region in Quebec where this industry operates that is not suffering right now or worrying. The Louisiana-Pacific closure is indefinite. Let us hope it reopens as soon as possible. But for that to happen there needs to be an assistance plan.

The FTQ and the CSN have issued press releases. We know that Mr. Chevrette also issued a press release immediately after the Bloc Québécois decision to support the bill resulting from the agreement, saying that the Bloc met the industry's expectations.

Nonetheless, I will read some excerpts from the FTQ and CSN press releases to show to what extent the Bloc Québécois is in tune with the stakeholders in Quebec, by taking concrete action on the ground. If the Conservatives want to do the same, they will need to use more than words. They need to take action. I will close later with what we propose they do to get through this structural crisis.

I will read the FTQ press release:

The Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec (FTQ) salutes the Bloc Québécois decision, announced yesterday, to support the softwood lumber agreement.

Given the catastrophic situation of the forestry industry, the FTQ believes that this agreement, although far from perfect, represents the only possible outcome that will save the industry. “This agreement will now force the Conservatives to take concrete action to help the industry survive the major crisis that it has been living through for several years,” stated Henri Massé.

For many years, the FTQ has been calling for concrete measures to help the forestry industry and workers, as well as an assistance program for older workers.

“It is vital that the government listen carefully to the Bloc Québécois demands regarding assistance for the industry and for the workers,” Henri Massé pointed out.

This is the FTQ press release. As we can see, that is not the end of the matter. Once Bill C-24 is passed, I hope that the Conservatives will not sit on their laurels. There is work to be done and we will suggest avenues to be pursued.

I would now like to quote from the Confédération des syndicats nationaux press release:

The CSN gives its support to the demands of the Bloc Québécois, announced yesterday, which seek to support the workers, companies and communities that have been hit hard by the softwood lumber dispute.

The CSN press release goes on:

Referring to the dramatic situation many communities in Quebec are in because of massive job losses in recent months, CSN president Claudette Charbonneau said that the federal government must act quickly to put in place a structured assistance plan. “Older workers and companies in difficulty must have financial support. The hemorrhaging has to stop”, she said.

The release continues:

The CSN stated that the softwood lumber deal is far from perfect.

So two out of two. That seems fairly clear. The release goes on:

However, it is unrealistic to hope to re-open the agreement with a view to improving it in time to help workers.

A quote from the CSN president follows:

The federal government, which negotiated this bad deal, has a responsibility to make up for these deficiencies using effective support measures that will give new life to an industry that is on its last legs. The survival of whole communities in many parts of Quebec is at stake.

The CSN adds:

The federal government should have taken steps long ago to help the workers and companies. Now, it has a golden opportunity to demonstrate its good faith.

As hon. members can see, support for the deal is far more qualified than the Conservatives let on. As well, I have a hard time understanding how the Liberals from Quebec can oppose Bill C-24, which has arisen out of the agreement, just when the players themselves, while stating as we have that the deal is not perfect, are acknowledging that it exists and was negotiated with the Americans.

Given the series of mistakes that have been made since 2001 by the Liberal and Conservative governments, it is hard to go back. Back to the Future is a movie; it is not reality. We have to recognize this.

I will conclude by talking about the support measures that we have proposed to the Conservative government and that are mentioned in the CSN and FTQ press releases: first, an income support program for older workers.

We discussed it during question period. We want a program like the one that was abolished by the Liberals in 1998: a plan for workers 55 years of age or more all over Quebec in sectors hit by mass layoffs. We will not agree to an income support program for older workers aimed at a particular sector or region to the exclusion of others. There is a group of workers who need help making the transition from their lost job to their pension. We need this program back, which as I said, used to exist until 1998.

Insofar as communities as concerned, we suggest real economic diversification programs for communities dependent on forestry. I will mention them. The Liberals established one, but it did not help the industry, it just helped communities. We need not only that program back now but also programs for businesses. For businesses, we want the $4.4 billion in countervailing and antidumping duties that will be paid back by the American authorities to be subject to a tax treatment that will take into account the damages suffered by these companies.

Indeed the dollars in which the companies paid these duties three or four years ago are not worth the same nowadays. Companies will therefore be paid back in Canadian dollars that are worth much more. They will therefore get less back in Canadian dollars than they paid three or four years ago. The government should take this into account. According to the companies’ assessments, they will lose between $400 and $500 million because of the changes in the exchange rate.

Since the tax formula that the government is going to adopt takes changes in interest rates into account, we expect that changes in the exchange rate will also be taken into account. We have a request from the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters that could be applied to the forest industry on an experimental basis, namely accelerated depreciation on machinery. Obviously, if the depreciation can be deducted faster, the taxes on earned income are reduced.

We also recommend setting up a program to stimulate innovation in the forest industry and improve its productivity, programs to diversify lumber markets, and financial compensation for maintaining the road network. Our last suggestion relates to the tax credit for research and development. In the case of the forest industry, this is not worth much because the industry does not pay much tax—in fact, it does not pay any. I have been told that several companies have accumulated enough tax credits for the next 10 or 20 years. We therefore ask that this tax credit be refundable—on a trial basis, no doubt—to the forest industry.

For example, Tembec invests $80 million a year in research and development, but cannot benefit from tax credits for these expenses. Refunding the tax credit could stimulate research and development in a sector that really needs it.

I would like to end by saying that the Canada-U.S. agreement provides for a bilateral committee to administer it. The industry has identified a number of problems. We hope the bilateral committee will be able to correct these problems. I would like to see the creation of a sub-committee of Canadian, Quebec and American elected officials to work alongside the bilateral committee.

In conclusion, one of the problems we are facing is complete insensitivity on the part of American elected officials to the realities of the forest industry in Canada and Quebec. They are under the thumb—let us be frank—of an industry lobby that buys elections and probably even buys some elected officials. It might be time to correct this situation by having more frequent and regular contact with them.

Employment Insurance Act

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Liberal member for his question, which I did not really understand.

Was this about handicapped persons who could not qualify for the program or about the spring gap? I would like to give him an answer, but I do not understand his question.

In any case, I will add that if he so desires, he can introduce a bill including what he said. It is up to him. We would give it consideration. However, the content of Bill C-269 did not appear out of nowhere. The bill really reflects the concerns mentioned by the workers of Quebec and Canada.

Oaths of Office

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-1, An Act respecting the Administration of Oaths of Office

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)