Bill C-1 (Historical)

An Act respecting the Administration of Oaths of Office

[Ian Russell, President and Chief Executive Officer, Investment Industry Association of Canada]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm Ian Russell. I've come before the committee many times, but this is the first time I've been here in my capacity as president and chief executive officer of the Investment Industry Association of Canada to talk to you on the singular subject of tax-free savings accounts, or TFSAs. With me today is my colleague Barbara Amsden, who will be helpful to me in responding to a number of the questions that may come from the committee.

The IIAC is one of Canada's oldest and youngest associations. It was founded in 1916 as the Investment Dealers Association, which began as a trade association that over the next 90 years became increasingly a self-regulatory body. From 1996 to 2006, the IDA grew rapidly as a regulator, tripling in size. In April 2006 the organization separated its dual mandate, creating a single self-regulatory organization and a trade association.

The Investment Industry Association is the trade association for the Canadian securities industry. In that capacity we've been able to lobby effectively or advocate on behalf of our members, some 210 firms in the Canadian investment industry, for improvements in regulatory and tax policy to strengthen the capital markets in the Canadian economy and to meet the government's objective of productivity improvements. We've been better able to publicize what our industry does to promote the savings investment process and encourage capital formation.

As I said, we have 210 members. They range from very large, national, full-service investment dealers to small boutique operations, which operate as an institution with an institutional focus, and also as a regional focus, in all parts of the country.

The role of the Investment Industry Association of Canada is to promote the growth and development of the Canadian investment sector. The IIAC represents a strong and proactive voice that seeks to represent the interests of the investment sector and all market participants. Our corporate members range from regional companies employing few persons to major corporations that employ thousands of Canadians. Our members assist Canadian investors in building and protecting their capital to ensure their financial future and that of their families.

For our members to successfully begin offering TFSAs and to promote further savings by Canadians, we believe it is in the best interests of investors, governments, and TFSA providers that TFSAs be made as simple as possible to introduce and manage, and to this end that they be as similar as possible to and able to leverage the current RRSP framework.

A great deal of work needs to be done by our members between now and the January 1, 2009 start-up date. Technology changes don't just occur at the push of a button. We hope to have your help with legislative changes, as well as the help of the Department of Finance and the CRA on regulatory and administrative matters, to ensure a smooth launch and an excellent good-news story for the front pages of the first newspaper editions of the new year.

With your permission, I won't read the rest of my remarks, but I will touch on four problems and amendments that we suggest.

First, Bill C-50 limits TFSA offerings to a trust annuity contract or deposit, and excludes securities accounts. Interest and annuity rates have dropped since the early nineties, and more and more Canadians now rely on investments, rather than just term deposits and annuities, to finance their retirement. Requiring that brokers still resort to the trust structure of using third-party trustees to offer TFSAs adds costs and inefficiencies, and we believe it is really unnecessary.

Second, the CRA proposes more frequent reporting than for RRSPs, but based on the RRSP example, we believe this is not cost-justified, as material over-contributions to RRSPs are proportionately small, excess amounts are usually low, and penalties can be imposed to dissuade over-contributions. As for RRSPs, an annual report with contributions and withdrawals will enable the CRA to identify over-contributions, even if those are withdrawn in the same year in an effort to unfairly take advantage of the tax system.

Third, the treatment of TFSAs upon the death of the TFSA holder differs from that of RRSPs. Income or capital gains on the TFSA become immediately taxable at the time the holder dies, in contrast to RRSPs, where there is an exempt or transitional period after death, which allows for a period to learn of the holder's death and a process for deeming the disposition of assets and for resetting costs at fair market value, and various other points. As we know, the death of a family member means a difficult time for everyone, and treating RRSPs and TFSAs differently will lead to additional complications and frustrations at a time when complexity and administrative complications are particularly difficult for the bereaved.

Fourth, on implementation, Bill C-50 provides that qualifying TFSA arrangements must be entered into after 2008. This would prevent the opening of accounts with a zero balance earlier and would lead to a rush following the new year. Our members are already getting calls about opening TFSAs. This risks negative publicity for TFSA providers and the government, if there is congestion at the beginning of the year.

So we are requesting four legislative changes.

First, we recommend amending the legislation to allow brokers to offer TFSAs directly under an account agreement, and not just as a trust.

Second, for efficiency and cost-effectiveness—while leaving CRA's ability to manage the integrity of the tax base undiminished—we ask or recommend that you amend the legislation to require annual transaction-related reporting by TFSA providers to the CRA without a requirement for reporting transfers between the accounts of the same TFSA holder. This government is committed to reducing the regulatory burden and not adding to it. We believe that more frequent reporting will in fact cause more problems for investors and intermediaries than necessary.

Third, for simplicity, and given little risk to the tax base, we propose an amendment to standardize and simplify processing on the death of the holder, treating TFSAs like RRSPs, or in the same manner.

Fourth, for smooth implementation, we recommend that you allow TFSA providers to open accounts before the new year while still preventing contributions or transfers until January 1.

So those are the recommendations that we have before you, Mr. Chairman.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Bevan, one of the things that was discussed in the Fisheries Act--and maybe you can add some more detail to this--was that the 15-year clause in the new Bill C-32, which was also in Bill C-45, talked about how it is possible to secure financing.

Because I'm having a heck of a time trying to wrap my head around this one, could you explain where the length of time is strengthened, such that it allows the ability to easily finance for bigger operations, say?

[Bruno Gagnon]

We proposed $15 billion. We came to $15 billion as being the excess cost of higher unemployment during a recession over the average cost of the program. That's approximately how we came to $15 billion.

By the way, I think we support all the transparency features that are in Bill C-50. It's a great step forward. On the other hand, I think we might all gain by looking at the $54 billion and seeing it as something that is twofold. It contains what I would call the actuarial reserve. That's approximately $15 billion. That's the money needed to stabilize the program over the long run. Then it contains $39 billion, or whatever. That is the result of a decision made several years ago, a decision not to charge the premium rate recommended by the chief actuary. This was a totally different decision. From my point of view, it's a totally different issue. So within the $54 billion we're dealing with two different concepts.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone. Bonjour, mes amis.

Certainly we're pleased to be back. I'm glad you mentioned the staff. You've had them here more often than you've had me.

When I hear some of my colleagues talk about their experiences before committee, and certainly their officials, quite often coming to a committee can be pretty onerous. Our department has always felt very comfortable coming here. We try to give you what information we can, or provide it to you. I must say that all of us have been treated in the type of manner you would expect from a group like this. I've been part of it for a number of years. It helps to get the job done, so I thank you for that.

With me today are some familiar faces: Claire Dansereau, my department's associate deputy minister; George Da Pont, commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard; Cal Hegge, the assistant deputy minister of human resources and corporate services; and of course, no stranger to you at all, David Bevan, my ADM of fisheries and aquaculture management.

I've know you've met them several times regarding main estimates for this year's budget. I trust the discussions were helpful to you.

Today I'd like to begin by taking a step back from the details of the main estimates to provide a broader perspective of the financial picture over the past couple of years, which will hopefully give us a bit of a background for discussion. Following that, I'd like to discuss matters of collaborative arrangements between fish harvesters and the department, and I will finish up by making a statement about the coast guard.

I'm proud of the investments we've made to support Canada's fisheries and better manage our oceans. Since 2006, and leading up to this year's federal budget, our government has committed about $860 million to help Canada's fishing communities. We've increased DFO's budget by just under $100 million a year in permanent funding. We have introduced, and then improved, the first capital gains tax relief for our fish harvesters. All of you are the beneficiaries of that, because I'm sure you take credit for it. We financed the health of the oceans initiative for cleaner waters. We've reinvested in science and funded integrated commercial fishery plans on both coasts. We've put funding in place to renew the coast guard fleet, and we have improved habitat conservation and protection. And we have stepped up fisheries enforcement.

Bill C-32, a modernized fisheries act, will soon be at second reading in the House of Commons. I hope I can count on your cooperation to move it into committee, where you can do whatever work you want. There was some talk about us perhaps trying to limit the committee. I assure you that once it's in your hands, you will be the masters of it. There will be no interference from us whatsoever.

This extremely important piece of legislation follows extensive discussions over the past several years, with provinces, territories, as well as fishing interests, aboriginal groups, stakeholders, and others. Since tabling Bill C-45 in December 2006, people have had access to the bill. We have held numerous meetings with stakeholders to explain the content of the proposed legislation. As a result, almost 400 people and organizations provided us with feedback and suggested changes to the text. We listened. Where there was general agreement, we took action and modified the text. A lot of the major changes were your own suggestions on clarification and others. In terms of suggestions where there was no agreement, we will need to discuss that at committee stage.

I truly hope I can count on your support and cooperation during the committee stage to make this the best bill possible. I know from my own experience that the committee can do excellent work on this bill, just as it did on Bill S-215, an act to protect heritage lighthouses.

In terms of the bill, I say do your deliberations and make whatever changes are necessary. We want the best bill possible. And if we can't deliver that, we have a chance to vote for it in the House. Are we going to get perfection? Probably not; you never will. Is it better than what we have and as good as we can get under the circumstances? If it is, we should pass it. If it's not, then I'll live by your decision.

Together we can modernize this legislation, for industry, stakeholders, and Canadians. I call on all of you, in your duty as parliamentarians, to do just that.

This past February, with economic uncertainty around the world, we called for a prudent federal budget. We still found room to make key investments in Canada's fisheries. We committed $22 million over the first two years to help develop a more competitive and sustainable aquaculture sector. We have $70 million over five years, which has been accepted very positively by the aquaculture industry and the provinces involved. We devoted $10 million over two years to help fix up harbours. This is for community ownership. As you know, there was a commitment of $45 million to do that, so we can divest ourselves of harbours that are eating up the money you need to spend on your own wharves and breakwaters, etc.

Our government has also committed $8 million over the next two years to build a commercial harbour in Nunavut, one of several needed if we're going to see Nunavut benefit from its resources. It's going to be expensive, but it's needed in order for them to properly manage the resource and benefit from it.

The budget also set aside $720 million for a new polar class icebreaker. That's on top of the $750 million last year for a number of coast guard midshore patrol vessels. This vessel will have a far greater capability than the one it's replacing, by the way. As well as icebreaking, it will support a range of DFO programs and services like fisheries management activities, fishery science, and it will also help maintain Canada's presence in the north.

The government also devoted $20 million over the next two years to complete required mapping of the Arctic and Atlantic seabeds. This is a sovereignty issue, and it supports our claims to the outer limits of Canada's continental shelf. This funding is not from our department exclusively, but it will certainly help us manage, protect, and develop northern fisheries, while helping Canada stake its rightful claim to our northern continental shelf.

As I mentioned, my second topic concerns the matter of collaborative arrangements between fish harvesters and the department regarding the use of fish. You recently received my department's response to your follow-up questions on collaborative arrangements. You will recall the Larocque and APPFA decisions made in 2006. The issue was whether collaborative arrangements put in place years ago fit with legal decisions made in the Federal Court in these cases. In the wake of that, a number of agreements we had, arrangements we had with the fishing industry, were struck down.

In all, we have reviewed 206 activities and projects that could have been impacted by court decisions. In 2006, 68 out of the 206 agreements we have with different groups involved use of fish agreements in exchange for scientific or fisheries management activities; 138 did not. We reported this to you in February. You have asked for more detail and it's in our response.

To recap, all but two of the 68 arrangements have continued in a modified form that is consistent with the Federal Court decision. We have returned most allocations that were previously used to form joint projects to the total allowable catch. We've just put them back in the common pool. Thirteen allocations have remained with the fishing industry association or a community, but now they do not require help in the department with fish management or science. Eleven did not have a use of fish component, while the two that did no longer have an obligation to fund DFO activities.

I have always believed that the fish quota should go to fish harvesters, but in the past, special allocations were provided to some community groups. We are also continuing to review these allocations to make sure they are in line with court decisions.

The bottom line is that we're still gathering the data needed to run the fishery. This is thanks to an increase in our budget of $12 million per year until 2012 and to using the industry resources in a manner that complies with the court. Also, by reducing costs we're focusing on essential conservation information and exploring non-financial options for staying the course.

I'm satisfied these measures are minimizing the impact on my department's programs and services as well as on Canada's fish harvesters.

As I mentioned, to wrap things up, I'd like to say a few words about the coast guard.

We're well aware of the tragedy at sea that took the lives of four sealers—Bruno Bourque, Gilles Leblanc, Marc-André Déraspe, and Carl Aucoin—aboard l'Acadien II in March. This is a loss of the deepest order for their families, the community of the Magdalen Islands, and all of Canada.

I know that one of our colleagues, Monsieur Blais, was very, very close to that. We spoke often during that terrible tragedy, and he certainly did yeoman service for his people in that regard.

In the days following the incident, we sent an official from coast guard to the Magdalen Islands to provide support and information to the grieving families when the bodies of their loved ones were returned home.

I grew up in a fishing village, as did a lot of you. While Renews was a lot smaller than the Magdalen Islands, when we have a tragedy at sea, as we've all had—especially in places like the one Bill Matthews represents, and maybe more so than anywhere—we know what it's like and what effect it has, not only on the community but also on the whole area.

In circumstances like these, people want answers and they want them quickly. As you know, the coast guard is carrying out an internal incident safety review. That review is being led by an independent investigator, retired Rear Admiral Roger Girouard. I've met him, by the way, and I would think he is as fine a person as ever I've met. He certainly knows what has to be done, how to do it, and I have every belief he will do it well. His team will, of course, be cooperating with the RCMP and the Transportation Safety Board, which are also reviewing the matter. We want these investigations to be quick, but we also need to be thorough, so that when all the facts are clear we can proceed accordingly.

