Bill C-1 (Historical)

An Act respecting the Administration of Oaths of Office

Canada Marine Act

[Louise Thibault, Independent, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Alfred-Pellan talked about one of the goals of this bill, which is to improve the navigability of the St. Lawrence and everything related to it.

I would like to ask him what this means for what I would call the St. Lawrence-eastern Quebec corridor. I am sure he will understand why: my riding and my region are in that area.

I would like to know if Bill C-23 will have a direct or indirect impact on port infrastructure belonging to the federal government, be it Fisheries and Oceans Canada or Transport Canada. I am talking about the entire east coast, both the north and south shores of the St. Lawrence. Given that the government still owns much of this infrastructure, it is responsible for it. Fishing is not the only kind of business that goes on there. The federal government is carelessly neglecting its duty.

I would like to know how Bill C-23 addresses this issue: superficially or in depth?

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure for me to rise here today to speak to Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act and other Acts in consequence. The purpose of the strategic framework for Canadian federal ports, established in 1995, was to eliminate excess capacity and create a new governance structure in order to support a more trade-focused system. International trade changed the context in which the federal ports were operating.

A review committee consulted various stakeholders and prepared a report, which was tabled in the House of Commons in June 2003. The report listed a number of recommendations that were fully endorsed by Canadian port authorities.

The principal concern identified during the review focused on the marine sector's financial flexibility, especially for port authorities, in order to maintain economic viability and respond effectively to changing market demand, as well as access to federal funding for infrastructure investment.

In terms of funding, Canadian port authorities cannot rely only on their operating revenues and private lenders. They do not have access to most federal funding. Industry observers have pointed out that Canadian port authorities, because of their structure, are hindering their own ability to procure the necessary funding for investments, which would allow them to maintain or improve their competitiveness. They can ask to have their borrowing limit raised, but a lack of real property to offer as collateral makes lenders nervous.

The bill before us today aims to strengthen the operating framework for port authorities by modifying the current borrowing regime, providing for access to contribution funding, and clarifying some aspects of governance.

The Bloc Québécois believes that this bill will increase the competitiveness of the St. Lawrence by maintaining and improving the port infrastructure required to develop the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes trade corridor. At the same time, this will also promote intermodal transportation and benefit the environment.

The Bloc's key concern with this bill is the competitiveness of the St. Lawrence River, which has always been a major asset to Quebec's development. It is closely linked to the economic development of all its regions. Eighty percent of Quebec's population lives on the shores of the St. Lawrence and over 75% of its industry is found there. The strategic location of industries in relation to the St. Lawrence River means it can be used for nearly all international trade outside the United States.

When considering the St. Lawrence Seaway in the North American context, the importance of its economic impact becomes even more obvious. Indeed, the St. Lawrence River provides privileged access to the heart of North America. It not only allows access to 90 million inhabitants and the industrial heartland of the United States, Canada and Quebec, but it also provides a shorter route for major European carriers. For example, the distance between Montreal and Rotterdam is 5,813 km while the distance between New York and Rotterdam is 6,154 km.

This strategic asset is the reason the Canadian and American governments have done much work since the start of the industrial age to provide easier access to the Great Lakes for international carriers. In 1959, the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway provided greater access to Lake Ontario and the rest of the Great Lakes.

The St. Lawrence Seaway is underutilized, however. The total amount of goods transported via the St. Lawrence dropped from 130 million tonnes in the early 1980s to approximately 100 million tonnes 10 years later, only to hover around 105 million tonnes since.

However, in the past 30 years, shipping has increased by 600% worldwide. Closer to home, the Mississippi system, which competes directly with the St. Lawrence, has seen its annual traffic go from 450 million to 700 million tonnes. Seaports on the east coast of the U.S. have also seen a steady rise in traffic.

A similar trend is affecting traffic going through the St. Lawrence Seaway. After reaching a high of 70 million tonnes, the quantity of goods being transported via the seaway stabilized around 50 million tonnes per year. This is due to different factors, mainly the fact that the St. Lawrence Seaway is not competitive, because of Ottawa's failure to pay attention to marine infrastructure in Quebec, particularly along the St. Lawrence—Great Lakes trade corridor.

Moreover, at a time when marine transportation is increasingly important to international trade, the federal government has been slow to take steps to make the St. Lawrence more competitive. I should mention that this sector of Quebec's economy faces extremely stiff competition from American ports.

Marine transportation plays a key role in the global economy, with nearly 90% of trade taking place by ship.

The importance of marine transportation is also growing with globalization. Internationally, marine transportation represents nearly 400 million tonnes of goods annually, with a total value of more than $80 billion. It is estimated that marine traffic will triple in volume in the next 20 years because of globalization. There is enormous potential there, and the ports along the St. Lawrence must be equipped to benefit from this growth.

Despite favourable economic conditions, Quebec is faced with strong competition from American ports. For example, container traffic has grown far more in the ports south of Washington than in Montreal. An important reason for this is the way American ports are funded. American ports have access to a number of sources of public and private funding. In addition to their operating revenues, major U.S. ports can issue bonds—some tax-exempt—take out loans, apply for subsidies and receive money from all levels of government. Many can collect property taxes, and few have to pay any money to the government.

By enabling the port authorities in Quebec to amalgamate, receive federal funding and take out commercial loans for infrastructure improvements, Bill C-23 will help ports compete more effectively against the ports on the American east coast.

In the past few years Ottawa has given Canada's west coast a number of financial benefits for developing the Pacific gateway and opening it for trade with Asia. There is also increasing talk about setting up an Atlantic gateway, to be located in Halifax, to ensure trade with the eastern United States.

What about the plan for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence trade corridor, which is a matter of priority to the St. Lawrence Economic Development Council, or SODES? This concept of the trade corridor is based on an obvious fact. The ports along the St. Lawrence must establish a common strategy for facilitating the most efficient transport of goods possible amongst themselves and towards the destination markets. The competition is no longer among Montreal, Quebec City, Sept-Îles or the other St. Lawrence ports, for their share of global marine traffic. They are competing against the American ports, and that is the competition they must face.

It is therefore important for users and stakeholders of the St. Lawrence to join forces to make the most of their assets and improve what is called the “logistics chain” in order to make the river and its estuary a quintessential trade corridor.

Such development must focus on the complementarity and advantages of each port and on the complementarity between the different modes of transportation. The obstacles and bottlenecks that slow down the movement of goods must be identified in order to prioritize the investment needed to correct those slowdowns.

The primary challenge is to get not just the port authorities and the regional ports, but also the carriers, namely the railway companies, to buy in to this concept.

The railway companies and the trucking companies do not have a history of cooperating. However, cooperation is essential to the development of the trade corridor, as we can see from Vancouver's example.

The St. Lawrence Economic Development Council, SODES, through the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes Gateway Council, is giving these matters a great deal of thought, as is the Comité interrégional pour le transport des marchandises for the Montreal area.

The Government of Quebec supports this initiative since it has injected $2.6 million into the marine transportation support program and has released $21 million for the assistance program for modal integration in order to facilitate the rehabilitation of strategic marine and rail infrastructure.

The federal government has to do its part too. Once Bill C-23 is passed, it will make a modest contribution to the development of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence trade corridor. As such, the government should provide the same level of political and financial support to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence trade corridor as it does to the Asia-Pacific gateway and corridor initiative.

The signing of a memorandum of understanding between Ottawa, Quebec and Ontario in July 2007 was a first step toward implementing an action plan. Over the next two years, partners in the public and private sectors will collect and share data to guide future multi-modal strategies, projects and investments. This is a step in the right direction, but it is still far from the billion dollars invested in the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative.

We are not opposed to federal initiatives to support the Pacific gateway, but the federal government should also be supporting similar efforts to develop the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence trade corridor.

I would now like to turn to an aspect of maritime transportation that is of special interest to me because it has a major impact on environmental protection. I am talking about intermodal transportation that promotes cabotage on the St. Lawrence. By supporting investment in infrastructure belonging to Quebec's port authorities, Bill C-23 supports intermodal transportation.

How can we make the best use of the unique characteristics of maritime transportation while respecting the private sector's need for fast, low-cost transportation?

Europe came up with an answer because traffic on its road system exceeded capacity. This is also happening in the rest of the world, particularly in the United States.

The solution is intermodal transportation, which is growing at a phenomenal pace thanks to the increased use of standardized containers. Intermodal transportation combines energy efficiency with the rapid transportation of goods.

For the past few years, intermodal transportation has been getting some attention from both private and public sectors. Since 2001, the Government of Quebec has made developing intermodal transportation a priority in its maritime transportation policy. It has invested $1.5 million in an intermodal transportation project at the port of Sept-Îles.

Right now, concrete initiatives designed to develop a real intermodal transportation network are being implemented in several regions of Canada and Quebec.

As you can see, Quebec is well ahead of the Conservative government in this matter. Other intermodal transportation projects are moving forward. For example, there is the Kruger project which transports 300,000 tonnes of wood chips per year by barge from Ragueneau and Forestville to Trois-Rivières. This use of the St. Lawrence will replace 18,000 truck trips per year.

At present, only one quarter of the vessels using the river engage in cabotage or short sea shipping. All stakeholders in this area confirm that this type of transportation has considerable development potential. Therefore, developing intermodal transportation is a very important option for Quebec for the economic development of the St. Lawrence River.

Bill C-23 will allow the use of certain port facilities in the regions and will also maximize the use of the rail network, which has some underutilized lines. This will be the primary means of developing the St. Lawrence Seaway corridor and ensuring that it becomes the true gateway for goods from the Atlantic.

As we can see, this mode of transportation is more environmentally friendly than current modes used. Transportation is responsible for one quarter of greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions resulting from marine transport of goods represents only 1.25% of this total; road and rail transport combined produce 9% of these emissions.

Studies have shown that marine transportation is safer, uses less fuel and produces fewer emissions per tonne-kilometre than rail or truck transportation.

Marine transportation uses only 10% to 20% of the fuel consumed by road transportation. One tonne of freight can travel 240 kilometres by ship on a single litre of fuel. By train, it will travel less than 100 km and by truck, the distance is even smaller, only 30 km. The future of marine transportation depends on recognizing its environmental advantages.

The Bloc Québécois obviously supports this bill because it will foster the economic development of the St. Lawrence River and will help to protect our environment by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-23. In a way, we have been waiting for this bill for a long time, and we hope the wait will have been worthwhile.

This bill is about ports across the country, from Vancouver to Montreal, Quebec City, Halifax and Saint John, New Brunswick. This is of particular interest to me because a port development is under way in northeastern New Brunswick, and this is of critical importance to people in the region.

As everyone knows, my riding, Acadie—Bathurst, in northeastern New Brunswick, may have the highest unemployment rate around. How many times have people in the House said that the member for Acadie—Bathurst should talk about something other than employment insurance? Well, this is one way to invest in a very important port that has been ignored all along compared to all of the other ports in Canada. The Bloc Québécois member said that we must not forget the port of Montreal. But it has no debt and plenty of money, so it is not a problem.

But in our case, it is quite the opposite; we are talking about developing a port. For example, Belledune just outside my riding of Acadie—Bathurst, right at the end of Chaleur Bay. If people bother to look at a map, they will see that Chaleur Bay is in a direct line with Europe. The water there is deep and there is no ice. There is no need for icebreakers to let the ships pass in the winter and no cost involved. Even so, the government bills us for an icebreaker, just as it bills the other ports. Yet we do not need one at the port of Belledune. This really hampers the economic development of the region and this port.

When Canada was a new country, the Atlantic was prosperous. Then prosperity spread west of the Atlantic, to Quebec, Montreal and Toronto. Then it spread to all the Great Lakes, where it is warm, and it went on from there. But Canada was really formed in the Atlantic region. It is important to remember that the Acadians were the first people to come to Canada from Europe. We celebrated our 400th anniversary two years ago. That proves that we were the first.

In our discussions today, It is sad to see that the Atlantic has now been forgotten, especially northeastern New Brunswick. There is a port in Saint John and one in Halifax. The port in Belledune is a new port with incredible potential.