We have remarkable people in our coast guard, people who have dedicated themselves to serving others and who don't hesitate to put themselves in harm's way to save another. So this tragedy weighs heavily on their minds, too, I can assure you. Day in and day out, the coast guard does an awful lot of work for Canada. This, too, is worth noting. Even during these difficult times, our work continues. It is still our coast guard, and we are fortunate as Canadians to have it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[Grand Chief Tim Thompson]

Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, first nations communities, chiefs, and councillors, my name is Tim Thompson. I am Grand Chief for the Mohawks of Akwesasne, a community of approximately 12,000 Mohawks who reside on ancient aboriginal territory along the St. Lawrence River.

Akwesasne has a unique geographical and political location between the countries of Canada and the U.S. and the provinces of Ontario and Quebec and New York state. Our community has been involved in several land claims with Canada over many years. Some of our claims are very large. Some are currently being negotiated. Some are being litigated. Some have been in the process for more than 30 years. Some have been rejected. And there will definitely be some Akwesasne claims that will be impacted by this legislation.

We come to the standing committee because we have not been consulted on the new Specific Claims Tribunal, Bill C-30, and we want to bring our concerns forward on this impending legislation.

We believe that the first of many shortcomings surrounding the new bill is the lack of direct consultation with first nations communities. AFN does not represent the Mohawks of Akwesasne. We are a member of the Independent First Nations of Ontario and the Iroquois Caucus, neither of which have had meaningful consultation in this process. Some very important issues, such as claims over $150 million and some additions to reserve issues, have not yet been resolved, even though Canada and the AFN recognize that there are many unresolved issues with regard to this new legislation and have proposed that these concerns will be negotiated through political agreements with AFN.

Without a consultation process, communities like Akwesasne will have no part in the building of legislation that will ultimately affect them. Akwesasne, therefore, does not know the future outcome of some very important issues, if in fact we will be consulted, or if the issues will be resolved to our benefit.

At present, Canada has aligned itself with the Assembly of First Nations as the main counterpoint to the negotiations to move Bill C-30 through Parliament. Akwesasne considers this very political approach to consultation with first nations inadequate. For important legislation such as this, which will impact the relationship of the crown and first nations for decades, real and meaningful consultation must be held with all first nations.

Canadian courts have stressed that negotiation is preferable to litigation to resolve aboriginal claims. The Specific Claims Tribunal will create a new level of litigation in claims, with many of the disadvantages of the court. For example, the political nature of the claims permits them to address flexibility. The tribunal, in contrast, would only be able to offer cash. The political nature of negotiations allows communities to have real control over the outcomes. The tribunal would give increased authority to the lawyers. In court, if you make a statement of claim and the statement of defence raises new issues, you have a right to reply. With the new tribunal, you have no right to bring the evidence to rebut the grounds of the rejection of your claim. It appears to us that the tribunal has a more limited range of processes and remedies available to it than the Indian Claims Commission did.

The present Indian Claims Commission has worked hard to establish a reputation for impartiality. We worry that the new tribunal will be seen as Canada's attempt to replace an impartial body with one that will be more favourable to the federal government's position. One of the most significant issues is the makeup of the tribunal. Currently, Bill C-30 proposes that Canada will appoint Superior Court judges, of which only one will hear any particular claim. We do not believe that decisions on claims should fall to just one judge. Additionally, the selection and appointment process for the members of the tribunal is not reassuring. It is only in the political agreement, not the legislation, that consultation with AFN regarding the recommendation of judges to the tribunal is proposed.

Depending on the makeup of the tribunal, it might provide federal claims officials and negotiators with an incentive to reject claims or have negotiations break down, as the tribunal could be seen as pro-federal rather than impartial.

Bill C-30 will also create a more structured approach to specific claims, which will have the effect of providing very little flexibility to the tribunal to address the unique and complex circumstances that have created the claims in the first place.

The new act provides for monetary settlement only. Other creative solutions or options, which may be more reasonable, productive, practical, or restorative, will not be entertained.

Most claims are about land. The fact that the tribunal can only award cash means it would not be able to address many claims in a way that would satisfy the claimants. The fact that the courts can deliver land at least more often than the federal system will promote litigation. Bill C-30 will completely eliminate the ability of first nations to bring any discussions or studies relating to the social, cultural, and spiritual connection to the land as part of the negotiating process to settle a specific claim. Bill C-30 clearly makes this a non-negotiable issue.

The political agreement states that:

...resolving claims is a legal and moral obligation, and recognizing the cultural, spiritual, social and economic significance to a First Nation of recovering or replacing land that was unlawfully taken.

The words are beautiful, but they fall far short of one important component. They do not allow for the discussion or negotiation regarding injuries to culture that are associated with loss of land. First nations know the impacts of injury to culture that have occurred with loss of land. This obvious injury should not be ignored.

The new legislation proposes to exclude claims in excess of $150 million. This exclusion is something the AFN proposes to address through a political agreement. Meanwhile, its exclusion will allow government officials to coerce first nations to artificially devalue their claims to fit the current criteria. With a cap on the size of the claim that the tribunal can address, federal negotiators will be tempted to collapse negotiations on large claims knowing they have nowhere else to go, while there will be pressure on first nations to accept less than fair value for their claims to bring them under the cap if a claim goes to the tribunal. The presence of the tribunal as a process for settling smaller claims will be accentuated as a further excuse for avoiding settlement of larger claims.

The larger claims represent the greatest benefit for first nations and the greatest accumulated debt on the part of the federal government. However, with a limited annual budget and a fascination with statistics, Canada prefers to resolve smaller claims. If the tribunal is not able to address the larger claims, these larger claims will be further deferred and become even less likely to be resolved. With the cabinet looking at these claims, it surely shows there would be no transparency about the decisions that are made, as these decisions will be made behind closed doors.

With the Iroquois Caucus, many of our claims are above $150 million. When Canada says there are 20 claims in excess of $150 million, sitting at the table are probably 16 of those claims.

One major obstacle to settling specific claims is the lack of clarity in Canadian law. Currently, only the courts can clarify the law, but litigation is currently being discouraged. Unless the rules and practices governing the claims process, including those proposed for the tribunal, are clarified and expanded, claims will remain unresolved.

Bill C-30 also appears to place into legislation the retroactive surrender of lands originally taken illegally as a consequence of settling a specific claim and receiving compensation. There will be no future options available on this point if this legislation is passed by Parliament.

In conclusion, I would like to say that the AFN is not a first nation and does not speak for all first nations in Canada. Akwesasne wishes to make it abundantly clear that support by the AFN does not translate into acceptance of the specific claims bill, Bill C-30, by the first nations who are affected by this bill. It is important that Canada honour its obligation to first nations communities to consult with them regarding the legislation that will affect their claims and their future.

Before I end, we make the following recommendations:

A bona fide consultation process must occur with full participation of first nations communities.

Revisit the terms of reference, capacity, authority, and remedies available to the tribunal.

The make-up of the tribunal should be composed of a variety of disciplines and should include first nations members.

The tribunal should be a three-member panel, one being a Superior Court justice and the other two members representing other related disciplines appropriate to the circumstances of the specific claims, all having an equal voice.

The settlement solutions available to the tribunal should include land, financial, and other creative components in a manner that will satisfy the parties.

There should be consultation with first nations to ensure that the political agreement provides for the discussion on restorative justice with regard to injury to culture associated with the land.

There should be consultation with first nations to ensure that the political agreement provides for the discussion on claims above $150 million.

Consultation with first nations should occur to ensure that the political agreement provides for clarity in the rules and practices that are used in the settlement claim.

Consultation with first nations should occur to ensure the political agreement provides for discussions on options regarding the surrender component of claim settlements.

With that, I thank you. Nia:wen.

Opposition Motion--Climate Change

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speeches presented by both the leader of the NDP and the party's environment critic and what is interesting about their comments is that they are both confused.

On the one hand, the leader of the NDP is actively seeking the cooperation of the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois at committee to pass his bill, Bill C-377, which cannot pass without the support of the Liberal Party of Canada.

On the other hand, he refers to Bill C-30, the backbone of which is the Liberal Party of Canada's balancing our budget plan. As the leader of the NDP puts it, the bill was originally punted to a legislative committee because he had a special deal with the Prime Minister. Then he realized that the Prime Minister was not serious whatsoever in seeing that legislative committee bring the clean air act to any successful completion and we brought forward the balancing, our department budget program and plan.

I am confused because one of the longest serving NDP MPs, the member for Winnipeg Centre, believes differently than his own leader. He says that the federal New Democratic Party may need to enter into some kind of informal coalition with the Liberals or risk, in his words, “political obscurity”. That statement came from a veteran NDP MP, one of the top and longest serving MPs in that caucus.

What exactly is the NDP's position here today? In the case of--

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

I'm certainly talking about Bill C-11 in Nunavik. I think that's what we were both talking about. There's nothing in the estimates for that particularly. I think the only dollars were for Nunavut, and we can talk about that, but it's a different thing.

Senate Appointment Consultations Act

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is opposed to the bill concerning the appointment of senators. Parliament cannot reform the Senate unilaterally or without a constitutional amendment. At any rate, even a reformed Senate is a useless institution.

Canadian institutions cannot be reformed. The numerous attempts to reform the Senate illustrate perfectly the “Canadian dead end.” Proposals to reform the Senate date back as far as 1874. Barely seven years after the creation of the Dominion of Canada, the Senate was the subject of criticism and calls for reform.

A motion in April 1874, by member of Parliament David Mills, recommended that “our Constitution ought to be so amended as to confer upon each Province the power of selecting its own Senators, and of defining the mode of their election”. Now, 133 years later, we are still debating this issue. Senator Serge Joyal, who wrote a book on Senate reform, identified at least 26 proposals for Senate reform in the past 30 years alone.

The Bloc Québécois believes that the Senate reform proposed by the current government is a slap in the face for Quebec federalists. The minimum position of successive Quebec governments has always been clear: no Senate reform without first settling the question of Quebec’s status.

In 1989, Robert Bourassa said he did not want to discuss Senate reform until the Meech Lake accord was ratified. In 1992, Gil Rémillard said that signature by Canada of an accord involving Senate reform would depend on the outcome of negotiations on the concept of a distinct society, division of powers and the federal spending power.

By means of Bills C-19 and C-20, the current Conservative Prime Minister is trying to reform the Senate piecemeal, without having satisfied the minimum conditions stipulated by Quebec.

Clearly the Senate cannot be changed unilaterally and without a constitutional amendment. The Canadian Constitution is a federal constitution. Consequently, there are reasons why changes to the essential characteristics of the Senate cannot be made by Parliament alone and should be part of the constitutional process involving Quebec and the provinces.

In the late 1970s, the Supreme Court of Canada examined Parliament's ability to amend on its own the constitutional provisions concerning the Senate. According to its decision, known as “Authority of Parliament in relation to the Upper House”, in 1980, decisions pertaining to major changes to the essential characteristics of the Senate cannot be made unilaterally.

All reforms of Senate powers, the means of selecting senators, the number of senators to which each province is entitled and residency requirements for senators, can only be made in consultation with Quebec and the provinces.

Benoît Pelletier, the Quebec Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and MNA for Chapleau, reiterated Quebec's traditional position on November 7, 2007, which was not so long ago:

The Government of Quebec does not believe that this falls exclusively under federal jurisdiction. Given that the Senate is a crucial part of the Canadian federal compromise, it is clear to us that under the Constitution Act, 1982, and the regional veto act, the Senate can be neither reformed nor abolished without Quebec's consent.

That same day, in November 2007, Quebec's National Assembly unanimously passed the following motion—I hope the government is listening:

That the National Assembly of Québec reaffirm to the Federal Government and to the Parliament of Canada that no modification to the Canadian Senate may be carried out without the consent of the Government of Québec and the National Assembly.

Quebec is not alone in opposing the idea of an elected Senate. The outgoing Premier of Saskatchewan, Lorne Calvert, and the Premier of Manitoba, Gary Doer, have called for abolishing the Senate instead of trying to reform it. The Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty, has also expressed concerns about whether electing senators to the Senate might not make the inequalities even worse.

In summary, indirect election of senators would change the rapport between the House of Commons and the Senate. These changes cannot be made unilaterally without the consent of the provinces and without the consent of Quebec, recognized as a nation by the House of Commons. Whether the Senate is reformed or not, it is a useless institution.

Initially, the Senate was supposed to be a chamber of sober second thought that also protected regional interests. Regional equality in the Senate was supposed to counterbalance representation in the House. However, it seems that partisanship has gained the upper hand over regional representation, thus rendering null and void the purpose of the other place, which has a tendency to follow the lead of the House of Commons.

How can this government justify having a Senate whose responsibilities would be much like those of the House of Commons at a cost of $81 million per year? All the provinces have done away with their upper chambers. No province has had an upper chamber since Quebec abolished its legislative council in 1968, and as far as I know, the provinces are able to govern appropriately.

Bill C-20 would not make the Senate democratic. Public consultation is not binding. Bill C-20 provides for public “consultation” to choose senators. The Prime Minister maintains the authority to appoint or not appoint the senators chosen by the public. The Prime Minister could therefore decide not to appoint a candidate selected by the public. The background paper provided by the government concerning this bill states: “The Prime Minister can take into account the results of the consultation when making recommendations to the Governor General regarding future representatives of a province or territory in the Senate”.

Besides, how can we trust this Prime Minister, who did not hesitate to appoint Michael Fortier to the Senate, even though he himself criticized the Liberals' partisan appointments to the Senate? The current Prime Minister's real motivation is to marginalize the nation of Quebec. Under the pretext of an orthodox reform of federalism, the Conservative government is proposing shattering the balance of the federation.

In Australia and the United States, having an elected senate has enhanced the legitimacy of the federal government and has “nationalized” public life rather than serve the representation of the federated states within federal institutions. To be heard in Congress, the American states have been reduced to being lobbyists. Senators elected to represent an entire province would overshadow the authority of the provincial premiers and run the risk of supplanting them as regional representatives. That is what the proponents of a “triple E” Senate want: a federal Parliament that would be more legitimate because its elected members were more sensitive to regional interests. Quebeckers would never stand idly by as their own province blithely accepted Senate reform.

[Mark Davidson]

When the committee tabled its report in December, it asked for a formal response from the government on the report. And in the normal course of events, the government will be responding to all the recommendations in the bill. I'm here today to give you information about Bill C-37, which certainly is an element. The government will be tabling a response to the provisions not related to C-37 in the normal course of events.

[Andre Turmel, Secretary, National Environmental, Energy and Resources Law Section, Canadian Bar Association]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and all members.

My name is Andre Turmel. I'm a partner at the law firm of Fasken Martineau in Montreal. I'm going to address you in French in the following presentation.

Bill C-377 addresses Canada's non-compliance in implementing international treaty obligations, specifically in regard to climate change. The CBA Section is certainly concerned about the serious consequences of climate change, and about Canada's failure to implement the Kyoto Protocol as a breach of Canada's international obligations. However, we believe that Bill C-377 should not be passed in its current form. Rather than the proposed legislated targets, the CBA Section urges the government to take immediate steps to meet Canada's international environmental legal obligations to address climate change.

International treaties are the primary tool used by the international community to promote collective action on global environmental problems. Canada is a party to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which provides in article 26 that, “Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.” International customary legal norms from as long ago as 1938 recognize a duty among nations to prevent transboundary pollution and environmental harm.

More recently, there was the Teck Cominco case which was decided by a U.S. court of appeal. It ruled that the United States had administrative responsibilities with respect to a Canadian company that was emitting on American soil.

At this time, Canada is entering into an increasing number of international agreements addressing environmental issues. The CBA has urged federal, provincial and territorial governments to cooperate to implement these international agreements in a timely and complete manner, according to their respective areas of jurisdiction. Implementation of international conventions and obligations under international law is a matter of support for the rule of law.

I would now like to make a few comments about Bill C-377. This bill is intended to rectify Canada's non-compliance with the Protocol. It would introduce ambitious, and on the basis of current experience, likely unattainable, deferred targets. If legislated targets are to be adopted, they should be linked to, and coherent with current targets in international law. The existence of two, unrelated and incommensurate standards would likely create confusion as to the role of international law in domestic environmental law, and would downplay the importance of Canada's legal obligations under the protocol and other international treaties.

I would now like to list some of the legal consequences should Canada fail to comply with the Kyoto Protocol.

The protocol's Marrakesh Accords address non-compliance with article 3.1. The accord provides, in particular, that the enforcement branch of the compliance committee—that is how it is called—which is responsible for compliance, must ensure that Canada fulfils its obligations.

It must declare Canada to be non-compliant if it deducts from Canada's assigned amount for the second commitment period a number of tonnes equal to 1.3 times the amount in tonnes of excess emissions. It will require Canada to develop a compliance action plan including information provided in the letter that we sent to you. Finally, it can suspend Canada's eligibility to make emissions trading transfers under article 17 of the protocol.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol dictating Canada's international environmental obligations and subsequent negotiated instruments within the framework of the framework convention are likely to remain the primary international legal structures to address climate change, including climate change impacts in Canada, after 2012.

While recourse by a country against Canada before the International Court of Justice is unlikely, domestic litigation against the federal government can be expected. Already, the Friends of the Earth have launched two cases against the Government of Canada with the Federal Court, one under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the other under the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act adopted in 2007.

To conclude, Bill C-377 deals with a subject of profound concern to Canadians and to the international community. However, it would require an 80% target by 2050, a significantly higher target than is currently adopted by most countries, which generally require around 50 or 60% reduction targets by 2050. While high standards are desirable, if attainable, they should be linked to and coherent with target set out in existing international law. The targets in Bill C-377 are not.

We urge the federal government to take immediate steps to honour Canada's international agreements to address climate change before considering the legislated targets proposed in Bill C-377.

Thank you.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Chairman, my question will follow up on the minister's opening remarks and on the issue raised by my colleague from the Liberal Party, who asked who would manage, administer and apply Bill C-33 if it is passed. The minister replied that it would be both the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Department of the Environment.

As is often the case, a bill per se does not do any damage, but its enforcement, and the way it is managed and applied, does do damage. Often the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. And this might happen in cases where legislation is enforced by two departments. The right hand won't know what the left one is doing.

Mr. Chairman, you might say I'm being simplistic, but it's like two drivers who are sitting behind the wheel of one car. In that situation, one driver might want to turn left, and the other to the right.

Mr. Minister, can you reassure us this morning? Bill C-33 seems logical, but can you tell us how the two departments, agriculture and agrifood, and the environment, will share its application? How will they do it?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I guess what I'm getting at, the point I'm trying to make, is that it seems to be an entrenched position. To me, it makes good sense to take Bill S-203 now, while we have it. When another bill comes forward, whether it's a government bill or a private member's bill, I think it should be given full examination and every opportunity to be debated as well.

What I'm getting at here is that from your organization's perspective, you're entrenched on this particular issue, and I can't see a good reason for it. You're entrenched against seal hunting, yet you're not entrenched against hunting, maybe, in another way. So I'm just wondering what it is. Is it an organizational thing? Help me understand where the rationale comes from for some of the positions the IFAW takes.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal Code

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague, who has a great deal of experience when it comes to Canadian municipalities—and large ones, at that—how Bill C-27 can be linked to the municipalities, especially the large municipalities.

Should there be a link? If so, what is that link?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

There will be a 10-minute period for questions and comments for the hon. member when the House resumes debate on Bill C-27.

We will now move on to statements by members. The hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-27, dealing with identity theft.

In May 2007, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics undertook a study on identity theft. At the time, we began to hear witnesses and look at this issue, because it is a serious problem. This issue directly affects individuals, but it also has an impact on our cities, our nation, our country, and even at the international level.

In fact, Canada is the only G-8 member that has not yet legislated against spams, which are often used for identity theft purposes. Some countries point to Canada as a haven for spammers. So, it was time to take action in this area.

It goes without saying that the Bloc supports the principle of the bill. As I just mentioned, identity theft is a very serious issue. We have to modernize the Criminal Code to reflect the reality of identity theft.

When she appeared before our committee, on May 8, Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart said that, in her opinion, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, which was implemented six years ago “is not a tool that, alone, enables us to combat this phenomenon, even if this legislation imposes restrictions on the collection of data. The safeguard principle permits the secure and confidential holding of personal information. It also makes it possible to limit the time during which information may be kept, as well as the number of persons who have access to it.”

However, as Ms. Stoddart pointed out, this is not enough, and this is why an act on identity theft is a welcome initiative.

According to Ms. Stoddart, concerted action by the different levels of government is required. The Bloc Québécois is not alone to say so. Let me quote her again. She suggested that “the federal government has to work closely with the provinces, because a lot of what happens in terms of ID theft falls within provincial jurisdiction”.

Provincial jurisdiction does not mean only certain fields of responsibility. We are really talking about the jurisdiction of the provinces or that of the Quebec nation, because Quebeckers have jurisdiction over the management of their fields of responsibility. Ms. Stoddart gives the example of those people who have had their houses sold out from underneath them. That is something that falls entirely within the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

Generally speaking, this Conservative government appears to be incapable of working in cooperation with Quebec and the provinces. Examples of this would be the aid package for the manufacturing and forestry sectors and the implementation of the Kyoto protocol.

The Bloc Québécois recognizes that amending the Criminal Code will not be enough to eliminate identity theft. More measures will have to be put in place by governments, including: public information to reduce victimization; regulations to provide a better framework for the management, storage and disposal of information by companies; and measures to ensure greater standardization and security in the process for issuing and verifying identity documents. The federal government has a crummy track record in terms of the management of personal information. It will have to set an example, but I will come back to that later.

The purpose of this bill is to curb identity theft, that is the unauthorized use of personal information generally obtained for criminal purposes. Information such as someone's name, date of birth, address, credit card number, social insurance number or any other personal identification number can be used to open a bank account, apply for a credit card, get mail redirected, sign up for cellular phone services, rent a vehicle, equipment or premises, or even get a job.

Bill C-27 creates three new basic offences, and all of them carry a maximum penalty of five years.

The first one involves obtaining and possessing identity information with the intent to use it in a misleading, dishonest or fraudulent fashion to commit a crime.

The second offence, which involves trafficking in identity information, targets those who give or sell information to a third party, while being well aware that this information could be used for criminal purposes, or while not caring about it.

Finally, the third offence involves the unlawful possession or trafficking in government-issued identity documents that have the information pertaining to another person.

Some witnesses confirmed to the committee that, under the Criminal Code, a person who copies—in a convenience store, a grocery store or some other business—a credit card or an automated teller card, does not commit an offence. Right now, it is very difficult to charge such a person for using personal information.

Bill C-27 will correct this situation. From now on, individuals in a business who copy a credit card or an automated teller card when someone gives it to them for a few moments will be liable to prosecution under the provisions of Bill C-27.

Bill C-27 also includes other changes to the Criminal Code. It creates a new offence for directly or indirectly redirecting someone's mail, for possessing a copy of a Canada Post key, and also additional forgery related offences, such as the trafficking in and possession of forged documents with the intent of using them. The bill also redefines the offence of personation with the notion of “identity fraud”; by specifying the meaning of the expression “fraudulently personates any person”; by adding the offence of possessing instruments for copying credit card data, in addition to the existing offence of possessing instruments for forging credit cards.

As I was saying earlier in reference to those individuals working in businesses who might copy a credit card or an automated teller card, this will now be an offence.

In addition, the bill introduces a new power that would enable the tribunal to order the offender, as part of the sentence, to make restitution to a victim of identity theft or identity fraud for the expenses associated with rehabilitating their identity, such as the cost of replacement documents and cards and costs related to correcting their credit history. This is extremely important because many people come to our constituency offices and complain that they have been victims of identity theft and are having a hard time recovering their identity. Sometimes they complain that it costs them a lot of money to recover their identity.

Obviously, because the exception proves the rule, there are exceptions. The bill before us provides for two exemptions that would protect people who create false documents for secret government operations, as well as public servants—law enforcement officers—who create and use secret identities in carrying out their duties, from court action for identity fraud.

Identity theft is a very worrisome problem. According to Public Safety Canada, identity theft is now one of the fastest-growing crimes in Canada and the United States. In 2004, identity theft cost over $50 billion U.S. Identity theft costs consumers, banks and retailers a lot of money. In 2002, the Canadian Council of Better Business Bureaus estimated that consumers, banks, credit card companies, stores and other businesses lost $2.5 billion to identity theft.

In 2006, the Ontario Provincial Police's PhoneBusters program—an anti-fraud call centre created in January 1993 by the OPP, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Competition Bureau—received 7,800 calls from victims of identity theft who declared personal and business losses amounting to over $16 million. However, PhoneBusters recognizes that these statistics do not provide a complete picture of the situation. The organization believes that the number of calls received represents but a small fraction—perhaps 5%—of the actual total. According to PhoneBusters, payment card fraud, which is a major element of identity theft, accounted for 42% of identity theft incidents reported in 2003. According to the RCMP, total losses due to credit card fraud amounted to $200 million in 2003.

In addition to these financial losses, victims of identity theft suffer damaged credit ratings and compromised personal and financial records.

In a 2003 study, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission reported that victims of identity theft spent an average of $500 million U.S. to recover their identity and restore their credit rating.

According to a 2006 Ipsos Reid poll, one Canadian adult in four—24%, in fact, or about 5.7 million Canadians—said he or she had been a victim of identity theft—4%—or knew someone who had been a victim—20%.

This Civil Code must be dusted off. The offences currently in the Criminal Code were defined for the most part at a time when the traditional concept of “property” applied. The problem with identity theft is that personal information is not considered property. In applying the provisions of the Criminal Code, if it is impossible to establish a direct causal link with an economic loss or another serious injury, it becomes very difficult to prove that someone committed a crime such as identity theft.

Roughly 40 provisions of the current Criminal Code could apply to identity theft. For example, subsection 342(3) of the Criminal Code makes it a criminal offence to possess and traffic in credit or debit cards and related data for the purpose of using them or obtaining services provided by the card issuer.

The provisions on forgery apply to people who knowingly make false documents in order to use them or pass them off as genuine documents.

A person who uses a false document, knowing that it is forged, in order to defraud another person, can be charged with fraud and uttering forged documents.

Offenders who assume a false identity for economic or other gain—for example, to avoid being linked to criminal offences—can be charged with identity theft.

Simple possession and collection of personal information are not crimes under the Criminal Code.

In a letter dated November 21, 2007 to the member for Hochelaga, the Minister of Justice stated that he intended to introduce a bill to amend the Criminal Code in order to solve the problem of identity theft. I stress the word “solve”.

The minister is a bit too enthusiastic. The bill is a step in the right direction. However, the Criminal Code is an unwieldy instrument for fighting identity theft: the rules of evidence are strict. Other measures will have to be put in place to effectively fight identity theft.

The Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, has on several occasions called for amendments to the Criminal Code in order to more effectively fight identity theft, and she also recognizes that this tool is not very effective. She stated,

I don't think it's just an issue of the Criminal Code. As you know, our law administrators hesitate to use the Criminal Code: the standards of proof are higher, and the charter may apply, and so very often you have to have a fairly clear-cut case to use the Criminal Code.