As I said, Europe is in a straight line from Chaleur Bay, and at the end of that bay is Belledune. Looking at the map, it is not difficult to imagine that shipping could continue on to the United States, for example, if there was a good road to get there. Why should ships make a huge detour to get to the United States when the port of Belledune in northeastern New Brunswick is in a direct line with Europe and the United States?

Bill C-23 also permits ports to take out loans. That is welcome news. But I believe that the committee should study the bill to do whatever it can to help them as much as possible.

In the past, the government decided to turn the ports over to the port authorities.

The ports were transferred to the communities and the Liberal government, which was in charge at the time, backed away from them. It did not provide the money needed to keep the ports in good shape. It was not just the port of Vancouver or the big ports where goods are brought in and shipped out. It also involved the ports for the fishery, all the small ports. The government did nothing for years and years.

Last year we were arguing about a job that needed to be done at the Miller Brook port in my riding. It had a drought this year and the boats had to be dragged into port because there was not enough water. The dredging was not even done. It was unbelievable. I am telling the truth when I say that the boats had to be dragged in the sand to bring them inside the port.

It has created a situation where the people are afraid when they see a storm. What would they do if they were outside the port and at any time during the night wanted to come in but could not because the tide would be out?

The port has been forgotten for many years. Today it has become a big cost to the community and to the fishermen. It is like having a house. If the owner does not look after it, in no time it is no good anymore. Repairs need to be done as we go along and we need to keep it in good shape.

Looking at our small fishing ports, one might imagine that the government had not made them a priority. It transferred the ports to the communities, but now the ports are in such a state they can be wiped out by the least storm that blows through.

I will give an example. A few years ago, a storm hit Petit-Rocher. The port had been in need of additional protection. Those responsible argued with governments to add protection from the wind and from November's huge fall tides so as not to lose our wharves. The governments refused. The storm was quite big. A 30-foot wave crashed in and shifted the Petit-Rocher wharf over by one foot. The repairs cost $550,000, or the whole wharf would have been lost. The fishers could not fish. They had to set up rocks to prevent the water from hitting the wharf again and breaking it. That doubled the cost. Repairs need to be done as they come up and not put off until disaster strikes.

The same is true when it comes to appointing people to the port authorities. The government wants to reduce the number of people. The danger is that local people will not be there to make the necessary recommendations. This is not the only concern. It also involves making decisions locally for the general population. These people are, after all, very familiar with the problems. They are the ones who should be making the decisions and making recommendations to the government concerning repairing our ports, such as making extensions, rebuilding or doing a better job in terms of economic development. This was the point I was making earlier about the port of Belledune.

I would like to talk about my riding and how this relates to my own backyard. There are some ports in bad shape in my riding. I can list several off the top of my head. The wharf in Pointe Verte is in such bad condition that boats cannot even enter into the port. The same is true for the wharves in Maisonnette, Anse-Bleue and Saint-Raphaël-sur-mer.

That is also the case for Le Goulet. I was speaking to the mayor of Le Goulet and he told me that the government absolutely had to intervene and help them. These are not large communities. Earlier, the Bloc Québécois member said that the port of Montreal does not have any debts, that it has no such problems and that it would like to be treated fairly.

We have catching up to do. We have to start reinvesting in order to ensure a certain level of economic development at these ports and also to ensure the safety of citizens. At present, ports are not safe. In Grande-Anse, fishermen stay outside the port because when the tide is low they cannot get back in. It is not safe. No one can enter the ports of Miller Brook or L'Anse-Bleue as they are not safe.

The government has responsibilities. It washed its hands of them by transferring them to citizens. When it transferred its responsibilities to the communities, it guaranteed that it would be there to help them maintain the ports in good condition. It wanted the citizens to help but then abandoned them. That is regrettable.

In closing, we will support Bill C-23 if amended. I am certain that we will hear more from the member for Windsor West. He will be presenting some good ideas in committee in order to obtain our support for Bill C-23.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois about Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act and other Acts in consequence.

I would like to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-23 in principle. Obviously, we will have the opportunity to improve it in committee and to call witnesses. We hope—and I am choosing my words carefully here—that this bill will increase the competitiveness of the St. Lawrence by maintaining and improving the port infrastructure required to develop the St. Lawrence—Great Lakes trade corridor, which will also promote intermodal transportation and benefit the environment.

Why do I say that this is what we hope? Because at first glance, we have to be careful. Our Liberal colleague mentioned that when the Liberals were in power, they promoted the Pacific Gateway. The Conservatives, in the person of the parliamentary secretary, said earlier that they have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the Pacific Gateway. They are preparing to announce a major investment in the Atlantic Gateway and Halifax. Yet we never heard any mention of the St. Lawrence—Great Lakes trade corridor in the speeches given by the parliamentary secretary and the Liberal member.

That is why I say that the Bloc Québécois hopes that the bill before us will lead to the development of the St. Lawrence—Great Lakes trade corridor, which is as important as the Mississippi is to the United States. This waterway, which flows directly into the heart of the Americas, must be taken into consideration. We hope that this bill will address part of this problem.

The primary goal of Bill C-23 is to amend the current borrowing system. Those who are watching us and are not familiar with this should know that currently port authorities are entities, independent corporations that have charters allowing them to borrow money up to a certain limit. As the parliamentary secretary was saying, the goal is to increase or eliminate the borrowing limit for large ports with a view to allowing them to develop.

I will give the example of the port of Montreal. It has become less important under the Liberals as well as since the Conservatives came to power, but it is nonetheless considered one of Canada's major ports. The port of Montreal does not do any borrowing at all. Introducing a bill to increase the borrowing capacity of the port of Montreal when it already does not borrow anything, is not going to help it develop.

As far as access to funding is concerned, it is true that port authorities currently are not able to receive subsidies. Just like airport authorities, they have to pay their own way and bill their clientele for expenses. Marine companies obviously have to pay fees to use ports. That is how ports generate revenues. They can contract loans in order to finance improvements made to the ports. That is the current situation.

Now, this bill would allow them access to funding. That is well and good, but I want this to be fair for all ports across Canada. When we talk about the Conservative government's investment in the Pacific gateway, we have to realize it was not for infrastructure within the confines of the ports, since this was not permitted by law. It was funding for improvements to railway lines and access points so that they could provide as many services as possible, to ship and receive merchandise outside the port limits.

Personally, I would like them to receive subsidies today. But if all the money always goes directly to the Pacific ports and there is nothing for the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes trade corridor, this bill will just create an even greater imbalance.

To date, the Pacific gateway program implemented by the Liberals and maintained by the Conservatives still has no equivalent in the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes corridor.

The Conservatives announced that the Atlantic gateway would be in Halifax, but once again, there is nothing for the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes corridor, which is, I repeat, the largest and most beautiful gateway in the Americas. That was the goal when it was created, but I will talk about the history later on. If the Bloc Québécois members are not vigilant, if all the money goes to the west and the Maritimes and there is nothing for the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes corridor, this bill will not have achieved its goal.

I will repeat some of the reasons. The port of Montreal does not borrow any money. Obviously, it is not money that it needs. All the investments should be made outside the limits or boundaries to facilitate intermodal and other types of transportation. However, if we do not end up seeing any of that investment and if the goal of this bill is to help the Pacific and Halifax ports, we will have failed.

I would like to clarify certain aspects of governance. Obviously, there is a need to review how port authorities and corporations are administered—and I think this is good for everyone. For the Bloc Québécois, it is also important that these investments be evenly distributed to all regions of Canada and that, among others, the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes trade corridor receive its fair share for once. This was not the case under the Liberals and has not yet been the case under the Conservatives, as we have seen.

We want to make something clear in this House: the St. Lawrence River has always been a major asset to Quebec's development and closely linked to the economic development of all its regions. Eighty percent of Quebec's population lives on the shores of the St. Lawrence and over 75% of its industry is found there. The strategic location of industries in relation to the St. Lawrence River means it can be used for nearly all international trade outside the United States.

I will repeat this, because it is important to understand. When considering the St. Lawrence Seaway in the North American context, the importance of its economic impact becomes even more obvious. Indeed, the St. Lawrence River provides privileged access to the heart of North America. It not only allows access to 90 million inhabitants and the industrial heartland of the United States, Canada and Quebec, but it also provides a shorter route for major European carriers. The distance between Montreal and Rotterdam is 5,813 km while the distance between New York and Rotterdam is 6,154 km.

This corridor allows faster entry into the heartland of the Americas. The St. Lawrence Seaway is underutilized, however. The total amount of goods transported via the St. Lawrence dropped from 130 million tonnes in the early 1980s to approximately 100 million tonnes 10 years later, only to hover around 105 million tonnes since. Thus, since 1980, the ports of the St. Lawrence have received less merchandise than the 150 million tonnes they are currently receiving in 2007. It was 25 million tonnes less than what was being transported on the St. Lawrence in the early 1980s.

Once again, while some ports have seen increased traffic, neither investments nor Canada's management of the ports file have allowed this important development tool to be used to full advantage. We do not want to hear that this tool is the same everywhere or that it underutilizes goods transportation. For example, over the past 30 years, carriage of goods by ship has grown by 600% worldwide. While traffic on the St. Lawrence dropped from 130 million tonnes in the 1980s to 105 million tonnes, maritime shipping increased by 600% internationally. Closer to home, the Mississippi River system, which competes directly with the St. Lawrence, saw traffic increase from 450 million to 700 million tonnes. Seaports on the east coast of the U.S. have also seen steady increases in traffic.

This is why I have just as much trouble understanding my Liberal colleague's point as I do the message we are getting from the parliamentary secretary who talked about economic activity, China and that fact that they are the ones asking for it.

Even so, I would emphasize that the east coast of the U.S. has seen a major increase in shipping, which did not happen on the St. Lawrence. What does that mean? It means that Canada has not paid attention to one of the most important trade corridors, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway, which borders Quebec, Ontario and the United States.

A similar trend is affecting traffic going through the St. Lawrence Seaway. After reaching a high of 70 million tonnes, the quantity of goods being transported via the seaway stabilized around 50 million tonnes per year. Once again, the seaway leads to the Great Lakes. As I said earlier, the shipping trade dropped from 130 million tonnes to 105 million tonnes on the St. Lawrence, and on the seaway that leads to the Great Lakes, it dropped from 70 million tonnes in the early 1980s to 50 million tonnes. Once again, this is due mainly to the fact that the St. Lawrence Seaway is not competitive, and this is because of Ottawa's failure to pay attention to marine infrastructure in Quebec, particularly along the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence trade corridor. That is the harsh reality of it.

When the Liberals were in power, they decided to put all their eggs in one basket, the basket known as the Pacific Gateway, and neglected the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence trade corridor. The Conservatives are making the same mistake. They added the extra money needed for the Pacific Gateway and decided to establish an Atlantic gateway in Halifax. The money will go to Halifax and, once again, there will be nothing for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence trade corridor.

This bill, which allows the ports to borrow more money, will not solve the problem. All of the money invested in the Pacific Gateway is going outside the port areas per se in order to improve the flow of goods by rail and road.

The same should be done for the ports along the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Great Lakes. The same treatment, the same energy should be given to all these gateways by making the same kind of investment in them. What is being permitted today is investment within the area governed by each port authority. They are told that they can borrow more and that, henceforth, the government may provide direct subsidies.

Given that monies for gateways were given only to the Pacific Gateway—and now to the Atlantic Gateway in Halifax—there is nothing for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence corridor. If that is the purpose of this bill as well, then they have missed the mark.

That is why the only party to raise this in the House is the Bloc Québécois. We are proud to live in Quebec and proud of the St. Lawrence, which has always been the backbone of all Quebec and Canadian industries. We cannot help but notice the major retreat by the Government of Canada from making investments along the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence corridor.

I would like to give a brief overview of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence corridor. The concept of the corridor is based on an obvious fact. The ports along the St. Lawrence must establish a common strategy for facilitating the most efficient transport of goods possible amongst themselves and towards the destination markets. It is also based on a second obvious fact. The competition is no longer among Montreal, Quebec City, Sept-Îles or the other St. Lawrence ports, or even those on the Great Lakes, for their share of global marine traffic. They are competing against the American ports, and that is the competition they must face.