There is one requirement for Bill C-27: the federal government must work closely with Quebec and the provinces. Once again, the Privacy Commissioner maintains that the real solution to the problem of identity theft lies in civil procedures:

Civil sanctions that are very easy to prove and easy for citizens, for example, to take to small claims courts, which may provide a more easily accessible deterrent to the growing industry of ID theft. This means, of course, that I think the federal government has to work closely with the provinces, because a lot of what happens in terms of ID theft falls within provincial jurisdiction.

The Bloc Québécois recognizes that amending the Criminal Code will not be enough to solve the problem of identity theft. Other measures will have to be put in place by governments: education campaigns—I spoke of these earlier—to reduce victimization in particular; regulations to provide more stringent oversight of how businesses manage, store and dispose of information; and measures to promote greater uniformity and security in the process of issuing and verifying identification documents.

But this government is incapable of collaborating with the provinces. Some of the solutions for combating identity theft rest with the provinces under the constitutional powers in relation to property and civil rights.

This government seems to be extremely reluctant to collaborate. Examples of this abound. The present Conservative government refused to collaborate with Quebec and the provinces on bringing forward a real plan to assist the forestry and manufacturing industries. The Conservative government rejected a series of unanimous requests by the National Assembly out of hand, requests that included honouring the Kyoto protocol, abandoning its plan for a single securities commission, a plan rejected by all of the provinces except Ontario, abandoning its reform of Parliament and reversing its decision to scrap the court challenges program.

The Conservative government succeeded in upsetting all the provinces with its reform of how the seats in the House of Commons are allocated. Senate reform has upset a majority of provinces. Equalization payment reform has been a bitter pill for Quebec and Ontario and the provinces with offshore oil resources.

So the Conservative government, which should be working with the provinces to combat identity theft, has instead retreated to its corner and made a few changes that are necessary but that have a limited effect on the problem in question.

The government seems to be in more of a hurry to give the impression that it is doing something than in developing a coherent strategy for effectively combating this plague.

And then, before handing the provinces new responsibilities for enforcing the Criminal Code, did it so much as make sure that they had the resources to enforce the new identity theft provisions?

This is the federal government, which is supposed to set an example. Even though it has a sorry record when it comes to managing personal information, it will have to set an example. The federal government is proposing to penalize people who use identification documents such as social insurance cards fraudulently. This is the same government that is not doing enough to protect and strengthen the integrity of social insurance numbers. In June 2006, the Auditor General estimated that there were 2.9 million more social insurance numbers in circulation than the estimated number of Canadians aged 30 and over.

Bill C-27 makes it an offence to falsely represent one’s self to be a peace officer or public officer. In December 2004, the media revealed that the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority had lost control of its uniforms. From January to September 2004, CATSA issued about 75,000 uniform items to its 4,000 or so screeners. Of those items, a total of 1,127 were reported lost or stolen.

Examples of mismanagement of personal information by the federal government abound. The federal government wants the public to believe that it is taking the question of identity theft seriously, but in its own actions it ignores the problem.

The Bloc Québécois supports the amendments to the Criminal Code, but also calls on the federal government to adopt exemplary practices in this area.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak at second reading of Bill C-27 , An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct).

I believe it is important to debate this matter. With the development of new technologies, we are all confronted, at one point or another, with a situation where we have to identify ourselves by using personal information. For example, we use PINs when doing our banking at an ATM. Just imagine the amount of personal data and the number of financial transactions circulating on the Internet every day. Do we know how businesses and governments manage their immense data bases that contain our personal information? These issues affect everyone, without exception. Our personal information is recorded, catalogued and stored somewhere.

Attempted identity theft is a common occurrence. A thief could find a useful document in your mail. He could use it to pass for you and commit crimes in your name. Scam artists steal names, addresses, and birth dates that they use to apply for loans and credit cards or to open bank accounts in your name. Imagine the damage they could do using your name, not to mention the serious consequences for your reputation and self esteem.

That is why identity theft is a security issue that cannot be ignored. This type of fraud will only grow with the passing of time. Those watching us surely know someone who has been a victim of identity theft. It has disastrous consequences for the victim. It can even lead to misunderstandings with the law because fraudsters can commit crimes and use the identity of their victims. How does an individual whose identity has been stolen prove to the police or government organizations that they were not the one who committed the crime of which they are accused? It is an almost impossible task.

Bill C-27 would curb identify theft by cracking down on the unauthorized collection and use of personal information for illegal purposes. This includes the possession of several private identifiers, such as a name, address, social insurance number, or any personal number that could be used to obtain a service. Bill C-27 would create three new offences that could be punishable by a maximum of five years in prison.

The first offence deals with obtaining and possessing identity information to commit a crime. The second deals with trafficking this personal information and targets individuals who sell or deliberately hand over this information to a third party, knowing that it could be used illegally. The third deals with individuals possessing or trafficking another person's government-issued identity documents.

I remind members that thieves obtain personal information in different ways. Some use direct means, such as highly sophisticated phishing techniques. The RCMP says that criminals also use e-mails or websites that look official, but falsely represent legitimate businesses, financial institutions and government agencies. The goal is to obtain sensitive, personal financial information by phishing the person who receives the e-mail. The public must constantly be vigilant against this type of fraud. This is why people must always be careful when giving out their personal information. They should also find out how their information will be used, why it is being collected, who will view the information and how the information will be protected.

Getting back to Bill C-27, it makes several changes to the Criminal Code in order to curb identity theft. It also creates offences for redirecting mail, the possession of a counterfeit mail key, the possession of instruments for copying credit card data, and the possession of or trafficking in counterfeit documents. In addition, Bill C-27 clarifies the meaning of “personating a person” and renames the offence of “personation” to “identity theft”. It gives the courts a new power to order that, as part of the sentence, the offender make restitution to a victim of identity theft or identity fraud for the expenses associated with rehabilitating their identity.

Finally, the only people exempted are those who make false documents for covert government operations or who allow public officers to create and use covert identities in the exercise of their duties—meaning here law enforcement personnel.

Bill C-27 is intended to keep up with today’s realities because in the near future the identity theft problem is only going to get worse. It is imperative, therefore, to update the Criminal Code and adapt it to current realities as well as possible. According to the Department of Public Safety, identity theft has become one of the fastest growing kinds of crime in Canada and the United States.

I should emphasize, though, that we should be concerned not just about the increase in this kind of crime but also about the costs that we collectively incur as a direct result of this illicit activity.

The Canadian Council of Better Business Bureaus estimated that in 2002 alone, consumers, banks, credit card companies, stores and other businesses lost $2.5 billion as a result of identity theft. According to the RCMP, the total losses due just to credit card fraud in 2003 amounted to $200 million. The complaints filed with the Phone Busters program of the RCMP and the Competition Bureau provide a good example of the social cost of identity theft. Just in 2006, more than $16 million were stolen from Canadians by fraudsters. Phone Busters estimates, though, that this is still just a small percentage of the real losses due to fraud, perhaps about 5%.

Considering individual human beings, we must remember that victims of identity theft are often left with a compromised credit rating and a messy personal and financial situation. Everyone is affected, without exception.

I remember an Ipsos Reid poll in 2006 according to which one-quarter of Canadians or about 5.7 million people said that they had been victimized by identity theft or knew someone who had been. These figures are very telling and clearly demonstrate the need to update the Criminal Code.

However, we are faced with a fundamental problem: Criminal Code offences were defined at the time with the traditional notion of property. The big problem with identity theft is that personal information is not considered property. To apply the provisions of the Criminal Code, there needs to be a direct causal link with an economic loss or serious harm.

Unfortunately, it is very difficult to prove that a crime has been committed in the case of identity theft. Although some 40 provisions of the Criminal Code can apply to identity theft, the fact remains that the simple possession and collection of personal information does not constitute a crime. In this case, the Criminal Code becomes a cumbersome tool for fighting identity theft. Its evidence rules are quite strict as well.

On May 8, 2007, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Jennifer Stoddart, summed up the legal problem with identity theft quite well at the Standing Committee on Access to Information. She said:

I don't think it's just an issue of the Criminal Code. As you know, our law administrators hesitate to use the Criminal Code: the standards of proof are higher, and the charter may apply, and so very often you have to have a fairly clear-cut case to use the Criminal Code.

Bill C-27 is obviously a step in the right direction to updating the Criminal Code, but I want to reiterate that part of solution would definitely come from concerted action involving the different levels of government, private organizations and the public. Other measures will have to be implemented to effectively fight identity theft, since this is a broad issue that goes beyond the government's capabilities.

For example, the Privacy Commissioner suggested using civil sanctions instead of the Criminal Code for two main reasons: proof is easier to establish, and the procedures are easier for the public to understand.

Appropriately, the commissioner gave the example of small claims court, which could offer easily accessible ways to discourage the growing industry of identity theft.

However, the idea presupposes that the federal government will work closely with the provinces, because much of what is happening in the area of identity theft comes under provincial jurisdiction. I would remind this House that a number of solutions to the problem of identity theft are in the provinces' hands, because they have constitutional authority over property and civil rights, specifically under section 92, subsection 13, on property.

However, this minority government still has a long way to go in this area. True to form, this government, which should be working with the provinces to combat identity theft, preferred to make a few changes to the Criminal Code that do little to address the problem. Before giving the provinces new responsibilities for enforcing the Criminal Code, did the government make sure they had the resources to enforce the new provisions on identity theft?

The government should try leading by example when it comes to protecting and managing personal information. The federal government is proposing to penalize people who make fraudulent use of identity documents such as social insurance cards. Yet in June 2006, we learned that the Auditor General estimated there were 2.9 million more social insurance numbers in circulation than the estimated number of Canadians aged 30 and over. It makes you wonder.

What is more, in September 2003, six computers were stolen from the Laval offices of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, including a laptop containing personal information on 120,000 taxpayers and 600 federal taxation employees. I am dismayed by the government's behaviour, which tells me that a number of practices need to be reviewed.

Several federal departments and agencies are interested in identity theft, but these efforts do not seem to have produced a concerted strategy for dealing with this enormous problem. Nonetheless, identity theft is an issue that the federal government cannot tackle on its own, but this should not stop the federal government from developing a more focused strategy for channeling its efforts.

It would also be worth having better definitions of the concepts that identity theft involves. Although the subject has received a great deal of attention from the media, academics, enforcement agencies and government, there is still debate over the definition of identity theft. The term is used to include everything from simple cases of fraud when someone forges a cheque or uses a stolen credit card to purchase goods to very sophisticated cases of “synthetic identity theft” where the impostor creates a new identity using a combination of actual information and fabricated personal information.

Similarly, we do not have a clear idea of the sources of the personal information being used. Some studies have suggested that much of the information comes from within organizations; other studies claim that identity theft is usually perpetrated by people who are known to the victims. Media stories about large scale data breaches in which laptops have been lost or hackers have been able to gain access to credit card information have become commonplace, but we do not have a clear picture of how often these data breaches result in identity theft.

I would nonetheless point out that Canada has privacy legislation that places limits on the collection, use and disclosure of personal information by the private sector. It requires organizations to protect the information they collect. There are several provisions in the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) which, if the organizations covered by the Act respect those provisions, can significantly reduce the risk of identity theft.

That Act also imposes limits on how long organizations engaged in commercial activities should retain personal information. By getting rid of information they no longer need, organizations reduce the risk of identity theft. But the destruction process must involve more than throwing paper records or hard drives into the nearest dumpster, as we have seen happen.

I would conclude by saying that the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-27 on second reading so that it can be sent to committee. Nonetheless, I, like my colleagues, strongly believe that merely amending the Criminal Code will not be sufficient to solve the identity theft problem.

Other measures will have to be developed by the various governments to combat this problem. One that we are proposing is that the public be educated in order to reduce victimization. Educating people about how to protect themselves against identity thieves is another key element to fighting this kind of fraud. As well, strengthening the regulations to provide more stringent oversight of how personal information is managed by businesses can only be a good thing.

As a final point, measures to promote greater uniformity and security in the process of issuing and verifying identification documents seem to be essential.

Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is also the second time I have spoken on this bill. As we already know, from what my colleague from Papineau has said, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-9 in principle.

Passing this bill will mean that Canada can ratify the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States and join the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes.

Because I will be making frequent reference to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes and the name is a little long, I will call it simply the centre in my speech.

Bill C-9 incorporates the requirements of the convention into domestic law, two reasons being to ensure compliance with arbitral awards and grant the immunities that the centre and its staff need. The centre was created by the World Bank in 1965 under the Treaty of Washington. At present there are 156 member countries. The centre is responsible for arbitrating disputes between a state and a foreign investor.

There are two potential kinds of conflicts: first, there are disputes relating to compliance with bilateral foreign investment protection agreements, and second, there are disputes relating to agreements between governments and foreign investors. These are agreements of the kind that the Government of Quebec and other governments regularly enter into to encourage foreign investment, with the promise, for example, to supply electricity at an agreed price.

Canada’s membership will have no impact on the provinces and Quebec, other than that they will also be able to allow for recourse to the centre when they enter into agreements with investors. The bilateral treaties signed by the federal government already provide for recourse to arbitration by the centre, but by way of the supplementary arbitration mechanism rather than a regular mechanism, which is available only to countries that have ratified the convention.

In fact, the only thing that Canada's joining the centre will change is that it will be able to participate in negotiations to amend the centre's convention or by-laws and will have the assurance that it may participate in appointing arbitration tribunals. There will therefore be direct participation in the centre. Ultimately, the centre is merely a tribunal, and the problem is not the tribunal, but the bad investment protection treaties that Canada signs.

The Bloc Québécois supports signing investment protection agreements as long as they are good agreements, obviously. It is entirely reasonable for an investor to try to ensure, before making an investment, that he or she will not end up losing his or her property, and will not be discriminated against. That is the situation that foreign investment protection agreements are intended to govern. This is not a new phenomenon. The first known agreement containing provisions relating to the protection of foreign investments was the agreement between France and the United States signed in 1788, over two centuries ago.

In May 2007 there were over 2,400 bilateral investment protection agreements in the world. If we add the tax conventions dealing with the tax treatment of foreign investments and income, there are about 5,000 bilateral treaties relating to foreign investments. The Bloc is in favour of signing agreements like this and recognizes that they promote investment and growth. These agreements are all based on more or less the same principles.

The first principle that could be mentioned is respect for property rights regardless of the owner's nationality. Second, there can be no nationalization without fair and prompt financial compensation. Third, there is a prohibition against treating property located within a country's territory differently depending on the owner's origin. Finally, there is free movement of capital resulting from the operation and the disposal of investment.

In every case, when these rights are violated, states may submit disputes over compliance with an agreement to an international arbitration tribunal. In the majority of cases, investors themselves may submit the dispute to an international tribunal, but only with the consent of the state. In many cases, the international arbitration provided in the agreement takes place before the ICSID. By belonging to it, as Bill C-9 provides, we are also agreeing to an international order in the field of investment.

In the investment protection agreements that they sign, only two countries, Canada and the United States, systematically grant investors the right to appeal directly to international tribunals. This is a deviation from the norm. By allowing a company to operate outside government control, it is being given the status of a subject of international law, a status that ordinarily belongs only to governments.

The agreements that Canada signs contain a number of similar deviations, giving multinationals rights they should not have and limiting the power of the state to legislate and take action for the common good. Take, for instance, the now infamous chapter 11 of NAFTA, which provides that a dispute can go to ICSID. There are, however, three things wrong in that chapter: the definition of expropriation, the definition of investor, and the definition of investment.

The definition of expropriation is so vague that any government measure, except for a general tax measure, can be challenged by foreign investors if it diminishes the profits generated by their investments. Indeed, a Kyoto implementation plan which would have large polluters such as oil companies pay dearly could be challenged under chapter 11 and result in government compensation.

American companies have majority interests in Alberta oil companies. Chapter 11 opens the door to the worst kind of abuse of process. The definition of investor is so broad that it includes any shareholder. Anyone could therefore take the state to court and seek compensation for a government measure that allegedly cut into a company's profits.

As for the definition of investment, it is so broad that it even includes the profits that investors hope to derive from their assets in the future. In the case of expropriation, not only does the state find itself forced to pay fair market value, but it also has to include future revenues that investors expected to draw. This would make nationalizing electricity, as Quebec did in the 1960s, impossible.

Take the example of SunBelt, a corporation with one Canadian shareholder and one Californian shareholder. This corporation closed its doors when the Government of British Columbia removed the right to export water in bulk that it had been granted. Under Canadian law, the Canadian shareholder received compensation equivalent to the value of his investment: $300,000. Under chapter 11 of NAFTA, the American shareholder included in his claim all potential future revenue from the sale of water, for a total of $100 million. For better or for worse, the case was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount that is not likely to ever be disclosed.

Given the amounts of money at issue, chapter 11 acts as a deterrent to any government action, particularly with respect to the environment, whose effect would be to reduce the profits of a foreign-owned corporation. The dispute settlement mechanism allows corporations to apply directly to the international tribunals to seek compensation, without even having to obtain the consent of the state.

Is it conceivable that a multinational corporation would be able, on its own initiative, to instigate a trade dispute between two countries? And yet that is the absurd situation that the chapter of NAFTA on investments allows. Given these flaws, chapter 11 of NAFTA reduces a state’s ability to take action for the common good and to enact environmental legislation, and amounts to a sword of Damocles that can come down at any moment on any legislation or regulations that might have the effect of cutting into corporate profits.

In 2005, the United States changed some of the provisions of their standard investment protection agreement. In 2006, Canada did the same. Because the two countries have now recognized the harmful and extreme nature of chapter 11 of NAFTA, the time is right for the government to act quickly to initiate talks with its American and Mexican partners to amend chapter 11 of NAFTA. We have to say no to bad investment protection agreements.

In addition to chapter 11 of NAFTA, and despite universal criticism of how extreme it is, the government has signed 16 other bilateral foreign investment protection agreements that are carbon copies of it. All of those foreign investment protection agreements are bad and should be renegotiated.

In 2006, the government gave some indication that it recognized that these agreements were bad. The Conservative government copied the changes made by the Bush administration the previous year, and in fact made changes to Canada’s FIPA program to fix some of the most glaring problems. It clarified the concept of expropriation by specifying that a non-discriminatory government measure designed to protect health and the environment and to promote a legitimate government objective should not be considered to be expropriation and should not automatically result in compensation.

It is too soon to assess the actual impact of that clarification, but at first blush it seems to be an improvement. It has narrowed the concept of investment by specifying that the value of property is equal to its fair market value. This puts an end to the madness of adding in all of the potential profits the investor hoped to earn from his or her investment. For the rest, the standard investment protection agreement continues to be modelled on chapter 11 of NAFTA.

The government must continue to improve this standard agreement, particularly as it relates to the dispute resolution mechanism. Multinational corporations must be brought back under public authority, as any individual is.

As well, the government should submit international treaties and agreements to the House before ratifying them. That is what we are being promised and it is what I referred to earlier, but is the purpose really to have a substantive discussion? Is it really a discussion to learn the benefits, the opportunities, perhaps, or the harm that might be caused to certain industries in Canada and Quebec?

Yesterday, the government seemed to be saying that the question of ratification was up for discussion and study, but is it going to ratify without the House having really come down for or against a specific agreement?

Early last year, the government issued a press release announcing that it had just ratified a new foreign investment protection agreement with Peru. Parliamentarians and the public learned about the agreement when they read the release. Parliament was never informed about it. It never approved it. That is completely anti-democratic.

In the last election, however, the Conservative election platform was clear: the Conservatives committed to submitting all international treaties and agreements for approval before ratifying them. That is not what we heard yesterday in this House: what was said was that they would be presented to the House and the House would be made aware of them, but the Conservative members, including the minister, never said that the House was to ratify them.

Since the Conservatives came to power, Canada has ratified about 26 or 27 international treaties. Except for the amendment to the NORAD treaty, which was the subject of a brief last-minute mini-debate and a vote, none of these international treaties were brought before the House.

These days, international agreements can have as great an impact on our lives as laws. Nothing can possibly justify the secretive, unilateral ratification of these agreements by this government without the participation of the representatives of the people.

In the past, the Bloc Québécois introduced bills to restore democracy and ensure respect for the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces in the ratification of international treaties. Given that this is something the government promised to do, we did not bring it up again. However, today we see that a Conservative promise is not worth much.

So the Bloc Québécois will once again take this matter up and will make proposals to bring democracy back into the ratification of international treaties. The government must have an obligation to submit to the House all international treaties and agreements it has signed before ratifying them. The government must be required to publish all international agreements in which it is involved. The government must also allow the House to vote on and approve all major treaties, following study by a special committee responsible for reviewing international agreements, before ratifying them. The government must also respect the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces throughout the treaty-making process at the negotiation, signature and ratification stages.

In conclusion, the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes is needed to ensure that States are treated fairly in their dealings with multinational corporations. We must also ensure that the agreements Canada signs are good ones that respect all stakeholders.

National Sustainable Development Act

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate today on Bill C-474, the National Sustainable Development Act, introduced by the member for Don Valley West.

I see two objectives in Bill C-474. The first is to develop a sustainable development strategy based on the precautionary principle. The second is to create a position of commissioner of the environment and sustainable development that would be independent of the Office of the Auditor General. The bill also provides for the appointment of a sustainable development advisory council to advise the government on the national sustainable development strategy that will be developed.

I would like to talk about sustainable development and the precautionary principle. It should be noted that sustainable development has not been the credo of the successive federal governments in Ottawa. On the contrary, the federal government, both the Liberals and Conservatives, encouraged the development of the oil sands, a very polluting industry, instead of relying on clean energies or strategies that allow for sustainable development.

Although it is in the news now, the concept of sustainable development is nothing new. The expression “sustainable development” was popularized in 1987 after the publication of a report from the World Commission on Environment and Development entitled, “Our Common Future”. This report defined sustainable development.

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

However, people seem to forget that two concepts are inherent to the notion of sustainable development: the concept of needs and, particularly, the essential needs of the most vulnerable, to whom it is agreed the greatest priority must be given; and secondly, the idea that our technology and social organization can impose limits on the environment’s ability to meet current and future needs.

Thus, sustainable development has more than just one objective, since it has to do with social and environmental equity, not only between citizens, but also between generations. Thus, when we talk about our children, we are talking about our future.

The concept of sustainable development was revisited in 1992 at the famous United Nations conference in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. At the conference, a clear message was sent regarding the urgency of reconciling economic and social development, and environmental protection for the simple reason that sustainable development is essential to ensuring the well being of human communities and the preservation of life sustaining ecosystems.

I would now like to discuss the precautionary principle. In the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development that closed the United Nations Conference on the Environment, the precautionary principle was recommended as the best approach to environmental management. Essentially it involves the application of prudent foresight, the recognition of uncertainty and error on the side of caution when decisions must be taken in a domain where knowledge is incomplete.

Further, the approach recognizes that the burden and standard of proof should be commensurate with the potential risks to sustainable use of resources and to the environment. Participants emphasized that a precautionary approach should consider subtle, sublethal effects and not rely only on population impacts.

The precautionary approach has been followed in other areas, in particular for specific resources such as the fisheries and for general issues pertaining to the integrity of the environment. Observing the precautionary principle can translate into environmental assessments, pilot projects, close monitoring of impacts, careful interpretation of data and management tailored to needs.

Once again, be it Liberal or Conservative, the federal government refuses to take a precautionary approach. The most basic approach is often rejected out of hand, and short-term gain takes precedence over future problems. This is true of the Conservative government, which is doing everything it can to reject the Kyoto protocol, even though economists as credible as Britain's Nicholas Stern are saying that it would cost far more to respond to the destructive effects of climate change than to attack the root of the problem now.

GMOs are another perfect example, because the medium- and long-term effects of genetically modified organisms on health and the environment are not yet known. In light of this, the Bloc Québécois has criticized the federal government for refusing to demonstrate transparency with regard to genetically modified organisms, by neglecting to make it mandatory to label foods that are genetically modified or contain genetically modified ingredients so that people are informed and can choose the foods they eat.

Even worse, the federal government still has not adopted the precautionary principle when it comes to GMOs. Given the lack of information about the medium- and long-term effects of GMOs, it is only natural to have concerns. In order to approve a transgenic product, the federal government relies on studies made by companies and merely reviews them. It does not conduct a systematic second assessment of all the plants and foods that are put on the market. Consequently, there is very little public or independent expertise in the evaluation of transgenic foods.

The objective of the Cartagena protocol is to help regulate the transboundary movement, transfer, handling and use of any GMO that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and pose risks to human health. The precautionary principle is an integral part of the Cartagena protocol and a condition of its application, as stipulated in principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development adopted in 1992 at the earth summit in Rio. In the protocol, the precautionary approach is described as follows:

Lack of scientific certainty due to insufficient relevant scientific information and knowledge regarding the extent of the potential adverse effects of a living modified organism on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity in the Party of import, taking also into account risks to human health, shall not prevent that Party from taking a decision, as appropriate, with regard to the import of the living modified organism in question...in order to avoid or minimize such potential adverse effects.

Nevertheless, the federal government refuses to ratify the Cartagena protocol, ignoring what, to the common sense of Quebeckers, is the most fundamental prudence.

Let us now discuss the second objective of the bill, which deals with the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. In the past, the latter played a useful role in evaluating the government's policies with respect to environmental protection and hence the importance of ensuring complete autonomy in carrying out his responsibilities. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development played an important role in revealing the extent of federal assistance to the oil industry.

In his report tabled in 2000, he brought to the forefront the issue of subsidies to the oil industry.

I simply wish to outline the Bloc's position. We support the principle of Bill C-474; however, amendments will have to be made in future discussions.

Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this debate gives us a golden opportunity to remind Canadians of the disastrous effects the Conservative government's policies are having on the economy.

Bill C-28 is barely getting any reaction from the Liberal Party of Canada, but that is nothing new. I must admit that as a new member in this House, it is a wonder to me to see how—and my colleague from Toronto just talked about this—some people who are close to the Liberal Party of Canada have managed to pass themselves off as being concerned about poverty and food banks. In fact, the Conservative government is currently granting tax reductions and giving big gifts to the oil companies and the banks. But Liberal members are doing nothing.

If the current government manages to force the passage of Bill C-28 before Christmas by virtue of its seat count, then we will miss out on quite the show. The leader of the Liberal Party of Canada has publicly said that he wants to make sure Canadians understand that, after the holidays, the fun will be over, that he will prove the skeptics wrong, that we will have to hold him back or he might hurt the Conservative Party. What we have seen instead this fall is a Liberal Party of Canada that is keeping the Conservatives in power.

I would like to say a few words about what that means. Before becoming a minister in Quebec for a number of years, I was part of the opposition for nine years. I know what it is like to be in the opposition. The job of the opposition is to do two things: make the government accountable, in other words, be the public's conscience and ask the right questions, but at the same, hope that our policies will one day lead us to power. In other words, it is our job to be a government in waiting.