The message I want to send is that we are not in competition with the east coast, the west coast, Halifax or Vancouver. As I was saying earlier about distances, it is shorter to get from Rotterdam to Montreal than from Rotterdam to New York. That means we have an obvious advantage: we are able to serve the heart of North America, the United States among others, Quebec and Ontario too. We are able to do so with this corridor if we work together, just a little, and if all the ports along the St. Lawrence to the Great Lakes work together.

Merchandise should be transported as quickly and efficiently as possible. If there need to be transfers by road or by rail, the same service being provided in the Vancouver area should be provided in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence corridor. These same advantages have to be given to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence corridor so that the world's entire marine transportation market can benefit all the regions of Canada, which still includes Quebec.

We cannot help but notice that both the Liberals and the Conservatives have completely forgotten this large-scale corridor, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence trade corridor.

I do not want to keep repeating myself, but the bill introduced here in this House would provide the port authorities an advantage by giving them borrowing powers or allowing the government to give them direct subsidies, which was not allowed before. Again, there is the example of the port of Montreal. It does not borrow money and it does not have any debt. So, it is not the port of Montreal that asked for this. However, if there are subsidies, it wants to benefit from that as much as all the other ports in Canada.

It is very important that the government understand that because the stated goal is to give direct subsidies within the perimeter administered by the port corporations, namely the western gateway and the Pacific gateway, in the Vancouver area. The Maritimes gateway in Halifax will probably get subsidies as well. In any case, this money has to be allocated in a balanced way across Canada. I am not convinced that is the government's intention.

The Bloc Québécois will be in favour of this bill because it believes that the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes trade corridor is one of the most under-used marine corridors, considering its proximity and ability to serve Quebec, Ontario and the central United States. We believe that the corridor is under-used, that previous successive governments here in Ottawa were negligent and did not make the required efforts or investments to promote this development. Moreover, this St. Lawrence-Great Lakes corridor will also enable intermodal transportation, or more specifically cabotage, which is probably the greatest strength of the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes corridor right now.

We hope to be able to develop cabotage and intermodal transportation. We would like to be able to cover the short distance between Montreal and the Great Lakes and between Montreal and Sept-Îles. We would like to be able to use this vast corridor, as the Americans use the Mississippi, and ensure that all the required government investments will make it possible for all the infrastructure and ports along the St. Lawrence to the Great Lakes to be able to fully develop intermodal transportation.

If that is not the government's intention, the Bloc Québécois will have the chance to ask questions of the government and the minister. It is all well and good to introduce a bill, but if it was done simply to develop the Pacific gateway, they should say so. They should be honest and say if there is a lack of money, if the ports of Vancouver and the Pacific can no longer borrow money, if they require direct investments and subsidies. They must say so because there will be an imbalance between the Pacific and Atlantic ports. We are creating our own competition, and there is nothing worse than that.

This is not the first time the Liberals and the Conservatives have made a mistake on this file. They adopt policies on the fly and they try to fix problems in the short term by putting one fire out and lighting another two. The Bloc Québécois wants to avoid doing that. We agree that ports should be allowed to change their borrowing regimes, which would enable large ports to borrow money in order to support their own development. We agree that there should be some funding now, which was not allowed before, and subsidies via infrastructure programs to help port authorities if they are in too much debt. All the same, we want to be fair to the west coast, the east coast and the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence corridor.

If we do not say that in this House, that is what the Conservative Party will do. That is what the Liberal Party started to do by investing in the Pacific gateway. In the end the Liberals did nothing. The Conservatives are feeling a little uncomfortable and seem to want to invest. They announced funding for the Pacific gateway, but they did not give anything to Atlantic ports or Halifax.

That means zero minus zero plus zero for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence corridor. Absolutely nothing. Obviously, that will be very bad for Quebec's economy, as well as Ontario's, and it will also limit what we can do to develop trade with the United States.

Canada Labour Code

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that all members of the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill. Obviously my leader, the members and I, as the labour critic, will vote for this bill; we agree completely with the principle of the bill, but not at all with the approach and I will get to that in a minute.

We agree with the substance of the bill because we are progressive and because we are very familiar with the anti-strikebreaker bill. Quebec has had such legislation for 30 years. We know how it works, we know it works well and we know it truly protects workers. Therefore, we will vote for this bill if we have the opportunity.

However, I want to talk about the approach. I am terribly disappointed. I do not know how to express it. I do not know which adjective to use to describe my thoughts and feelings. I am terribly disappointed by what the Liberal Party has done, by its manoeuvres and the traps that it set for us with respect to this bill. Last April, as you know, when we voted at third reading on the bill, the Liberals voted against it. As for the Conservatives, we know they are against workers.

The Liberals had led us to believe that they would vote for the bill at third reading. But they voted against it. The next morning, what did they do? They introduced a new bill. Why did they vote against the bill? It was almost identical. What did it contain. They only added one paragraph to the new bill—a carbon copy of section 87.1 of the Canada Labour Code, plus the adjective “essential” in front of “services”. That does not add much to the bill.

If they were really being sincere, if they really wanted to help workers, and if they really cared about workers' well-being, what would they have done? They would have voted for the Bloc Québécois bill. The following day, instead of introducing a new bill, the member for Davenport could have introduced an amendment to our bill. That would have been a new bill that was actually an amendment. That would have proven that they really care about what is in the best interest of Quebec workers, and Canadian ones too, of course.

It seems that the Liberals do not want any anti-scab legislation. They just want to appear to want it so they can garner the support of workers and get some help from them during election campaigns. I will not tell you what I really think of that because I would have to use unparliamentary language. Anyway, they should be ashamed of having voted against our Bill C-257. It was exactly the same bill. As I said earlier, the only thing they added was the word “essential”.

The Canada Labour Code currently does a very good job of covering essential services, but these services are covered differently in Quebec. Quebec has an essential services council. Contrary to what the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles said—and he is way out in left field on this issue, he has no idea what he is talking about—the essential services council was created to manage essential services in the public service. That is one thing.

The anti-scab bill covers all workers regulated by the Canada Labour Code. The Canadian public service is not regulated by the Canada Labour Code, but by the Public Service Labour Relations Act. The member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles should go review the basics so that he can put forward better arguments.

Speaking of weak arguments, I would like to get back to the hare-brained ideas of the Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, ridiculous notions that the Conservatives are passing off as arguments. The minister led a fear campaign against Bill C-257. I mention this because he is likely to do the same thing. He does not learn from his mistakes. Everyone knows that the minister previously voted in favour of an anti-scab bill introduced by the Bloc Québécois. That was in 1990, when he was simply a member. Of course, now that he is a minister, he is ignoring the interests of Quebeckers and voting with Canada's financial establishment.

Among his hare-brained ideas, he says the economy will be completely paralyzed, that banking services will be paralyzed. Yet banks are not even unionized. How could this bill, which applies to union members, paralyze something that is not unionized? That makes no sense.

He also said that, given the current situation, the lack of anti-scab legislation precluded special back to work legislation. Well, one week later, he presented Bill C-46. And what did he want from us? He was asking us to pass special back to work legislation for CN union members. He is therefore contradicting himself from one week to the next. As I said earlier, these are hare-brained ideas that the Conservative Party is trying to pass off as arguments in support of an anti-scab bill.

I would like to briefly get back to the advantages of this bill. As we know, it promotes a fair balance during negotiations between employers and workers. And that balance is important. Indeed, negotiations normally take place between two parties: the employer and the union. However, when there are replacement workers, the balance shifts to two against one: the replacement workers and the employer against the unionized workers. And, given that such an unfair situation can only deteriorate, the employer sometimes calls on the police to enforce the law on their property. The situation then becomes three against one: the employer, the replacement workers and the police against the unionized workers. That is unfair and creates an imbalance.

Because I still have a few minutes left, I would like to go over certain points once more.

This is at least the second time the member for Davenport has asked to postpone the first hour of this debate. We in the Bloc Québécois, however, worked a miracle and succeeded in introducing this bill in less than 10 months. I believe it was on May 2. And 10 months later, it reached third reading, after successfully passing second reading for the first time. This was really a historic achievement. After the bill was passed at second reading, we met in committee.

I must remind this House what happened in committee. The Liberals postponed the study of this bill in committee by a month. We lost a month, even though the Bloc Québécois was doing everything it could. All my colleagues cooperated. They even traded places in the schedule with us so that the anti-scab bill could be adopted as soon as possible, as the top priority. There was a minority government, and we did not know when an election would be called.

My colleagues were generous enough to give up their turns in order to discuss this bill as soon as possible. We arrived in committee and the Liberals wasted our time and made us delay consideration of the bill as long as possible. This lends credence to the theory that the Liberal Party is not really interested in this bill. They just want to seem interested in it and to make sure that no one else in this House introduces another anti-scab bill. The day the Liberals ever withdraw their bill, the Bloc Québécois will definitely be the first to introduce its own, which is ready to go. Unfortunately, this House cannot study two bills on the same subject at once. We will introduce our bill again the first chance we get.

We will introduce this bill again because workers in Quebec need it. In Quebec, there are currently two categories of workers: those who work under the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec and are covered by anti-scab legislation, and some 10% of workers who are governed by the Canada Labour Code, which does not include that benefit. That is not normal, within a single nation.

Lastly, I want to say that I cannot really count on the Liberals to accelerate the progress of this bill, but I can reach out to them. I can tell them that I will vote in favour of this bill, as will my party. Nonetheless, I do not have much faith that they will speed things up and allow us to have a vote on this bill before the next election campaign.

What I hope for the most is that there will be just one Labour Code in Quebec. To achieve that, Quebec should have just one government that collects all our taxes, that takes care of all our international relations and that drafts all our legislation. That is when Quebec, our nation, will lead our own country.

Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007

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

Mr. Speaker, before my distinguished Liberal colleague leaves the House and before I begin my speech on the implementation of part of the March 2007 budget and the economic statement of October 30, 2007, I have a few words to say to him.

We sometimes hear the Conservatives ask us what the point of the opposition is, and tell us that it is only good for criticizing things.

However, the Liberals said the same thing when they were in power. They must now realize that it takes courage to be in opposition, at least enough courage to be able to vote. Votes are sometimes very significant. For example, the budget implementation vote is important. Yet, they did not have the courage to stand up.

This clearly tells the governing party to be very careful when it comes to how it views the role played by the opposition, a decisive role in a democracy.

The Bloc Québécois is against this bill to implement part of the March budget and the October economic statement. We will therefore rise and vote against this bill, because it does not meet the five conditions or priorities put forward by the Bloc Québécois. Once again, it underscores the Conservative bias for the oil and gas economy. Indeed, for them, everything revolves around the oil and gas companies.

Even though they say that their measures apply to all manufacturers and businesses, it is clear that only oil companies will really benefit. These tax breaks will save the oil companies over $520 million, while businesses in the manufacturing and forestry sectors, which are in crisis right now, will get nothing.

Other groups are being left to fend for themselves, including seniors who are being denied the guaranteed income supplement. Once again, there will be no guaranteed income supplement retroactivity, nor will there be any help for older workers. The economic statement ignored older people. It offered them nothing even though we know that the government owes them a lot of money, especially to the poorest of them who are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement. The amount of money they can receive is based on how low their income is.

This bill gives Nova Scotia and Newfoundland an unfair advantage because of their agreement with the Canadian government, and it cheats Quebec out of transfers and equalization payments. The government also ignored the environment, and we know why.

Let us examine each of these concerns. I will start with employment insurance. When we talk about helping manufacturing companies and businesses in general, we are also talking about measures to help workers. The previous Liberal member said that the NDP has a heart but no brain and that they, the Liberals, have a brain. What good is a brain without a heart?

The economic statement does not have a heart. One might think one has a brain if one subscribes to a particular philosophy or doctrine, but what good is that if the philosophy or doctrine does not include compassion and concern for those we need to look after because that is our calling and our duty? We have to look after human beings, the people we represent.

We know that unemployment is one of the most serious issues before us. Yet the previous government, even though it is now the opposition, is siding with the Conservatives to keep workers and the unemployed in a deplorable economic state.

The government is continuing to misappropriate money from the employment insurance fund, which has had a surplus of more than $54 billion over the past 12 years as a result of savings made by depriving people of benefits when they lose their jobs.

Employment insurance eligibility requirements have been tightened so much that the number of eligible individuals has been minimized. Only 42% of unemployed men and women qualify for employment insurance. I inadvertently said “unemployed men and women”. This is not entirely true. When you break down the figures, you see that only 32% of women who have lost their jobs qualify for benefits. This is quite dramatic and quite scandalous for a country that says it is fighting elsewhere for women's rights when here at home, it is depriving women of some of their rights. Similarly, only 17% of young people qualify for employment insurance.

One has to wonder where the surplus comes from. The answer is simple. If all the workers who lost their jobs received the benefits they were entitled to, there would be no surplus. One rule prevents people from receiving employment insurance benefits. The legislation refers to people who received too much money the previous time or who tried to get around the rules. These people represent between 10% and 12% of unemployed workers. Consequently, 88% of unemployed workers should ordinarily receive employment insurance benefits. Yet the actual figure is only half that, which is why there is a surplus.

The Bloc Québécois has introduced a bill in each parliament. This time, we have introduced Bill C-269, which seeks to improve employment insurance eligibility requirements. For example, a person's best 12 weeks of work would be taken into account. The maximum benefit period would increase from 45 to 50 weeks. The eligibility threshold would be 360 hours, and the coverage rate would go up from 55% to 60%. All these measures would cost approximately $1.4 billion dollars at the current unemployment rate.

This amount is less than the sum that was taken, again this year, from the employment insurance fund surplus. What is happening? Why is the government not voting with us on Bill C-269? We will debate it again tomorrow in the second hour of third reading. We have asked the government to give the royal recommendation, in accordance with the Speaker's ruling. It is cabinet that must give that recommendation. The NDP has also requested it. We are still waiting for the Liberals to follow suit and for the government to respond to our request. Why? For the House of Commons to finally vote, in a fully democratic manner, on employment insurance reform. Much to our dismay, and to the dismay of the people concerned, there is no sign of this happening so far.

When the unemployed are denied their benefits, it is not just one person who is penalized. That individual's family is penalized as well. This prevents the region's economy and the province's economy from benefiting from the economic boost that comes from a person receiving employment insurance benefits.

In each of our ridings, year after year, at least $30 million is kept out of the riding's economy because people who lose their employment are denied their employment insurance benefits.

I call that an economic crime. We here in the House of Commons are accomplices in that crime. Those who do not vote are not supporting this bill.

I am again asking our Liberal friends, the official opposition in this House, to join us in calling on the Prime Minister of Canada to give the royal recommendation so that tomorrow, in the second hour of third reading, the Speaker can announce that there will be a vote and so that we can vote on this bill soon.

Not to do so would be an act of extreme cowardice toward people who have lost their employment. Not making a concerted effort to come and vote would be worse than remaining seated. It would show a lack of courage to the people who elected us.

There is another bill dealing with employment insurance. Incidentally, I salute our friends from the NDP, who have always remained steadfast with us regarding, among other things, the need for an analysis of the precarious situation of those who find themselves without employment, despite the fact that the oil economy is flourishing. We know, however, that it is on EPO, because every other sector is collapsing.

We have kept rising in this House again and again to speak up for those who have lost their jobs. For instance, we introduced Bill C-257, to establish an independent employment insurance account, thereby putting an end to the misappropriation of funds, and make sure that the account is managed by those who are paying into it, namely the employees and the employers, and that a majority of representatives of employees and employers compose the commission administering the account. Of course, these people equally representing employees and employers could be seconded by a chief actuary. The government would also be represented. Money should also be taken every year from wherever it was diverted to and put back into the account.

All that I am relaying to the House right now is not a figment of the imagination of the member for Chambly—Borduas. It stems from the work of a parliamentary committee, namely the Standing Committee on Human Resources and Social Development. The principle of an independent EI account has been unanimously accepted and recommended to the House of Commons by the members of that committee, that is to say representatives of the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois. They were unanimous.

Yesterday, this bill was voted on at second reading stage so that it could simply be referred to committee, so that the committee could complete its work. To our surprise, and I would even say our dismay, the Liberal Party voted against. We are totally bewildered and we are trying to understand. How can that be? They were on board. What made them change their minds? Is it the same thing that kept them from standing up and voting on the budget? Is it cowardice? This is quite shocking.

Last night, I spoke with representatives of the main unions, the FTQ, the CSN and the CSQ, and unemployed workers' representatives. Everyone is dumbfounded by the Liberals' behaviour. They do not understand. They are dumbfounded. They were promised that the Liberals would vote like us. This morning, during the FTQ convention attended by nearly 4,000 people, there was a unanimous vote to give Bill C-269 royal recommendation.

There is something completely illogical, and I would even say illegitimate, about how votes are held here. Indeed, it is not representative of the will of the majority of the citizens of the country and, of course of Quebec, whom we represent.

I would like to revisit another concern of ours: social housing. What does it have for social housing? Nothing.

I would remind the House that the Liberal Party stopped all subsidies for social housing, as it is called in Quebec. At the federal level, it is called affordable housing. There were two programs, one provincial and one federal. The provinces, the federal government and the municipalities all worked together to develop social housing. However, from 1992 to 2001-02, not a single cent was put into it.

Yet, the established standard to ensure sufficient social housing to house low-income people states that there must be a housing vacancy rate of at least 3%. Many towns and cities do not even have that. In my riding, out of 12 municipalities, 10 are below that, five are below 1% and in one municipality, there is a 0% vacancy rate. What happens in such a situation? Naturally, this increases the cost of housing. This also causes people with low incomes to relocate. They move to towns or cities where there are slums, since slums are the only housing they can afford.

It makes no sense for 17% of people with low incomes to have to spend 80% of their income on housing alone. They only have 20% of a meagre income to feed and clothe themselves and to live on. It is unacceptable that, in Canada, which they say has a prosperous economy, people with low incomes are put in such a position.

What should be done? We must re-establish the rule we had in the early 1980s whereby about 1% of the national budget was allocated to social housing. That is what we are asking for in order to jump-start the construction of social housing, to provide more decent housing to low income citizens.

The fourth point I would like to discuss is how we treat our seniors. It is unbelievable that last spring's budget and the recent economic statement do not contain measures to correct the monumental injustice to seniors. They are owed more than $3 billion in retroactive benefits. That is not a gift.

These individuals with very low incomes were entitled to the guaranteed income supplement. They were not informed about that. Heaven knows that individuals with a low income are, for the most part, very isolated, and not likely to be attuned to the communication networks that provide all this information. Seniors and aboriginals are some of these people. We could go sector by sector. For years, these people were deprived of the guaranteed income supplement.

What answers are we given today? They are always technical and evasive. In the past, the Liberal government played that game and nothing has changed with the present government.

A Quebec statesman said that a society is judged by how it treats its children and its seniors. I can say that the Conservative and the Liberal Parties will be judged harshly by history not only because of the horrible economic crime committed against seniors, but also because of the equally appalling injustice. These people are not asking for much; they are merely asking for their due.

I realize that my time is running out and therefore I will wrap it up. We, the Bloc Québécois, will definitely vote against this bill to implement the spring budget and the fall economic statement because this budget makes no provision for the most disadvantaged, making it unworthy of a so-called prosperous Canada.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to discuss Bill C-28, which has three important parts: the implementation of last spring's budget, the economic statement issued a few weeks ago, which is commonly referred to as the mini-budget, and the Atlantic accord.

For the members of the New Democratic Party, it is also an opportunity to take stock of the differences between the various parties here in the House of Commons.

If there is one observation we can make in light of the most recent budget statement, it is that the Conservative Party, which is now in power, simply does not believe in the role of government in the economy. That is a purely ideological stance, and it prevents the Conservatives from seeing that, in an economy as diversified as Canada's, the government absolutely must be aware that it has to rebalance things when they get out of balance.

What caused the current economic imbalance? The overheated oil economy in western Canada, which affected the value of our dollar. In turn, the rise in the value of the Canadian dollar led to higher export prices, naturally. What sector has been affected? The manufacturing and farming sectors have been particularly hard hit, as the member for Charlottetown just said. It would be a bit easier to believe the Liberals' hand-wringing over these sectors if they had had the courage to vote against the government's budget. Still, we believe the member was talking in good faith when he said he wanted to do something for farmers.

The third sector that is feeling the effects of the rising Canadian dollar is forestry. Mill and plant closures in Quebec and the rest of Canada are the direct result of our loonie, our Canadian dollar, increasing in value by over 50% over the past five years. Despite extraordinary gains in productivity, plants that have been around for ages have been closing one after the other in Quebec, particularly in regions such as Montmagny and Beauce. Around Sherbrooke, we were all very sad when Baronet, a high quality furniture maker that has been around for over 60 years, closed its doors. It is one thing to say that a factory has closed its doors—that is kind of cold and unemotional. It is another thing to watch very skilled workers lose their pride and their ability to support their families.

How does the Minister of Finance respond when we tell him about these things? He stands up and says that according to them, they are cutting taxes for businesses, which is good news for productivity. Our poor unfortunate Minister of Finance does not seem to understand a thing even though, apparently, he is an educated man. It is hard to believe that he can be so completely unaware of how ridiculous his position is. He needs to understand that if a company, such as a sawmill on the lower North Shore in Quebec or a furniture factory in Beauce, did not make a profit last year, it cannot benefit one iota from a so-called tax cut because it did not pay any taxes last year.

Now for a rhetorical question: which companies did rake in huge profits last year? Oil companies in western Canada. Who will get the lion's share of these tax cuts? Oil companies. Who else recorded huge profits? The banks, which cleared $18 billion.

Let us examine what is going on in these two sectors so that we can better understand our Conservative government's priorities—or lack thereof.

It is primarily the Liberals who are to blame with the oil sector, since they did nothing for 10 years, although they were supposed to reduce greenhouse gases. They had the largest increase in greenhouse gases out of all the Kyoto signatories. It is a disgrace. The Liberals are responsible for this.

Now that the Conservatives are in power, what have they done? They have made it worse. They are busy denouncing the Kyoto protocol. They have no intention of respecting it. They have no regard for future generations. Their political base is in oil sands country, which is responsible for producing massive amounts of greenhouse gases. They have no intention of finding a solution to the problem.

Furthermore, they are giving bonuses for environmental misconduct in the form of tax cuts, without the slightest effort being made—in terms of sustainable development—to internalize the cost of adding these greenhouse gases to our atmosphere.

Now let us look at our Minister of Finance's absolutely classic bad track record with banks. Many people have their paycheques deposited automatically at the bank. It is not even their choice. Why should a worker whose pay is automatically deposited have to give a tip to the bank president to have access to his own money? Our tireless Minister of Finance, cap in hand, visited the bank presidents last year and was told to get lost. He got nothing at all, but that is no big deal. At least he made an effort.

Then, at Halloween, he decided to give the banks a little present. He gave them more tax cuts and benefits, with the result that the banks, which are already raking in huge profits and do nothing to reduce ATM fees, will get even more money. There is absolutely no vision.

Let us take a look at what is happening in the manufacturing sector, in Ontario and in Quebec, in the industrial heartland built up after the second world war, part of a balanced economy. Yes, we do have a lot of natural resources, yes, we need a manufacturing sector; yes, we need a resource sector like the one out west; and yes, we need a service sector. However, we are sacrificing our manufacturing sector on the altar of dogma, of far right ideology, which states that governments play no role in the economy. This is the narrow-minded vision that has taken hold of Canada.

Next week, Mark Carney will appear before a parliamentary committee. He will eventually take over for David Dodge who, unfortunately, remains in his position as somewhat of a lame duck. In fact, his successor was announced more than one month ago, and since then the value of the loonie has swung wildly, as never before.