In the NDP, we have clear policies and we are absolutely ready to be in power. Just look at the depth of talent on the NDP benches in this House. We are a political party with a great number of people who have extensive experience in public administration. It is absolutely extraordinary to see the Liberal members sitting on their hands when they could be defeating the Conservative government if they voted just once with us. But they will not. Why? I guess they must be happy enough with the Conservatives' policies or they would be helping us defeat them.

Day after day, they criticize Conservative policies during question period, and at the end of the day, when the time comes to vote against the Conservatives, the Liberal Party drops the ball. It does not have the political courage to stand up and vote. Last night, we witnessed an unprecedented spectacle in this House during the vote on Bill C-28, which is now before us. This is the Conservatives' Christmas bill, their $14 billion gift to oil companies and banks. Some Liberal members showed up to vote against it because the infamous Atlantic accord was part of this bill.

How many of them showed up? Ten or so. Not even enough to form a party in Parliament. The so-called official opposition can no longer call itself a recognized party in Parliament because the members of the official opposition no longer even show up to vote. They are afraid they might defeat the government on what might be considered a matter of confidence.

People who made the mistake of voting for the Liberal Party of Canada are really questioning that decision. The members of the NDP are telling people to take a good look at our policies and who we are. When I look at my colleagues who were once ministers in British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario or, in my case, Quebec, people with a great deal of experience in education, industry, their churches and their communities, I realize that the NDP possesses the kind of wealth and social vision to do a good job of running a government that would renew Canada's reputation as a peacekeeper, international cooperator and environmental steward.

What do we have instead? We have a Conservative government that is embarrassing Canada internationally and that drew us into the quagmire of war in southern Afghanistan. Only the NDP has adopted a clear position against the war in Afghanistan, in favour of the withdrawal of our troops and a comprehensive, stable process for the development and maintenance of lasting peace in Afghanistan.

The Conservatives are embarrassing Canada on the world stage by not trying to achieve an objective that is supposedly shared by all political parties, that is, committing 0.7% of our gross domestic product to foreign aid. In that regard, they are the worst government in the history of Canada since the 0.7% objective was adopted. We are farther than ever from that objective, which is so crucial if we want to help our fellow human beings around the globe.

We need look no further than the conference currently under way in Bali, Indonesia, to understand just how much the Conservatives are embarrassing us. We sent our pitiful Minister of the Environment there to embarrass us. It is bad enough to have to watch his buffoonery here every day when he gets up and talks about a file on which he clearly has not done the least bit of work. He reads quotations and spews nonsense of that nature, when what Canadians really want to know is what will be done to fulfill our obligations to future generations.

Those who have the opportunity should go to McGill University to meet the extraordinary people who work at the Centre for International Sustainable Development Law. These people understand that sustainable development is not just a slogan invented over the past few decades. Sustainable development is a legal obligation we have towards future generations.

Canada ratified the Kyoto protocol five years ago, even though this protocol is celebrating its 10th anniversary today. Because Canada ratified it five years ago, it is part of Canada's domestic law. The Kyoto protocol is an international obligation, but it is an integral part of our law, which means that it is a legal obligation.

The Conservative government prides itself on respecting law and order. Yet this law and order government is becoming irresponsible and even an international outlaw because of its disrespectful behaviour toward future generations. It is casting a shadow over a generation of Canadians who have worked hard to earn our country the utmost respect of the international community when it comes to the environment.

I know that whenever the Kyoto protocol comes up, the Conservatives inevitably point to the seats opposite them and say it is the Liberals' fault, because they did nothing for 13 years. We agree, and we will always agree that the Liberals did nothing. On the contrary, instead of meeting the Kyoto target, which is to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 6% compared to 1990 levels, the Liberals saw emissions increase by 33% in the 13 years they were in power. This is shameful, and it is the worst performance in the world.

Eddie Goldenberg, the former Prime Minister 's chief of staff, was kind enough to remind us, during a recent presentation to the London Chamber of Commerce in Ontario, that when the Liberals signed the Kyoto protocol, it was purely because of public opinion. He said that it was to galvanize public opinion. Eddie Goldenberg is admitting that, as was the case with the Kelowna Accord and all other Liberal measures, their actions were exercises in public relations.

This is why the NDP now has such support in Quebec and the other provinces. Citizens realize that the Liberal Party of Canada is but an empty shell, a creature of the 1960s designed to keep Quebec in its place and now being superseded by political parties that understand that what is truly important in life is to look after our neighbours and our society, and that we have to look after our planet.

That is the NDP vision. Unlike the Liberals who have never looked after these interests, unlike the Conservatives who do not wish to do so, and unlike the Bloc who cannot, the NDP is the only political party with representation throughout Canada, from British Columbia to Nova Scotia, that speaks to Canadians about real issues.

One of the nicest compliments I received in the recent byelection in Outremont was from someone living at Father Dowd Memorial Home. After my presentation, a severely handicapped gentleman beckoned to me and said something that touched me deeply. He said that it was the first time that a federal candidate had come there and spoken about human beings rather than about the Constitution, or disputes, or differences that too often are the subject of debate in Quebec.

Like those voting in the Outremont byelection, many Quebeckers have realized that the NDP is the only credible party in the House of Commons speaking for peace, the only credible party speaking out against war in Afghanistan, and the only party standing up for the environment. Our leader has a great deal of experience in environmental issues. This very afternoon, he is introducing an important bill that has received support not only from David Suzuki, but also from the Pembina Institute. This bill would put us on the path toward real greenhouse gas reductions so that we can respect the right of future generations to experience the same standard of living, the same quality of life and the same living environment we have experienced. That is what the NDP is all about. We are a political organization that puts people first, unlike the Conservatives.

This brings me back to Bill C-28, which is before us today. The primary goal of this bill is to use State moneys for their intended purpose, that is, to help people, to help with infrastructure, and to help create programs for people. We want to give that money to people. Who do the Conservatives want to give that money to? They want to give it to big oil companies and banks.

The outcome of all this is bizarre because the overheated oil industry pushed the value of the loonie up. Such a high Canadian dollar is making it very hard to export products. As a result, people across Canada are losing their jobs. Many people in New Brunswick and Quebec who work for Shermag have recently lost their jobs. This is not because the company is badly managed. In fact, it is an outstanding company that makes quality products. The Conservative government does not seem to understand that. It has destabilized Canada's relatively stable economy made up of primary resource sectors, processing sectors, a manufacturing sector and, of course, an oil sector based mainly in the west. There was wealth, but there was also balance.

The Conservatives are in the process of killing the manufacturing sector, getting rid of not just workers, which is bad enough. Because of this, many families will have to do without come Christmastime. This is primarily because the Conservatives could not care less about people's lives. They are not interested in helping people. Their only motivation is an economic dogma that has convinced them, even if they are wrong, that the last thing a government should do is get involved in the economy. But by proposing tax cuts, regardless of the size of the business or profits, they are, in fact, getting involved in the economy. Some oil companies in the west would get $40, $50 or even $60 million presents all at once.

These businesses, in western Canada, will earn even more in the oil sector. This will create a greater imbalance in our economy and will destabilize us even more. It will push the dollar even higher, which will cause an even greater drain on the manufactured goods sector of the economy, the industrial sector, particularly in the east, in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick.

These are good jobs being lost, and the Conservative government does not care at all. It does not care because it does not believe that the government should get involved, any more than it believes the government should get involved in the environment. There are important things to be done with a little vision.

There was a press conference today with the leader of the NDP and Daniel Breton, who is the president of the Coalition Québeckyoto. Daniel Breton is a visionary.

Today, he drew a comparison to what Quebec managed to do in the 1960s, when it decided to be the master of its own destiny. This operation in Quebec, which was called, “Maîtres chez nous”, was decried, castigated and criticized. Some predicted the worst, that this would fail. Some 40 years later, where are we now? We have Hydro-Québec, a government corporation that is a world model of good management. Quebec will be able to produce 4,000 megawatts—or 4,000 times a million watts—thanks to wind energy, now that these projects are being built or have been approved and are going through.

This is clean and renewable energy. With a little vision, a little self-confidence, we could do the same across Canada. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have absolutely no self-confidence and they certainly have no vision. They do not believe for an instant that the government can play a role in this.

This makes me think that if the Conservatives had been in power in Europe during the planning of the high-speed trains, which now crisscross Europe at 300 km an hour, they never would have been built. This required vision and confidence in the fact that government has a role to play and can be a driving force in achieving these big projects.

If our government here in Ottawa had just a bit of vision, Canada could become a world leader in clean and renewable energy. In remote villages the woods were cut a long time ago, but a tremendous amount of forest biomass was left behind. In fact, tens of millions of tonnes of forest biomass was left to slowly release carbon. Instead of allowing that to continue, imagine using infrastructure already in place, namely the roads and bridges that are already built, to transport this forest biomass to what would become a methanol production plant.

We can use ethanol, we can produce wind energy, we can use hydraulic power and wind power to produce hydrogen. We could become a world leader in hydrogen energy, which is clean energy and is renewable for future generations. But no, we are digging up the oil sands. We are in the process of using relatively clean fossil energy, namely natural gas, to melt the sand and extract, at a high environmental cost, the bitumen contained in the oil sands of western Canada. It is outrageous. It is the antithesis of sustainable development. It is absolutely not sustainable. This cannot last long, but such is the Conservative government: it does not believe in the future.

We in the NDP have a vision for the future, a vision that takes into account our primary, unending and inescapable responsibility towards future generations. And we will do everything we can to meet those expectations. We will oppose this government and its far right plans. We will oppose the war in Afghanistan and we are the only ones who oppose it.

Indeed, the Bloc Québécois supports the Conservative government regarding the war in southern Afghanistan until 2009. Its members are still unable to explain why it will suddenly be a bad war in 2009, yet it is not a bad war right now. The Bloc Québécois owes an explanation to voters. Bloc members had a very hard time explaining this in Outremont.

The Liberals are responsible for the debacle in Afghanistan and they are also responsible for the worst performance in the world when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. They too have some explaining to do to voters.The Conservatives, on the other hand, who incessantly hide behind Liberal negligence and incompetence, will have to explain themselves to future generations.

They must stop hiding behind the Liberals to make excuses. They must stop hiding behind the United States, China, India and Brazil and trying to justify the unjustifiable regarding how the oil sands are being developed in the west. It is starting to have a destabilizing effect on our economy and even on the planet. And this government is the primary driving force. We, on the other hand, will do all we can to propose a vision of the future, a vision of hope, a vision that takes into account our obligations towards future generations.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak once again to Bill C-28 before us today, even though, as already pointed out in this House, we have already discussed it at length and in detail.

The Bloc Québécois has decided that it will not support the bill for several reasons, particularly because it contains elements with which we do not agree. For example, under the Atlantic accord, revenue from non-renewable natural resources—in essence, oil—will be excluded from the equalization calculation.

We believe that the equalization program should be based on its original principle, which was to ensure that all provinces would have a similar fiscal capacity. When a province has a tax base, no matter what it may be, it should be taken into account in the equalization calculation.

In accordance with this particular agreement for the provinces, namely the Atlantic provinces, excluding non-renewable energy sources, oil, from the calculation gives the advantage to these provinces to the detriment of those with another resource.

For example, if Quebec were to exclude energy from renewable sources, such as hydroelectricity, it would immediately receive very significant equalization payments. However, this could not be justified as it would not respect the principle.

I would like to point out the irony of this to the House. When it comes to equalization, only the Bloc Québécois—a sovereignist party, as everyone knows—is defending the principle behind this program, which is to consider the provinces' fiscal capacity, taking into account all the resources at their disposal in the equalization calculation. This is one reason we are not in favour of this bill.

A number of measures come from the mini-budget, the economic statement introduced this fall. The Bloc Québécois came out against this economic statement, particularly because of what it did not contain. In fact, across Quebec and even in Ontario, the manufacturing and forestry industries are exerting a great deal of pressure and raising the alarm. These industries are asking the government to act immediately.

The government can be as arrogant as it likes, but this is not just a Bloc Québécois request that it can ignore. Not only the industries in Quebec, but Premier Jean Charest are calling for action. Last weekend, Premier Charest again called on the federal government to act and said that it can no longer sit on its hands and do nothing. Even the leader of the official opposition in Quebec City, the Prime Minister's buddy, Mario Dumont, asked what the Prime Minister was waiting for to act.

The government always answers that we will have to wait for the next budget, but we want action now. The government could take strong action even before the end of the session, before Christmas, to help workers in difficulty.

It is a bit pathetic when the Minister of Finance of the optimist party of Canada tells us that everything is just fine. I personally invite the Minister of Finance of the optimist party to come back down to earth and meet the people who are losing their jobs. I have met some people who worked hard all their lives in factories that have now closed. Many of these people live in single-industry cities where the shop—the factory, sawmill or paper plant—is the main employer.

When workers say that nothing is being done to help them and to protect their jobs, what are they told? They are told that the economy is doing well, that everything is just fine, that the unemployment rate is low and that revenues are up. What planet is the optimist party of Canada's Minister of Finance on? It makes no sense to say such things.

In the Standing Committee on Finance, it was even suggested that people who lose their employment in communities in Quebec should just move to Alberta.

Is that any way to treat people who have worked their entire life to build their community? Tell them it is no big deal if they lose their employment since they can move to Alberta where there are jobs?

Sometimes I get the impression that the government wishes people were cattle because it would be easier to move them around. That is not how things work. Recognizing Quebec as a nation does not mean telling people to go to Alberta if they are unemployed. The government has to recognize that people want to live in Quebec.