Some companies have benefited a great deal, particularly companies such as Goldman Sachs, Mark Carney's previous employer. We can hardly wait until next week to ask Mr. Carney some questions about his work at Goldman Sachs because many economies in the world today are guided by former Goldman Sachs employees. It will be interesting to hear the vision of Mark Carney, the man who sold the public's share in Petro-Canada. Is that the best way to go about things? He was the one who pointed out the tax leakage arising from income trusts. I will quickly add right away that we never supported income trusts, but unlike the Conservatives, we would never have lied.

The outcome of all this is quite interesting. Certain companies that paid taxes in Canada now no longer pay any because they are registered elsewhere in the world. Is that the vision that Mark Carney will present to the Conservative government if he becomes the Governor of the Bank of Canada for seven years? These are some of the very interesting questions that Mr. Carney will be asked next week by a parliamentary committee.

It is because of the New Democratic Party that Mr. Carney will appear before a parliamentary committee. I suggested it to my colleagues and they unanimously passed a resolution to that effect.

This discussion around Bill C-28 is an appropriate opportunity to look at, analyze, and compare the different philosophies that exist in this House.

Just as in the matter of greenhouse gas production, Canadians now realize that they have a choice amongst a government that refuses to act, a Liberal official opposition that never did anything when it could act, and the Bloc Québécois that will never be in a position to do anything because it cannot act. The only real option right now on these issues is the New Democratic Party of Canada. We are the ones who are leading the charge on these important issues, such as greenhouse gas production.

When we look at the differences between our different parties, there is nothing clearer than the fact that for ideological and dogmatic reasons, the Conservatives are completely destroying the manufacturing sector of our economy. They are sacrificing it on the altar of their dogma and their ideology. They simply do not believe that governments can play a role in the economy. They have this idealism that somehow there is a pristine free market that works out the best solutions.

We have, geographically speaking, the second largest country in the world populated by fewer than 35 million people. We have, especially since the second world war, built a modern, solid and balanced economy.

Our country's beginnings were in the resource sector and it remains an important part of our economy. But we have also built hundreds of billions of dollars of infrastructure in manufacturing that is now being ruined by the Conservatives' inability to comprehend that the government can and should be acting on behalf of those sectors that are suffering from the sudden flight of our loonie.

What has been driving that increase in the value of the Canadian dollar? A very strong petroleum sector in the west that, of course, is producing greenhouse gases that the government refuses to understand is driving global warming. But that sector is also warming up the Canadian economy and destabilizing what was a relatively balanced economy.

As the Canadian dollar increases of course, it becomes more and more difficult for manufacturing and forestry firms to export their products because, the Canadian dollar being worth more, those exports cost more for people in other countries to buy. So it has been having a serious effect on them.

Instead of intervening in those sectors of the economy and trying to help maintain a balanced economy in Canada, the Conservative government announces with great fanfare, in the documents that are before us, that it is providing across the board tax decreases for all businesses.

What does that mean for a manufacturing company that made no profit last year? It means absolutely nothing because that company paid no taxes. What does it mean for a forestry firm that is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and made no profit last year? It means absolutely nothing because that company did not pay any taxes.

Who is getting the lion's share of these supposed tax decreases? Lo and behold, it is the energy sector out west because it is making huge profits. It is also the banks that are making huge profits. Anybody who looks at these things understands that a solid banking structure is indeed the backbone of a sound economy. But is it necessary to have strong banks in Canada to gouge the little guy? What about someone whose paycheque is deposited directly in a bank? Why should that person have to give a $3 tip to the bank president to have access to his own money?

Our Minister of Finance went cap in hand last year to the banks and was sent packing. He received nothing except their contempt. He came back here to the House and said he had at least tried. He does not seem to understand that he is the Minister of Finance and the banks answer to him, not the other way around. But then again he is a Conservative so he cannot understand that. He thinks that all these structures are the boss and he is the underling.

We in the NDP understand that the government can and should play a constructive role in helping manage a modern economy like Canada's economy. We know that if in Europe people had the same approach as the Conservatives, they would never have something like the train à grande vitesse that now criss-crosses Europe at 300 kilometres an hour. It took vision. It took government involvement. It took the best brains. It took long term planning, something the Conservatives simply do not understand because they do not believe in it. They do not think that governments can play that sort of proactive role. That is why they are always coming up short on Kyoto. They are always embarrassing us internationally on climate change.

Canada once had a proud reputation around the world as being an environmental leader. After 12 years of inaction by the Liberals, and now the embarrassment of the Conservatives, we have lost a lot of that credibility. We can hardly look anyone in the eye internationally any more on these environmental issues, and it is a tragedy.

It is the same thing for the profound changes that we have undergone in Canada's role as a peacekeeper. We were once a proud country, with a role that goes back 60 years. The rest of the world has looked us and said that we are the country they can count on to help build peace when the time comes. If we look at what John de Chastelain did to build peace in Northern Ireland, we will see the archetype of what Canada can do when it works at its best.

What is the worst example? Our current involvement in a combat mission in southern Afghanistan, which has nothing to do with us, nothing to do with our traditional role in the world as a peacekeeper and a peace builder.

That is the Tory record. That is the tragedy of the current Tory government.

However, there is one saving grace in all of this. The Conservatives have decided to move forward and make it increasingly clear that is their agenda, that is who they are. As we say in French, “Le chat sort du sac”. It is becoming increasingly clear, and more and more Canadians are seeing the Conservatives in their true face.

They are great emulators of the George W. Bush White House. They are more comfortable with American foreign policy. They are like the current American administration, tragically, blissfully unaware of the right of future generations to have us think about the effect on them of the decisions we take today. That is the essence of sustainable development. It is the obligation of every government in every action that it takes to weigh and to consider the effect on future generations.

I love it when I see senior members of the Conservative government, including the Prime Minister, pose with young people, the future generation, during campaign ads. It would really be nice to see them actually do something for those future generations instead of just posing with them during their campaign ads. One of the favourite things is to pose with kids skating. Pretty soon there will be no outdoor skating left in southern Canada for one good and simple reason. There will not be enough winter.

Some people might not lament the fact that our temperatures are starting to rise. However, we have to realize that it will have a profound effect not only on our future, but on the future of the planet. This is why it is such a tragedy to listen to the bumbling facile answers of our Minister of the Environment as he continues to embarrass us and goes off to Bali to spout the same animismes that come out of his mouth every day here in the House of Commons.

On our side, the New Democratic Party firmly believes the government can and should play an active role in maintaining a stable and balanced economy. We should look out for the interests of average Canadians in their daily lives. Modern families require a government that understands its obligations toward future generations and it obligations toward them on issues like day care, housing and overtaxation.

We understand the average family needs a break from government, but what we also believe firmly is governments have to play a role in the modern economy. That is something the Conservatives have completely let down. That is why the forestry, the agriculture and the manufacturing sectors are in such a dire crisis right now, and the fault for that rests squarely on the shoulders of the Conservatives. They are going to be judged very severely for it in the next general election.

Youth Criminal Justice Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague with interest and, most of all, a certain sense of satisfaction.

Bill C-25 is clearly based on the Conservative ideology that it is absolutely essential to punish offenders and the belief that this is the way to solve problems, without putting the necessary effort into rehabilitation. I was afraid that this might have become a common view all across Canada, but luckily that does not seem to be the case. In Quebec, we dealt with this issue a long time ago. We passed legislation that gives people a chance and allows for rehabilitation, which helps reduce crime. This is shown quite clearly by the statistics.

This bill sets out to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act by adding deterrence and denunciation to the principles considered in determining a sentence. The hon. member just explained very well how far removed this is from reality. The summary also states that the presumption against the pre-trial detention of a young person is rebuttable. In addition, the bill specifies the circumstances in which this presumption does not apply.

I would like to ask my colleague a question. It has never been shown in Quebec that this Conservative approach will have positive results, especially in view of the fact that the virtually identical model developed in the United States to fight crime has not had the desired effect. In addition, young people are at a time in life when we could be trying to ensure that they do not become repeat offenders. Therefore, an entirely different approach is needed.

I would like my colleague to answer a question. Does this Conservative approach really have a future in the area she represents? Would we not do better simply to study this issue again in depth to determine which real efforts should be approved? For example, we could put more emphasis on prevention, on fighting poverty, or on studying the situations in which young people find themselves, rather than taking a purely punitive approach.

I was reading an article this morning which said that, for the first time in ten years, the number of incarcerated people is on the rise. We would therefore be investing a lot of money in a punitive approach that would not necessarily be very effective. I agree with the hon. member that, in doing this, we risk helping to develop a school for crime. Does my colleague share this view?

Canada Post Corporation Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-14, to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act.

I will summarize it briefly by reading it. It is not a very complicated bill. It is probably one of the shortest bills ever introduced in this House. It has just one clause, a proposed addition to the act that reads as follows:

The exclusive privilege referred to in subsection 14(1) does not apply to letters intended for delivery to an addressee outside Canada.

It is important to grasp the history behind this bill to understand why it is being introduced in the House today. The English and French versions of the Canada Post Corporation Act had a terminology problem. The French version applied this exclusive privilege to letters for delivery to an addressee outside Canada, whereas the English version did not.

Because of this dichotomy, which was in place for over 20 years, remailers infiltrated the mail market. They take mail intended for destinations abroad from companies, put it in a container and send it to addressees via other countries that offer lower rates than Canada Post.

I believe that all those watching the debate on television understand why an exclusive privilege was granted to Canada Post. Among other things, it permits all citizens to receive their mail at their residence, no matter where they live in the great and vast province of Quebec or in the great and vast country of Canada. That is why the House of Commons passed, at the time, the Canada Post Corporation Act: to grant this exclusive privilege so that everyone can receive their mail at home no matter where they live.

Obviously, things have changed since then. As I was explaining earlier, remailers, among others, referred to the English version. Since they were already working in this area, they used it to justify forwarding other types of mail that were not letters. These companies were already in business and they decided to do the same with mail in general and to cite the English version in order to do business.

Three years ago, the Canada Post Corporation finally decided to turn to the courts. These are probably the types of questions that we, the Bloc Québécois would have liked to have asked both the Canada Post representatives and its employees as well as the remailers and their employees, in order to discover why Canada Post went to court three years ago. The courts found in favour of Canada Post and were prepared to issue injunctions against companies that were remailing letters abroad.

The committee, in its great wisdom, wanted to be able to carry out an in-depth analysis before the citizens working for these companies lost their jobs.

I am disappointed with both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party for tabling a bill before taking a hard look at it. The purpose of the unanimous report presented by the Standing Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities was simply to ask Canada Post to stop legal proceedings until the committee carried out a thorough analysis of the matter. That was the purpose.

That goal was finally attained, and remailers were not completely satisfied, but they were fairly satisfied. In the short term, it meant that they did not have to lay off employees until we could conduct a thorough analysis.

Then the House was prorogued. People who take an interest in politics followed these events. All the discussions began again in Parliament. Finally, we have a new session, which is what the Conservatives wanted. The government decided to introduce a new bill before the committee could even hold its first meeting. In fact, the organizational meeting took place this morning. When the government prorogues the House, the committees start from scratch again. It takes 14 days after the members are chosen, which is too long. In short, most committees have been sitting for only a few weeks.

The government therefore decided to introduce a bill simply to put an end to Canada Post's exclusive privilege. The government decided to submit the bill to the House of Commons and make the committee work so that we could vote on this. This is clearly unacceptable, because we would have liked to guide the government.

It is very hard to pass amendments when the bill is only three lines long. The government knew exactly what it was doing. The bill that was tabled is only three lines long, and we will not be able to add a paragraph and a half or two paragraphs. That is impossible. This means that, theoretically, we will have to vote for or against this bill without ever having made any real analysis.

In committee, we will make every effort and use every possible means to call a full slate of witnesses, provided that the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party do not work together and decide to limit debate to one day only. Together, they have a majority, and they could decide to do that. In fact, they could just sweep the whole thing under the rug, so that we could never get to the bottom of things, if they decided that the whole matter was settled.

That is why I am a bit disappointed at the speech given by my Liberal friend, who finally seems to have decided that Canada Post is not going to lose any money.

But the Bloc Québécois is concerned. We think that the exclusive privilege is a sign of equality among the citizens of Quebec and Canada, and everyone has the right to have mail delivered to their home. This is why Canada Post was created. I do not like to use this word, but in the old days, it was the Queen's mail. But today, I must say, mail delivery has gone out the window, and the Queen as well, or at least the Queen's mail. Forget home delivery. Those days are over and here is the proof.

The parliamentary secretary, a nice fellow, explained that no one would lose anything. Forget that. It has already started, and 30% of people who receive home delivery will lose this service for safety reasons explained by Canada Post and its president.

There are solutions: in the United States, smaller and better adapted vehicles deliver mail to the door, etc. We could have made such an investment, but no, it was decided that 30% of the population would lose their home delivery for various reasons: size of the route, the way employees work with their traditional vehicle, the fact that they must get out on the side of the road, little space, speed, etc.

In any case, I am not making any of this up. Call any Canada Post official and he or she will say the same thing: 30% of people will no longer have home delivery.

Indeed, they will have to get their mail from the big, green boxes. And, as the Liberal member was saying earlier, all new residential developments have those green boxes. These new subdivisions may all have those green boxes grouped together in one place, but this is not the best solution. If they had really wanted to, home delivery service still could have been provided to Canadians, as it was in the past.

This service is being further and further reduced. We are concerned. The parliamentary secretary can get all worked up and say that Canada Post will never be privatized, but as soon as tempting to privatize Canada Post. There will be fewer employees and staff, that is, just what is needed to be able to privatize the corporation.

This is the Bloc Québécois' concern. Indeed, we do not believe the Conservatives. They said there would not be any impact and that there would always be rural mail. The minister got all worked up saying that nothing would be changed. Yet, within two years' time, 30% of citizens in rural settings will no longer receive their mail. That is the reality hidden behind the posturing of the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Why should we believe him now, when he says that Canada Post will never be privatized? We cannot believe him any more than the public can believe him. Go and talk to those people who stand to lose their mailboxes and will be forced to go to community mailboxes. Ask them if they believe the minister. No one believes him anymore. He works for us every day, ensuring that we are elected, and we have no problem with this. This allows us to be re-elected, time and time again.

However, in certain respects, this is in no way an intelligent objective. It was decided that a crown corporation would be created and given an exclusive privilege, in order to ensure that all citizens in a large country such as Quebec or Canada would receive their mail at home. It was a laudable objective.

They pretend to listen, but then they cut services and brook no discussion about it. That is what the Bloc Québécois disagrees with. I am not saying that things would turn out any differently otherwise. The problem is that they decided to introduce a bill that cannot be amended. We will have no choice but to vote for or against the bill. It is only three lines long, so it will be practically impossible to amend. We will have to vote against the bill or for it. The government cannot say that it did not realize this. It has law clerks and knows exactly what it is doing.

All it wanted to do was present us with a fait accompli and ask us if we were for it or against it. That is exactly what committee members did not want to happen. I am having a hard time understanding my committee colleagues who were there at the time. We all wanted Canada Post to drop its case so that no jobs would be lost. We were against losing jobs, but we wanted a thorough analysis. That was our goal.

Now we have a bill that says,“You have no choice. You can talk about it all you want, but in the end, the point is, are you for it or against it?” If the analysis had been done before, we could have come up with a better, smarter solution that would probably have enabled Canada Post to protect its exclusive privilege while letting remailers keep their jobs. It could have happened. Some of our Liberal colleagues were even ready to do that. We had discussions. But none of that will happen now because the government decided to do things its way. I am disappointed that the Liberals agreed to that. I hope that we can have a debate about this in committee.

Canada Post has very healthy sales, but revenues are down significantly. It is important to understand that the Canada Post Corporation pays taxes in the provinces where it does business. It is a crown corporation, but it has to pay taxes, which is good. It is a corporate taxpayer like any other business. You have seen and will understand that a portion of these revenues goes to taxes. Then, because it is a crown corporation, Canada Post must pay a dividend to the federal government. In 2007, that dividend totalled $48 million. That means that it must turn over its surplus to the Government of Canada. It was decided that things would work that way, and I am not opposed to that.

But if the decision is made to decrease sales and if ever the goal was for Canada Post to earn $49 million or $50 million less net profit, what would be the reaction of the government, which would still want its dividend at year-end? Is this discussed in this bill? It is impossible. This bill can no longer be amended. All the legislative drafters will say that you cannot add anything that changes the substance of the bill. We will therefore not be able to discuss that.

This is the sticking point for the Bloc Québécois. The government cannot threaten something that has been in existence for generations and is likely the oldest service provided by the federal government across Canada. The mail is likely the oldest service. The government is attacking it directly, gently, simply by letting companies do what they want, without letting us ask questions, hold a real public debate or invite all the stakeholders. The government has done this by being both judge and defendant and saying that it is not important to Canada Post. It has revenues of $7 billion or $8 billion, but in the end only $49 million is paid in dividends to the federal government.

Imagine the spending. That is $119 million in net revenues and $49 million in dividends paid to the government. If sales are cut by $150 or $200 million, net revenues and dividends will drop, and we will be forced to cut other services to maintain the dividends for the government, which needs this money to do other things, as it does with employment insurance. It is dipping into the EI fund. The EI fund is not an independent fund. Citizens who make their contributions to EI make them into a fund here, in Ottawa, that is not independent. It is part of the consolidated fund, and the government needs that money to pay down the debt and invest in military equipment or the war.

That is a choice the Conservatives make. They certainly do not invest in the environment. That much we know. But they will happily invest in the oil industries or in military equipment. It is a choice. The problem is that they have decided to do the same thing with the dividends paid by Canada Post, and want more money to invest in military equipment and in oil resources, but not in services for the public.

There is not one Conservative member who can guarantee me that today, because there will be no debate on the subject. The debate will be held on three lines of a bill that will ask whether we are for or against allowing remailers to send letters outside Canada. We cannot make even the slightest modification. There will be no debate, and there is nothing we can do about it.

It is yes or no.

Since the Liberals and the Conservatives have already shown their colours, it will be yes to the bill right from the start. That is what is disappointing. The real debate will never be held, not in committee or in the House of Commons because we do not hear witnesses here.

The Conservatives way of handling this matter here in the House of Commons with this bill is very disappointing. In the previous session, before the Conservative government prorogued the House, that was not what the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities decided. There was a unanimous resolution in committee, which I will repeat so that everyone is clear, to the effect that Canada Post must not go any further and must end its dispute with the remailers so that no one would lose their job, until a full review of the situation had been done. This review was not done and will not be done.

The bill is so limited that all we can say is whether we are for or against having remailers distribute letters outside Canada. I maintain that this risks upsetting the balance of the postal service across Canada.

On that point, the Bloc Québécois will do everything in its power to shed light on this. We cannot allow the government, the Conservatives and the Liberals, to do this without putting up a fight to make people understand that this bill threatens public services. That is what we are going to do. You can count on the Bloc Québécois. Quebeckers who elected a Bloc majority in Quebec will be glad they have the Bloc Québécois to defend their points of view.

There is nothing rosy about this. Always saying yes to private companies, the way the Conservatives do, is very worrisome. We think it is also important to protect the service in all the regions of Canada. Quebec covers a lot of territory and the people in the rural areas are just as entitled as people in urban centres, to home delivery service. In the big cities, you get home delivery service and no one is jealous of that. You probably deserve it. You pay your taxes. Nonetheless, people in rural communities are also entitled to their service and mail delivery at home because they too pay their taxes. They are the equals of city dwellers.

As you can see, the Bloc Québécois will never tire of debating this injustice being perpetrated even as we speak. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, if you ask all those in charge of safety at Canada Post, they will tell you that, in rural areas, mail service will be reduced by 30% once the safety analyses have been completed. They are not proposing to change delivery vehicles to ones that are smaller and can drive on the shoulder of the road, as in the United States. No, not at all. They are not talking about that; it is too expensive. I understand that, because with this bill they will lose potential revenue or even lose money.

We must understand why Canada Post decided to take remailers to court. Is it because the problem is growing and their share of the market will double, triple or quadruple in 10 or 12 years? Will Canada Post be cannibalized by these companies? No one in government is asking this question. The matter has already been settled. The bill has already been tabled and it has been decreed that we have to deal with the remailers. We will never know.

Naturally, this is very worrisome for the rural postal service. The Bloc Québécois will always support the equity of all regions, whether urban or rural. We will never rise in this House to jeopardize the service provided to citizens, whether they live in rural areas—as I was saying earlier—or in urban areas. Quebeckers and Canadians work hard and are entitled to residential postal service, whether they live in rural or urban areas. The Bloc Québécois will always be there to defend them.

Donkin Coal Block Development Opportunity Act

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-15, An Act respecting the exploitation of the Donkin coal block and employment in or in connection with the operation of a mine that is wholly or partly at the Donkin coal block, and to make a consequential amendment to the Canada--Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act.

I would like to begin by telling the House that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-15 in principle. My colleague from Nova Scotia can count on the Bloc's support. Members of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources will study this bill seriously and thoroughly.

The Bloc Québécois believes that the federal government should do more for regional economic development. It should stop undermining the efforts that provincial governments—particularly the Government of Quebec, since I am a member from Quebec—want to make by respecting the priorities set by the provinces.

For members of the Bloc Québécois, creating and maintaining jobs in the regions, as well as providing assistance to workers in difficulty, such as those in the forestry or fishing sectors, is just as important in Quebec as it is elsewhere. In our view, this Conservative government is washing its hands of the whole issue, by refusing to propose any support programs for older workers—we mean real income support for older workers—or change the employment insurance criteria, and by renouncing its earlier ideas concerning the creation of an independent employment insurance fund.

In short, all too often, the federal government listens to reason and develops legislation and policies to promote this regional development. Fortunately for Nova Scotia, that is what it is doing with the Donkin coal mine project.

Furthermore, the efforts of the elected representatives of that riding cannot be overlooked. According to my colleague, they fought to convince the government that enough time had been wasted and it was time to act. Thus, it has been a happy ending for Nova Scotia and it appears that everyone is finally happy with the agreement.

The Bloc Québécois' position is that, since Bill C-15 is the result of an agreement between the federal government and the Government of Nova Scotia and has to do with a specific case, that is, the Donkin coal mine, and since there are no direct repercussions for Quebec, the Bloc Québécois does not intend to oppose it. We will work hard in committee, as I was saying, to push the bill through as quickly as possible.

A word of caution, however: being in favour of the principle of the bill does not mean that we have absolutely no problem with the spirit of the bill. I alluded to this a little earlier when I asked my question. We deplore the fact that the federal government is prepared to incorporate provincial legislation by reference when it comes to creating 275 jobs, but that it is not willing to do so, far from it, when it is a question of the language of work, for instance. I will come back to this.

Lastly, with its trademark rigour and hard work, the Bloc Québécois will examine the provisions of Bill C-15 that raise questions. This is the case, for instance, when it comes to the sharing of royalties and the exclusion of royalties on coal-bed methane from the Canada-Nova Scotia offshore petroleum resources accord.

In the matter of offshore revenues, this Conservative government is acting against the interests of Quebec because the equalization formula does not take into account all revenue from natural resources and therefore penalizes Quebeckers.

For the time being, I would prefer to focus on the main objective of Bill C-15. I would like to point out, and it is truly important to say so, that this bill is the result of an agreement between the federal government and the Government of Nova Scotia, which seeks primarily to settle a jurisdictional matter. These two governments both claim to have jurisdiction over the Donkin coal block. Many discussions have taken place to establish who has jurisdiction over the management and exploitation of the Donkin coal block.

To settle this issue, Nova Scotia and the federal government arrived at an agreement: establish a single set of regulations governing resource development and labour issues, including industrial relations, occupational health and safety and labour standards

The regime proposed by this bill may be divided into three parts.

It provides a legal regime to facilitate the exploitation of the Donkin coal block. It gives the Governor in Council the authority to incorporate Nova Scotia laws into federal law by regulation, and gives Nova Scotia the power to enforce those laws.