The government talks a lot about land occupancy. Having people working in towns and communities is part of land occupancy. It is far more important to keep our jobs in our towns and regions for land occupancy than it is to buy icebreakers without debate or discussion for protecting the Arctic.

The government is being rather inconsistent. And yet there are simple, very effective, inexpensive solutions available to the government. Among others, 22 recommendations were unanimously adopted by the Standing committee on Industry, Science and Technology. Even members of the government supported the recommendations. In the recent economic statement, out of 22 measures, only half a measure was implemented.

I would like to speak about two of these measures. The first is accelerated capital cost allowance to invest in equipment that helps businesses increase productivity. This measure is the one being referred to when we hear about the government announcing half of a measure, because the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology recommended that it be implemented for at least five years, if not permanently. But the government implemented it for two years. Obviously, that is not very useful, since in many cases, if a company starts investing today, the investment spans more than two years. In fact, these projects often last up to five years. If the measure spans two years, these companies will not really be able to benefit.

This measure is not very costly; the accelerated capital cost allowance is not a tax giveaway. It makes it possible for businesses to defer taxes over time. So a business would pay lower taxes the year it amortizes more of its equipment. However, once the equipment is completely amortized, it will pay more taxes the year it no longer has a capital cost allowance to deduct from its revenues.

So this measure allows businesses to delay paying taxes when they are experiencing difficulties. What is smart about this type of measure is that it gives our businesses a break so that they have the cash they need to make investments that will help them increase productivity. They will pay taxes when they earn a profit later on.

Similarly, the committee proposed a credit for research and development. This credit already exists, but the committee wanted to make it refundable. Now, if a business is losing money and not earning a profit, it cannot deduct this credit from its taxes, since there is no profit. What does it do? It banks it until money starts coming in again.

In order to help our businesses that need help right now—not five or ten years from now when they are making profits, but now when they are having difficulties—this credit has to be refundable. Companies could claim the tax credit right away. It would be refunded to them even though they are not turning a profit. In any event, these are credits that would be refunded later. Again, this tax is being deferred. We want to give our manufacturing and forestry companies a break to allow them to get back on their feet and increase their productivity. Nonetheless, when they eventually make a profit, then the taxes will be payable. In my opinion, this is not a very expensive solution.

Even though this is a deferred tax, there are costs involved. The Bloc Québécois realizes that. For example, there are costs associated with inflation. A dollar is worth more today than it will be two or five years from now, we know that. However, given the current rate of inflation in Canada, these costs pale in comparison to the benefits this measure could bring.

As far as tax credits for research and development are concerned, under the current system if a company were to declare bankruptcy, these tax credits would never be recovered. Thus, by granting these credits now, the revenue agency would incur more expenses. That is true, but it would be an odd argument for the optimist party of Canada to make, saying that this would cost too much because many businesses would go bankrupt. Indeed, businesses are going to go bankrupt if the government does not take action right now.

I want to emphasize the fact that we have to act now because the government does not seem to understand the urgency of the situation. For example, part of the problem is related to the rise in the Canadian dollar. The repercussions of that are somewhat delayed. As the manufacturers who appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance told us over and over, what we are seeing now is not the impact of parity with the U.S. dollar. It is the impact of a U.S. dollar worth 80¢ Canadian. What we are seeing today is the result of where the dollar stood a year or two ago.

We have not yet seen the catastrophic repercussions of parity with the U.S. dollar. We have not yet seen that, but it is coming. That is why we have to act now to mitigate the effects. The optimist party of Canada would have us believe that businesses just have to increase their productivity and everything will be fine, but that is not the answer.

The value of the Canadian dollar has risen by 40% in a very short time. It shot up from 60¢ to $1. No matter how productive a business is or how creative people are, it is impossible to ask them to boost their productivity to compensate for rising costs in such a short period of time.

That means we need to put transitional measures in place. The government is using its billions of dollars to provide tax cuts for profitable companies, including its oil company friends. But it cannot find a few dollars, perfectly reasonable amounts, to help manufacturing businesses, particularly those that really need it.

I would like to review some of the things manufacturing sector representatives told us when they appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance. In general, they asked us to look at the problem by separating businesses into three groups. The first includes businesses that will survive regardless of the manufacturing crisis, and regardless of the dollar's relative strength or weakness because they are strong and are not experiencing any difficulties. The second group, however, includes businesses that are going through such tough times that no matter what might be done to help them, they will not make it. The third group is in between. Businesses in this critical group might survive if they get some help, but they might have to close up shop if nothing is done to help them.

So, let us look at how the measures proposed by the government in its economic statement will have an impact on these three groups of businesses.

The first measure consists of a general corporate tax cut. For the first group of businesses, those that are getting by and will not have any difficulties, these tax cuts are a welcome gift. They stand to make even more money and are quite happy, with good reason. So much the better, but they are not the ones that need help. As for the second group of businesses, those that might pull through if they are given a boost, in fact, they will not receive any support. They do not even pay taxes, since they are having financial difficulties. Thus, the government measures would do absolutely nothing for them. Of course, the same is true for the third group of businesses.

Let us consider instead the measures proposed by the Bloc Québécois, measures that were unanimously supported by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. Let us look at the impact those measures would have on the three groups. Such measures include an accelerated capital cost allowance and refundable tax credits for research and development.

For the first group, businesses that are doing well and having no problems, there would be no change. Whether tax credits are refundable or not, they would have them the same year and this would not change a thing, since they were already turning a profit. As for an accelerated capital cost allowance, this would allow them to save a little on taxes this year, but they would have to pay it back a little later. Thus, there is no need to give billions of dollars to companies that are already doing well.

However, these measures can make a difference to the second group, which is in difficulty but has a fighting chance. Our targeted measures will become effective in this case. To get through the crisis, companies essentially need two things: better productivity and ready cash. That is exactly what these measures will give them. They will improve companies' productivity, because they will let companies invest now in research and development and in equipment to become more profitable. They will also give companies ready cash, because they will allow companies to defer paying taxes. Thus, companies will have the money they need now to get through the crisis. This seems far more effective than the government's strategy for these companies, which is to give them no help at all.

Obviously, in the case of the third group I mentioned—companies that will not make it through the crisis and will have to close—we will be giving them assistance that, unfortunately, will be lost. However, we cannot tailor our policy to companies that will go bankrupt and will not be able to recover, especially since if we do nothing, there will be a great many companies in this group. If we do something, we will be able to help many companies that otherwise would have gone bankrupt or been forced to close. We can bring them into the group that can weather the crisis.

I therefore wanted to demonstrate that the government did not have a real reason for not providing assistance to the manufacturing sector in the mini-budget or economic statement. It was surprising to see, among other things, the position of the Conservatives who ran in the last byelection in regions where the forestry sector difficulties are being experienced. They promised voters that having an MP in power would solve their problems. We now find ourselves with an economic statement that does absolutely nothing for the manufacturing and forestry sectors in crisis. When citizens, for example from Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, heard their candidate make promises and tell them that he would help companies in order to save their jobs, everyone thought he would help those businesses that needed help. No one thought Alberta oil companies would get the help. That was a bit of false representation that occurred during the byelection.

It is deplorable, if not pitiful, to see members elected in a byelection on the promise that if they are in power they will move things along stand up and vote for an economic statement that does not contain a single measure for troubled companies in the forestry sector. Even worse, when we tabled a motion asking the government to take immediate action, we saw these same members stand and vote against it and against the campaign promises they made in their riding.

I hope, and I am confident, that Quebeckers will remember this when the next election is held. They will remember that, in tough times, the Bloc Québécois is always prepared to stand up and defend them. The Conservative members from Quebec always boast about the government that is so good and fine, but when the time comes to show some determination and to vote in this House to have some real influence and to change things, they fail to deliver. Only the Bloc Québécois takes up the challenge.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise here in the House today to speak to Bill C-28 to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament in March 2007. Some additions were also made in the economic statement of October 30, 2007. I will come back to that a little later, with some comments.

The main reason I rise here today is to have a closer look at the situation. It seems to me that my colleagues across the floor, the Conservatives, have really missed the boat when it comes to addressing the whole manufacturing and forestry crisis.

To this, we must also add the whole question of the employment insurance crisis. Upon reading the various elements of the government's budget contained in Bill C-28, one must wonder where the extra support is for workers.

For several months now—in fact, since the Conservatives came to power in Ottawa in January 2006—the reality has been that more and more jobs hare being lost every day, every week and every month. In the meantime, we have a Conservative government that is doing absolutely nothing to help our workers. What does this really mean? It means the families are not being supported.

These families are in crisis. The holidays are just weeks away. For several weeks now, plants have been closing one after the other. What does that mean? Lots and lots of lost jobs. Who is suffering as a result? Families. The children of these men and women who work so hard to ensure a better future for their children.

I remember how hard I fought to get the additional five weeks of employment insurance. I practically had to get down on my knees in front of the Conservative government to make it possible for our people to benefit from supplementary assistance during very hard times, especially people who work in seasonal industries.

Let us take a look at what has happened in the past few months. Conservative members have been saying that the country is doing well, that there are lots of new jobs, that everyone is working and that there is no economic crisis. I would invite them, as I have invited the Prime Minister, to come to my riding, Madawaska—Restigouche. They should not make it a little side trip that they can cancel at the last minute. They should come to Madawaska—Restigouche and meet the people who are losing their jobs week after week. Maybe then the Prime Minister and the Conservatives will understand what a dire situation this country is in. This is not a local phenomenon. This is not just a crisis happening in one region. This is happening across the country.

I would like to list some of the companies that are in crisis and that are cutting hundreds, if not thousands of jobs in the riding of Madawaska—Restigouche and across the country.

Here are some examples: WHK Woven Labels in Edmundston; Atlantic Yarns in Atholville; and AbitibiBowater, a pulp and paper mill in Dalhousie.

Today, a new disaster hit the manufacturing sector. Shermag in Edmundston and Saint-François de Madawaska announced it would be closing plants. This means lost jobs, and that is unacceptable.

How long have we been asking the Conservative government to take action? For a long, long time. Actually, we have been asking since they took power. We have been telling them to get ready and do something. Our workers must get help. Businesses must receive support in order to save our jobs.

However, cutting taxes is not necessarily the only way to support businesses. If a business is not paying taxes because it is experiencing financial difficulties, what good is a tax cut? It does not pay taxes. This does nothing for that business.

We must save what we have so that employees can continue to work today, tomorrow, a year from now or 10 years from now. Today, the Conservatives are showing that they would rather have a business shut down. They are saying that it is no big deal and keep telling Canadians that everything is fine.

The people in my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche have known for a while that things are not going well. As the Conservatives continue to tell people in my area that things are going well, I am looking forward to seeing what happens to them during the next federal election. The reality is that the government must help people everywhere.

It just so happens that an AbitibiBowater plant closed in Quebec as well, in Shawinigan. However, the Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is unable to find one red cent to help the plant, the workers, and the region of Dalhousie. It is absolutely despicable to act that way in such situations. In the meantime, other regions where the Conservatives are perhaps trying to buy something or other, or are at least hoping to win votes, are managing to get a bit of help. If they can receive help, why is the Conservative government simply not able to help everyone in the country?

Is it perhaps because we are talking about Atlantic Canada? Hon. members will recall the Prime Minister's comments about our defeatist attitude before he became Prime Minister. Is that why the Atlantic region is currently having problems? Is that why the Conservatives are giving absolutely nothing to help the Atlantic regions and their manufacturing and forestry industries? That is how we see it.

What is more, the country is bursting with surpluses, but it is unable to help people. The surplus was $11.6 billion for the first six months of the year. The public grasps the scope of that number. In the meantime, the Conservative government cannot give one red cent to help the manufacturing and forestry industries.

All of a sudden we hear ministers, including the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Finance, telling us not to worry, that help is on the way because the budget is coming. However, here is proof that this help will come too late. Bill C-28 that we are debating today is entitled An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007 and to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on October 30, 2007. This is December; why is it that we are still dealing with matters the government has not resolved since the budget was brought down in March? Even if the next budget provides help, how long will it take before our regions, our businesses and our workers finally get the help they need? Six months, a year, two years, ten years?

This government is all talk and bluster. However, when the time comes to present concrete measures, where are they? Let the Conservatives take note that this is the proof. In December we are still discussing what the Conservatives proposed in the March budget. Our citizens need help now, not in 10 years.

This is exactly what we are going through right now. We have a Conservative government that does not want to take any kind of action, while people everywhere in my riding, in the various plants and mills that I mentioned, need help. And that does not even include all the job losses in all the other companies and those yet to come because of the Conservative's inaction. We can imagine all the other indirect jobs that will be lost. In fact, we are discussing direct jobs, more than 1,000 to date. This number can definitely be doubled when we take into account all the indirect jobs in the companies that provide services to these primary businesses.

How will we help workers in the future? For one thing, we must provide immediate assistance to workers and their families. We must ensure that existing buildings and equipment continue to be used—we call that hibernation. We need to find other solutions. The Conservatives will not do that. It will be up to us, the ordinary citizens, to find solutions while the government resists taking any kind of action.

In addition, we must ensure that the government provides assistance to communities. Look at Dalhousie, for example. Not just the city of Dalhousie, but all of Restigouche will suffer. Not just this area, but the entire Madawaska region will suffer because of the closing of the Shermag plants in Edmundston and Saint-François-de-Madawaska. We must be able to provide assistance to every community so they can get through the crisis. Had the Conservatives listened at the right time, we would not be at this point.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The report is in regard to its order of reference of Thursday, November 1, 2007, Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (expanded voting opportunities) and to make a consequential amendment to the Referendum Act.

The committee has considered Bill C-16 and reports the bill with amendments.

Youth Criminal Justice Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to take part in the debate at second reading on Bill C-423, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act (treatment for substance abuse).

Essentially, Bill C-423 adds two new provisions to this act to flesh it out more with respect to young addicts.

Briefly, the bill introduced by the member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont provides that a police officer must, before starting judicial proceedings or taking any other measures under this act against a young person alleged to have committed an offence, consider whether it would be sufficient to refer the young person to an addiction specialist for assessment and, if warranted, treatment recommendations.

Bill C-423 would also add a clause at the end of section 6 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act stipulating that if the young person enters into a treatment program as a result of such a referral and fails to complete the program, the outcome may be the start of judicial proceedings against that young person.

In my opinion, Bill C-423 is a welcome change from the justice bills introduced by this government since it came to power. Instead of the usual Conservative “law and order” ideology that, under the pretext of protecting public safety, would send more people to prison without reducing the root causes of crime, Bill C-423 offers valid alternatives to incarcerating minors, which is more important.

To all those who are watching us, I want to say that a strictly punishment-oriented public safety strategy will never make our societies more vibrant or our prisons less overpopulated. In my opinion, when young people become involved in the criminal justice system, it can exacerbate the problem and be very costly. These are negative results that have an impact not only on the individual involved, but on society as a whole. This situation must therefore be avoided whenever possible.

Consequently, the approach taken by Bill C-423 is commendable: the bill presupposes that prosecution is the final step in the fight against crime and is warranted only if all other valid options have been tried. This bill could reduce the number of young people in court and consequently the number of youth in our penitentiaries.

I would also like to remind all of my distinguished colleagues here in this House that prison will always be a crime school, a place where individuals harbour lingering, disgruntled resentment toward society. The decision to incarcerate an individual should be based on the seriousness of the crime committed and on how dangerous the criminal is.

That is why I have always promoted “restorative justice”, an idea supported by the Bloc Québécois that seeks to rehabilitate the offender by creating awareness of the seriousness of the crime and by repairing the damage done to the community or the people affected.

Not only does Bill C-423 attempt to keep young addicts from appearing before a court, it calls on the law enforcement community to use good judgment in order to give an offender a second chance. In a way, it emphasizes the confidence that we have in police officers and their duty to ensure a safer society.

This is an interesting element that would reinforce a positive image of police forces in public opinion. It is also in line with section 6 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which gives police officers the option to keep young offenders out of court by making it possible to choose another remedy, such as a drug treatment program.

However, I do have some concerns about this bill. With respect to the provisions in Bill C-423, we must ensure that the provinces are responsible for providing these drug treatment programs. For example, in Quebec, these programs are administered through health and social services agencies. Sufficient resources must be made available to offer the treatments called for in this bill.

I am also a little confused about how effective this bill can be within the framework of the minority government's vision for justice. I think that the intent behind Bill C-423 would be directly or indirectly affected by the new anti-drug strategy announced on October 4. I think that this approach, which is a repressive one, as usual, does not acknowledge the importance of prevention in the war on drugs.

Also, it is unfortunate that so little money, only approximately $10 million, is being allocated to measures to ensure the rehabilitation of our young people.

With that in mind, it would be nice to see this government take greater inspiration from the ideas proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont in the context of Bill C-423. His proposals should resonate even more within his caucus, which focuses too much on a repressive ideology centred on an illusion of safety that, unfortunately, did not produce the desired results for our neighbours to the south in terms of effectively reducing crime.

Once again, as I was saying earlier and as I have said during several debates on previous bills, specific realities are breeding grounds of crime and drug use. One such reality is poverty, which appears even more obvious to us now, with the holiday season just around the corner. Like my colleagues, I firmly believe that a greater sharing of riches, working toward better social integration and emphasizing rehabilitation represent essential solutions for the prevention of crime and substance abuse. Unfortunately, this government always has that unproductive tendency to ignore those approaches. It thinks it can achieve security by filling the penitentiaries.

In any case, I would like to conclude by emphasizing the noble intention of the hon. member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont. In my opinion, this bill offers an important balance between rehabilitation and the vigilance needed when people refuse to take advantage of opportunities presented to them. It also respects the tenets I listed earlier regarding ways to reduce crime, giving young substance abusers a second chance by taking part in a detox program.

I would remind the House that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of initiatives that propose serious alternatives to incarceration, especially when it comes to minors. This is why we will support Bill C-423, so it may be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for further study.

Specific Claims Tribunal Act

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised. I thought my hon. colleague would be asked some questions.

I am happy to indicate my position and speak to this important bill. I would like to begin by saying that is it rare for the government to come up with a bad bill when it consults people and seeks the approval of those who would be affected by the bill.

In the case before us, Bill C-30, which involves establishing a tribunal, was drafted in cooperation with first nations peoples. It therefore has the full approval of first nations peoples, who have been waiting for this tribunal for far too long. It is unfortunate—and I say this with all due respect for the minister, who is listening carefully—that the same thing was not done for Bill C-21 and, even before that, first nations peoples were not consulted before Bill C-44 was introduced.

That being said, this is an important bill and the Bloc Québécois will support it, so that it may be studied in detail by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Indeed, this bill deserves a great deal of attention. When I say this, I do not mean that we should drag out our committee work in order to play for time and take longer. No, that is not what I mean.

We think some pointed questions must be asked in relation to this bill. My hon. colleague from the Liberal Party just raised one or two of them and I will raise some more in a few minutes. However, all interested and relevant individuals who wish to appear before the committee must be heard.

Personally, I think this bill should be approved by the committee as soon as possible. A consensus must be reached. It certainly will not happen before Christmas. I would very much like to be able to offer this as a Christmas gift to first nations peoples this year, but it would be unrealistic to think that we might study this before Christmas, considering the work that needs to be done on Bill C-21. At the very least, however, as soon as we resume in January, we must begin studying this bill immediately and give it our support.

In our opinion, this bill meets one condition. We have always been against one thing. We are talking about the federal government as a whole. When a first nation files a financial or other claim with the federal government, the government is in clear conflict of interest. This is really a conflict of interest. It is both judge and defendant, at least, we hope, until this bill is adopted. It used to be that the federal government as a whole received the claim. The government also set the dates and parameters for examining the claim. It set the dates, times and locations for hearing witnesses, and it paid the bill for the process.

It was clearly in the interest of some first nations to make claims that might be frivolous, but these claims very often took forever to be settled.

I listened carefully to the minister when he spoke earlier. He said that three or four years was far too much time to take to study, analyze, consider and settle a claim for $1 million, $2 million or $3 million.

When a criminal case is before the courts—and God knows I was often in court as a lawyer over the years—the case cannot go on for four years unless it is an exceptional and extremely lengthy case. In fact, only rarely does it take more than three years for a case like the ones I argued to be heard in superior court. So why could it take three, four, five, six or even seven years to hear an aboriginal claim?

I have a note here that I believe is very important. Since 1973, more than 30 years ago, 1,297 specific claims have been filed. Of those, 513 have been settled for amounts ranging from $15,000 to some $12,250,000, the average settlement being approximately $6 million. You cannot take 30 years to settle claims. It makes no sense. Today, on this lovely December 4, 2007, 784 claims are still pending, awaiting a decision, even though it has been a long time since 1973. The mere mention of these figures should help get this bill passed relatively quickly. It deals with important issues.

In fact, there are two issues that, in the opinion of the Bloc Québécois, deserve special attention. The first is whether a judge who hears a claim could unilaterally assign responsibility for paying that claim to a party if that party was not present. The debate is not clear on this issue. I asked the minister about it and he replied, but I believe we will have to take the discussion a bit further. This is an important point.

The example that comes to mind immediately is that of the Kitigan Zibi, in Maniwaki, which filed forestry and financial claims with the governments of Quebec and of Canada. What would happen if the Algonquin nation of Kitigan Zibi sued the federal government, the judge ruled against the government, held it 75% responsible and required that 25% be paid by Quebec? What would we do given that Quebec was not a party to the suit? That would be an interesting discussion and I hope we will be given an answer in committee.

As it has a fiduciary responsibility for the first nations, and as it is both a judge and a party in these cases, would the government not be tempted to require that a first nations community reduce the amount of its claim if it wanted the government to continue providing assistance for education, health care, water systems and police services? How can we ensure that the judge who must rule in the case will be completely neutral, completely independent and have full control of the evidence before him? This is a crucial point.

If we wish to maintain a good relationship with the first nations—and this bill is a good step in that direction—we believe it is important and vital to ensure that the tribunal is completely in charge of evidentiary matters. The bill has some interesting sections; however, would the federal government, with fiduciary responsibility for the first nations, not be tempted to ask them to compromise if they wished to continue to receive funding in other areas? Therefore, we must ensure that the tribunal will be completely independent and have control of the evidence.

I do not want to address everything in the bill because that would take me 10 minutes, but I want to talk about clause 15, which excludes many claims that first nations might be inclined to take to court.

For example, clause 15(1)(d) would not allow them to submit claims concerning:

—the delivery or funding of programs or services related to policing, regulatory enforcement, corrections, education, health, child protection or social assistance—

There is sure to be some debate about that. What would it mean for a community such as Kashechewan in northeastern Ontario that does not have access to the same health services as communities such as Kitigan Zibi near Maniwaki, Mashteuiatsh near Roberval and Essipit near Les Escoumins?

What can be done to ensure appropriate levels of service? Take for example something that happens all too often: a woman gives birth and loses the baby for want of adequate care. She will not be able to make a claim for having lost her baby. There will be some interesting debates to come.

In closing, I want to emphasize that the provision concerning the finality of the decision made by the two parties must remain in the bill. The decision cannot be subject to appeal. When the two parties appear before the court, they need to know that the decision will be final. They must be prepared when they go to court; they need to know where the file stands. The file must be ready and complete, and the judge can hand down a decision that is binding on both parties—the federal government and the first nation—as well as all other parties to the case.

The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-30 because it is a step in the right direction. We would like to see the government do this more often, undertake more frequent and thorough consultations with first nations before drafting bills so that we do not have to protect first nations against the government and its flawed bills that are not ready for debate.

Consequently, I would invite the House to vote in favour of this bill at the close of debate.

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.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

On a point of order, the minister points out that not a single province signed on to Bill C-303, but I'd like to enunciate that every province in Canada signed on to the previous Liberal child care plans.

Thank you, sir, to clear the records.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Obviously we ran on a very particular platform, as you've pointed out. The changes we've made, I think, are very popular. The universal child care benefit now goes to 1.5 million families on behalf of two million children, and it gives people options. It's a big country where people have very different situations and, frankly, different values. The idea, I think, of some flexibility is pretty welcomed by most people.

There is 250 million new dollars toward the provinces in support of early childhood development and space creation, bringing the total transfers that we make to the provinces every year to $1.1 billion.

I've talked to provincial ministers about this. They liked the idea of flexibility. We're working cooperatively with them, and so far, since we announced this in the spring, they've announced that they intend to create over 32,000 new spaces. So that's obviously very good news.

We've also put in place a business tax credit, which was part of the budget implementation act that just passed, so this will give businesses the opportunity to create spaces, working with the province to licence those, so that if people want to have child care at their business, that will be possible for them. A number of businesses have expressed some interest in this, so we're optimistic that it will work well.

With respect to Bill C-303, what can I say except that not a single province signed on to Bill C-303? I have to say I'm a little surprised at the Bloc for accepting the principle that the federal government has a role to play indirectly providing child care in the provinces, even if they did get an opt-out for Quebec. It's the principle that they accepted.

Again, I point out that not a single province got behind this, including the NDP provinces, I have to point out to my friend Tony. I think it's pretty clear that Quebec, for instance, has made this a priority. They have a universal system. That's their priority. Other provinces have different priorities. We should respect that and respect the Constitution.

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Good morning, everyone.

We have two parts to our meeting today, as everyone knows. In the first part, we have two witnesses. In the second part, we will start clause-by-clause consideration of this bill.

We're continuing with our review pursuant to an order of reference of Tuesday, October 30, 2007, on Bill C-5, An Act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident, the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act.

Thank you very much, gentlemen, for being here today. I will take your presentations, up to ten minutes each, in the order that you're listed on the agenda today.

We'll start with Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition of Nuclear Responsibility. We'll then go on to Michel Duguay, a professor from the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Université Laval.

Mr. Edwards, go ahead please, for up to 10 minutes.

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.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Just for clarification, though, at the end of the last meeting you asked that we end the meeting early, and Mr. Epp and I were on the speakers list for the other issue at hand. So we are today receiving the briefing book for Bill C-16 as well as the bill itself.

I would tell you that we are very interested in moving forward with this bill. I see no reason why we couldn't do both issues, probably concurrently. I would say that we're all aware of a piece of legislation that we're waiting to hear back on, and that is the voter ID. That was a piece of legislation that went through this committee and indeed did go through the Senate and ended up having very extreme, unintended consequences. Because of that, one of the concerns we had in the incarnation of Bill C-55 when this bill was before us before the session prorogued was the fact that there really hadn't been consultation or studies done on this bill, although it was the view of the government that it would increase voter participation. Because of that, I think it's absolutely essential that we do due diligence, again not holding this bill up in any way. I think this is an important bill and should receive active, intelligent, and informed discussion.

I would ask that Elections Canada be asked to appear before us to find out if there are any things they have concerns with or what their view would be, as well as some kind of expert that deals with electoral reform. I would put forward Professor Ned Franks, as well as David Docherty from Wilfrid Laurier University. I know those two individuals are well informed and make it their life's work to study these kinds of issues. So in order that we make sure this bill does what it purports to do and doesn't do something we're not aware of, I think it's absolutely fundamental that we hear those witnesses before we move forward.

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)