Bill C-15 further governs the royalties from the exploitation of the Donkin coal block, through a system similar to the existing one for petroleum royalties.

It also amends the Canada—Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act to exclude coal bed methane associated with a coal mine.

I would like to point out to this House that coal bed methane is the natural gas found in most coal seams. It is considered to be the cleanest burning fossil fuel and one of the purest forms of natural gas, often so pure that it only requires slight processing and can be delivered directly by pipelines.

The first of these three items, the legal reference regime, is dealt with in clauses 13 and 15, which are the core of Bill C-15.

Clause 13 states that the Governor in Council may make regulations excluding from the application of the Canada Labour Code any employment in connection with the operation of the Donkin coal block.

Furthermore, it allows the Governor in Council to make regulations to incorporate by reference any act of the Province of Nova Scotia to make it applicable to the Donkin mine workers.

Clause 15 states that an authority designated by the province, and not federal institutions, is responsible for applying the regulations incorporated by reference.

Bill C-15 allows the federal government to exempt workers of the Donkin mine from its own legislation in favour of Nova Scotia's legislation.

For the second point, clauses 9 to 12 of Bill C-15 address the issue of royalties specifically. They establish a system similar to the one that already exists for oil royalties, namely that the royalties on coal and coal bed methane are to be collected by the Receiver General of Canada and a portion will be remitted to the province in accordance with the terms of an agreement to be reached between them.

Third, the purpose of clause 16 is to amend the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act in order to exclude coal bed methane associated with the development or operation of a coal mine from the definition of natural gas and therefore exclude it from the accord.

Let us now come back to the offshore revenues I was talking about earlier. Budget 2007 announced an equalization reform that unduly favoured the provinces receiving revenues from natural resources and blatantly ignored some of Quebec's basic requests.

What is more, on October 10, 2007, the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of Nova Scotia announced an agreement between that province and the federal government on equalization reform.

The federal government announced it would relax the application standards of the equalization formula. Budget 2007 allowed Nova Scotia to choose between two equalization formulas. It could either use the old formula and continue to receive 100% compensation for offshore development, or it could choose the new equalization formula whereby basic equalization payments increase but compensation for offshore development decreases. Nova Scotia could choose to stick with the old calculation method, but once it used the new equalization calculation it could no longer go back to the old formula.

The announcement on October 10 changed all that. Nova Scotia can now choose the formula that is most advantageous to it at the beginning of each fiscal year, until the expiry of the Atlantic accords in 2020.

In order to enjoy the benefits of future offshore projects, Nova Scotia had chosen to retain the old equalization formula. If it had adopted the new formula, it would have received additional equalization payments estimated by the provincial government at $289 million for 2008-09. The new formula will therefore let Nova Scotia keep additional amounts calculated under the new formula and it can return to the old formula if the development of new offshore platforms makes the old formula more advantageous.

The reason that this is to Nova Scotia’s benefit is that, in our opinion, it is still being done at Quebec’s expense: the equalization formula still does not take all natural resource revenues into account.

So that formula does not reflect what Quebec is calling for. It contains loopholes that favour the fossil fuel producing provinces by allowing them to exempt natural resource revenues from the equalization formula.

Quebec is calling for the equalization formula to be reformed to reflect a 10-province standard, 100% of natural resource revenues and the real value of property taxes. That is the only formula that will result in equalization achieving its objective, which is to provide the receiving provinces with a per capita fiscal capacity equivalent to the Canadian average. It seems that the Conservative government is not worried about that, though.

Let us come back to the language of work. It must be noted that when it comes to creating 275 jobs, something we applaud, the federal government is prepared to incorporate the laws of Nova Scotia by reference. But the government does not want to consider incorporating compliance with the language of work provisions of Quebec’s Bill 101 by reference.

And yet this is the government that boasts about recognizing that Quebeckers form a nation. To date, that recognition has not been supported by any actions or consequences, although what it means is that the House of Commons recognizes the attributes of the Quebec nation, and in particular its language and culture, by definition.

In fact, when the House of Commons recognized the Quebec nation last fall, the Bloc Québécois emphatically pointed out that that recognition had to have consequences, that there could not simply be purely symbolic recognition.

The official language of Quebec is French, everywhere in Quebec, except in matters relating to the federal government, for which there are two official languages.

That is the first concrete action that must be taken: to recognize that in fact Quebeckers form a francophone nation in America. If the Canadian parties are consistent in that recognition, they will have to understand that the Quebec nation and the French language are inseparably connected. Recognizing one means recognizing the other.

The Quebec nation has developed a tool for ensuring that French is the common public language: the Charter of the French Language or Bill 101. We often forget, though, that insofar as Ottawa is concerned, Bill 101 does not exist. As a result, areas under federal jurisdiction are exempted, including within Quebec. For example, banks, telecommunication firms, interprovincial transportation companies such as CN and CP, ports and airports are exempt from Bill 101.

The Bloc Québécois wants the federal government, therefore, to recognize and abide by the Charter of the French Language in Quebec in the Official Languages Act and comply with the spirit of the Charter in regard to the language of signage and of work in related legislation.

Contrary to what the Conservatives have suggested, the Bloc Québécois is obviously not asking the federal government to interfere in linguistic issues in Quebec. All we want is for the federal government to comply with the Charter of the French Language. The Official Languages Act and the Canada Labour Code are both federal.

The Canada Labour Code already requires the federal government to adjust to provincial legislation when setting minimum wages. In Bill C-15, the Conservative government agrees to exempt workers from its legislation in deference to the laws of Nova Scotia. If it is possible to adjust the federal legislation in both these cases, how can they justify refusing to adjust the federal legislation on language?

Federal or federally regulated companies are not affected by the Charter of the French Language, particularly insofar as the language of work is concerned. Some of these companies choose to abide by it, but it is all entirely voluntary.

The Bloc Québécois wants the Canada Labour Code to contain a provision, therefore, that “any federal work, undertaking or business carrying on activities in Quebec is subject to the requirements of the Charter of the French Language”. This would comply with the request voiced in 2001 in the Larose report.

This amendment would eliminate the legal void that enables federal companies to flout the Charter of the French Language when it comes to the language of work. It is important, though, to note that many federal companies decide on their own to abide by the francization programs of the Office de la langue française.

Nevertheless, some federal companies fail to comply with Bill 101 and do so with impunity. Since 2000, some 147 files have been closed at the Office de la langue française because it could not do anything in view of the fact that the companies were under federal jurisdiction. These figures refer only to files that were opened in response to complaints. If no one complains, no file is opened. We can conclude, therefore, that the number of delinquent firms was probably higher.

This was a long aside to explain why we are happy that Nova Scotia and the federal government have managed to reach an agreement by negotiating an accord to abide by the provincial legislation and that the federal government demonstrated a real openness in this case. We are asking for much the same thing.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate the position of the Bloc Québécois: since Bill C-15 is the result of an agreement between the federal government and Nova Scotia, and it deals with a particular situation, the Bloc will not oppose it and will agree in principle.

However, I will not forget this precedent. And I will make sure that I remind the Canadian government about this type of legislative adjustment it offers to some provinces but not others. I pledge to remind the government of this precedent when we debate this issue in the House of Commons.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-3, the legislative framework proposed by the Conservative government in response to the recent ruling by the Supreme Court concerning security certificates, which are used to remove people who, in the eyes of the government, present a threat to Canada or Canadians.

At present, two ministers give authorization to issue such a certificate: the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The current security certificates procedure is set out in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act passed in 2001. It provides that the ministers of Citizenship and Immigration and Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness can sign a security certificate attesting that a permanent resident or foreign national—and not a citizen—is inadmissible to Canada for security reasons.

Once the security certificate is signed, it goes to the Federal Court. When the court deems that the disclosure of certain evidence or testimony would be injurious to national security or the safety of any person, it holds in camera hearings without the accused’s lawyer and the accused. This procedure makes it impossible to cross-examine witnesses heard behind closed doors or to verify the reliability and truthfulness of the evidence.

The judge gives the accused a summary of the information or evidence the judge examined in the accused's absence. The accused can be heard at a hearing. If the Federal Court judge deems the certificate reasonable, it automatically becomes a removal order, and the accused cannot appeal this decision. However, in January 2002, in the Suresh case, the Supreme Court held that, barring extraordinary circumstances, deportation to torture will generally violate the principles of fundamental justice.

On February 23, 2007, in the decision in Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), the Supreme Court unanimously held that the security certificate procedure violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Specifically, certificates violate section 7 of the charter, which reads as follows:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Because people named in certificates are deprived of their liberty yet are not entitled to a full defence, the security certificate process is unconstitutional. On the unlimited nature of the measures, the Supreme Court added:

The principles of fundamental justice and the guarantee of freedom from cruel and unusual treatment require that, where a person is detained or is subject to onerous conditions of release for an extended period under immigration law, the detention or the conditions must be accompanied by a meaningful process of ongoing review that takes into account the context and circumstances of the individual case.

Security certificates have been part of Canadian legislation since 1978 and have been used on a number of occasions. A total of 27 certificates have been issued to date, five of them since the attacks of September 11, 2001, if memory serves. The certificates issued in recent years in connection with the threats of terrorist attacks have generated interest among many legal experts in the mechanism for assessing and examining the risk an individual poses to society.

The review of the judicial process that is initiated after a security certificate has been signed gave rise to some points of contention, which led the government to revisit several elements of the certificates. Unlimited detention, when there is the risk of torture upon deportation, was sharply criticized by all parties. The Kingston Immigration Holding Centre, where individuals were being held, was referred to as Guantanamo North. The ministers responsible for authorizing the certificates have often stated, to defend their position, that the individuals were being held in a “three-walled prison”, insinuating that they were free to leave the country at any time should they wish to do so.

The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration inspected the detention conditions of individuals held at the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre. My colleague for Burnaby—Douglas also attended these meetings. We presented our recommendations and observations to the government. The majority of individuals detained have since been released under very strict conditions.

There is another problem with the current conditions. These make life just as difficult for the friends and family of these individuals because their lives are now governed by conditions that require them to obtain a multitude of authorizations from the court.

Each one of these individuals has been forced to wear an electronic bracelet so they may be tracked at all times. Recently, Mr. Charkaoui was prevented from travelling to Quebec where young members of Amnesty International were waiting for him. Mr. Harkat must ask the court's permission just to have relatives visit and dine with him.

The court ruling states that he must be accompanied at all times by a person duly identified by the court which, in my opinion, interferes with the freedom of other individuals who can no longer live a normal life because they must fulfill the conditions at all times.

Many people have asked us why we do not sentence them if we have proof that they present a threat to security and the government has enough evidence to incriminate them. They should be brought before the courts and be given a fair trial.

Bill C-3 incorporates some Bloc Québécois proposals in part or in their entirety. Among other things, we asked that there be a special advocate and the right to appeal. As far as detention is concerned, we asked for a review of indefinite detention, that a mechanism be implemented to review its relevance. We also asked that this detention be reviewed so that at a given point, a person can be released. This will prevent keeping the person detained without evidence and allow that person to be properly charged in our courts.

Nonetheless, there is nothing in the bill on other issues such as warrants to arrest a person, a foreign national, on the burden of proof required and on evidentiary evidence that may or may not have been obtained through torture.

The government never gave us an answer on the reasonable duration of detention. How long will these detention conditions be imposed?

Where will fear of the threat of sleeper terrorist cells that the government is talking about take us? When people conspire to commit criminal acts, we usually charge them and bring them before our courts.

I would like to remind hon. members that some of the people subject to security certificates have been living in these conditions for more than eight years.

We are not the only ones who are uneasy about the current process. Judges are as well.

Justice Hugessen was cited a great deal. I will read an excerpt from one of his statements.

I can tell you because we [the judges of the Federal Court] talked about it, we hate it. We do not like this process of having to sit alone hearing only one party and looking at the materials produced by only one party and having to try to figure out for ourselves what is wrong with the case that is being presented before us and having to try for ourselves to see how the witnesses that appear before us ought to be cross-examined. If there is one thing that I learned in my practice at the Bar... it is that good cross-examination requires really careful preparation and a good knowledge of your case. And by definition judges do not have that... We do not have any knowledge except what is given to us and when it is given to us by only one party we are not well-suited to test the materials that are put before us.

The government has tabled measures that partially respond to this uneasiness of judges. My colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin explained this aspect very well.

The bill still gives judges far too much discretion and does not respond to Mr. Hugessen's concerns.

A number of legal experts felt that the government should have taken the opportunity to conduct an in-depth review of the security certificate procedure, taking into account the experience of special advocates in other countries such as Australia, New Zealand and England.

Furthermore, a study on security certificates commissioned by the Canadian Center of Intelligence and Security Studies, with financial support from the Courts Administration Service, explained the weaknesses of the systems used in Canada and elsewhere in the world.

The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration heard from Mr. Ian MacDonald, who, in 1998, was appointed special advocate to the Immigration Appeals Commission by the attorney general of the United Kingdom.

He was also assigned to deal with national security cases before and after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. He publicly resigned in 2004 in protest against the indefinite detention powers without trial imposed by the British Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001, and has since acted in control order appeals. He represents immigration clients at the European Court of Justice.

Mr. MacDonald explained why he resigned and the downsides of using special advocates. I think that the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security could benefit from Mr. MacDonald's comments and expertise. Furthermore, the University of Ottawa has carried out a number of studies on security certificates and the use of special advocates in the process.

With regard to the bill that is before us, I have the impression that the government has tried to do the minimum necessary to comply with the court's ruling. We have examined the bill and will make some amendments to it to address certain concerns about the security certificate procedure. However, for the time being, I believe that the government has taken a risk in doing the bare minimum. The process could have been reviewed in depth, and the government had a golden opportunity to do so.

If the House decides that this bill should be studied in committee, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security will be able to make these amendments, and the Bloc Québécois will also put forward some amendments. For example, the Bloc Québécois will propose an amendment that allows counsel defending the interests of an individual facing deportation to see his client again in order to obtain additional information, once the evidence has been disclosed. Experience with the CSIS complaints process has shown that it is possible to work this way.

We would like to see the right to appeal the Federal Court decision and an end to indefinite incarceration and arrests without warrant of foreign nationals. We would also like to change the burden of proof so that certificates are upheld only if the court is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual represents a threat. We also want the bill to prevent the deportation of an individual to a country where he could face torture.

We have long denounced the security certificate mechanism. The government's position, the procedure it is proposing, has been widely criticized. Consequently, we would like a number of aspects of this bill to be corrected, and we will have the opportunity to do so in committee.

Phthalate Control Act

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House to speak to the third and final reading of Bill C-307, An Act respecting bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, benzyl butyl phthalate and dibutyl phthalate. I would like to thank the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for presenting this to the House.

Although I am pleased to speak in favour of this legislative proposal, it is important to note that, in its original form, the bill was poorly drafted. The government worked hard and is presenting this bill to the House with considerable changes that strike an effective balance between public health and environmental and economic considerations. Our changes have produced a stronger and more practical bill that still achieves its purpose of protecting health, especially that of young children.

As we have heard today, Bill C-307 addresses a group of chemicals known as phthalates. These compounds are commonly used as plasticizers to enhance flexibility in plastics. Phthalates are used in a wide range of products from medical devices such as blood bags and intravenous tubing, to cosmetics such as nail polish, to soft vinyl toys. The phthalates covered by the legislative proposal are known by their acronyms BBP, DBP and DEHP.

During debate at second reading of Bill C-307, the government had concerns about the original bill. It would have banned these three substances from the Canadian market, which was a position we could not support for a number of reasons. First, the peer reviewed scientific evidence did not support such a drastic measure. The three substances were reviewed as to their impact on the environment and on health. The results show that a ban would be neither necessary nor viable, economically speaking. In fact, such a strategy would place an unnecessary burden on manufacturers and could result in significant costs to the consumer and the medical community.

As mentioned during the debate at second reading, studies conducted in accordance with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1999 found that DBP, BBP and DEHP phthalates do not harm the environment. Specific studies of the impact of these three chemicals on health found that two of them, BBP and DBP, do not pose an excessive health risk. However, exposure to DEHP raises serious health concerns, particularly for children.

As my honourable colleague explained, measures were taken to protect the health of those most at risk, including children under the age of three. Canadian manufacturers voluntarily stopped using not only DEHP, but also all phthalates in products for babies that could be put into a child's mouth. Furthermore, Health Canada stated that DEHP is not currently being used in the production of cosmetics.

That being said, DEHP still has a number of important and necessary applications in Canada. For some products, such as medical and scientific devices, there are no viable substitutes for it. That is the second reason we cannot support a total ban, as originally proposed by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. Health Canada's medical devices bureau has undertaken thorough studies of these compounds and has found that DEHP has a number of advantages that other plasticizers simply do not have.

Despite the potential effects of DEHP exposure on humans, its advantages outweigh the risks. This is the main reason we could not agree to a total ban at second reading. Now that the bill has been reworked, it allows the continued use of these products. It also provides for additional regulations governing the use of DEHP and for further studies of the other two chemicals. The government is prepared to support the bill.

The new provisions in clause 2 of Bill C-307 ensure an important balance within the bill. Clause 2.1 presents a minimum threshold under which a product or device will not be considered to contain any BBP, DBP or DEHP.

Clause 2.2 contains the precautionary principle. Where the threat of serious or irreversible damage results from the use of one of these phtalates, the Government of Canada cannot use a lack of full scientific certainty as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to protect human and environmental health.

Improving the environment and the health of Canadians was a central theme in the recent throne speech. To quote the document, “Our Government believes that action is needed now to ensure our quality of life, particularly for those most vulnerable to health threats from the environment—our children and seniors”.

It is from this perspective that we can accept the amendments made to clause 3 of Bill C-307. Clearly, further measures are needed, in addition to the existing voluntary measures, to help reduce Canadians' exposure to DEHP.

In accordance with the precautionary principle previously cited, clause 3 requires the Governor in Council to adopt regulations under the Food and Drugs Act in order to govern the use of DEHP in cosmetics. As already mentioned by my hon. colleague, these measures will specify that DEHP may not be used in new formulations of cosmetics and will allow Health Canada to take quick and decisive action if this prohibition is contravened. This regulation must be in place within 12 months of the coming into force of the proposed legislation.

Also in accordance with the precautionary principle, the Governor in Council is required to make an order under the Dangerous Goods Act prohibiting the use of DEHP in products whose use involves the product being brought into contact with the mouth of a child of less than three years of age. Once again, this order must be made within 12 months of the coming into force of the proposed legislation.

Clause 3 of Bill C-307 also establishes certain obligations of the Minister of Health with regard to the use of DEHP in medical devices, including developing requirements for labelling and collaboration with the health care sector in order to develop clinical practice guidelines for the use of medical devices that contain DEHP.

The Minister of Health will also be required to prepare a list of medical devices available in Canada that do not contain DEHP and to consider giving priority to licence applications for medical devices that do not contain DEHP.

Lastly, Bill C-307 will require the government to reassess BBP and DBP under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. These reassessments must be completed within 24 months after the coming into force of this legislative proposal. They will ensure that the government has access to solid scientific evidence to support future decisions about the use of specific phthalates in consumer products.

As I mentioned when I began, the government has made a great deal of effort to improve a bad bill. I believe that Bill C-307 is now more solid and more balanced and can more effectively control these three substances than when it was originally introduced in this House.

I encourage the members on all sides of the House to vote for this bill.

It is especially important to understand that the phthalates in blood bags allow blood to be kept almost twice as long as if the phthalates were not present.

In the end, not only did our government have to adjust to meet a demand, but it also had to take into account medical and scientific constraints regarding the use of this product.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the subject of Bill C-307. First, I want to tell my colleagues that I will be using acronyms for the substances affected by the bill throughout my remarks. You will probably understand why just by reading the title of the bill, which is already quite complicated.

Bill C-307, an act respecting the phthalates BBP, DBP and DEHP, essentially seeks to better control, if not to forbid, the use of phthalates in a wide range of commonly used objects because those substances represent a risk to the health of Quebeckers and Canadians.

To begin, let us specify what phthalates are. The phthalates BBP, DBP and DEHP are part of a family of chemical products mainly intended for industrial use. Phthalates are found in a number of common consumer products such as adhesives, detergents, solvents, certain pharmaceutical products, electrical wire and cables and cosmetic products like perfume, deodorants, after-shave lotions, shampoos, and so forth.

The use of phthalates as softening agents is another current application for these products. Most PVC-based rigid, semi-rigid and flexible articles contain phthalates.

The proportion of phthalates can be as high as 50% in some products, for example, plastic bags, food wrap, shower curtains, bath toys, medical devices, and containers for blood storage, to name only a few.

In scientific terms, the toxicity level of phthalates varies depending on the kind of composition. Thus, DEHP phthalates have a higher toxicity potential than other phthalates and some researchers believe that phthalates could be carcinogenic.

According to a report by the Institut national de santé publique du Québec, experts have concluded that BBP has no effect or negligible effect on reproduction and development. However, for DEHP and, to a lesser degree, for DBP, the results arouse more concern.

In addition, the use of various medical devices that contain DEHP raises some concern about the development of premature male babies who need prolonged care.

For all these reasons, in our analysis of the bill, the Bloc Québécois has favoured the precautionary principle.

What is the precautionary principle? The precautionary principle was officially recognized and confirmed by the international community in the convention on biological diversity adopted at Rio in 1992, a convention that was ratified by Canada.

According to this principle, when there are reasonable grounds to believe that an activity or a product may cause serious and irreversible harm to health or the environment, mitigation measures must be taken until the effects are documented. These measures may include, in the case of an activity, reducing or terminating this activity or, in the case of a product, banning this product.

So much for phthalates. In terms of the bill before us, the initial text obliged the Minister of the Environment to make regulations prohibiting the use of BBP, DBP and DEHP in certain products.

The bill required a regulation prohibiting the use of BBP in products for use by a child in learning or play, and products that are put in the mouth of an infant when used, including feeding bottle nipples, teethers, soothers, pacifiers and other similar products.

It prohibited the use of DBP in cosmetics, products for use by a child in learning or play, and products that are put in the mouth of an infant when used, including feeding bottle nipples, teethers, soothers, pacifiers and other similar products.

It prohibited DEHP in cosmetics, medical devices other than blood bags, products for use by a child in learning or play, and products that are put in the mouth of an infant when used, including feeding bottle nipples, teethers, soothers, pacifiers and other similar products.

Furthermore, the text amended Schedule 1 to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to include BBP, DBP and DEHP as toxic substances.

From the outset of committee study of Bill C-307, the Bloc Québécois expressed concerns about prohibiting phthalates in medical devices.

Although it is important to promote the use of devices that do not contain phthalates, this does not mean that we can forego the use of tools required to care for Quebeckers and Canadians.

This position was taken by many intervenors, including Quebec's Institut national de santé publique.

The Bloc Québécois therefore tabled an amendment to meet that objective. Although the wording of our amendment was rejected, the committee nevertheless integrated the Bloc Québécois' concern regarding medical products. Bill C-307 was amended to include a distinct mechanism for medical products. That mechanism centres on safety and risk identification, rather than a simple ban on products containing phthalates.

Thus, the preferred approach is based on identifying the risks associated with medical devices, and allowing Quebeckers and Canadians to make the final decision on refusing medical instruments that contain phthalates.

Products that are free of phtalates are also promoted—and this is key—by drawing up a list.

This is why we, the Bloc Québécois, are in favour of Bill C-307.

There has not been enough research to date on the effects of phtalates on human health. While awaiting more precise answers regarding the health risks associated with phtalates, the government should limit as much as possible the exposure of vulnerable populations to various chemical compounds, as a precautionary measure.

We also note that some of the bans proposed in the original bill have been amended, since they went too far, given that reliable, effective and safe replacement products were unavailable for certain medical devices.

We in the Bloc Québécois believe that Bill C-307 responds to our main concerns.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oaths of Office

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

moved for leave to introduce C-1, respecting the Administration of Oaths of Office.

(Motions deemed adopted and bill read the first time)