Debates of Oct. 15th, 2004

Canada Shipping Act

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the hon. member if he could specifically address the issue regarding Sable Island and what it is, in his applauding the legislation, that would give a basis for optimism.

On the one hand, I understood the member to be saying that it is really just an organizational matter, that it is really a consolidation of the existing status quo. On the other hand, there is this desperate need for us not to maintain the status quo at Sable Island, but to recognize that there has not been an appropriate government structure.

The bill that is before us now gives the transport minister the opportunity to make appropriate administrative arrangements and regulations in that regard. Can the member shed any light on what it is we can hope for, or is it false hope on our part to think that this situation will be alleviated as a result of some specific responsibility lodged with Transport Canada?

[Marc Godbout, Liberal, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is really a transfer of power between two ministries. We said a few minutes ago that we will take under advisement what the hon. member had to say on the matter. The minister responsible for that area will ensure a follow-up on that very important matter.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to take a tour of the beautiful riding of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine. You will be warmly welcomed by the good people there, who will certainly be able to talk to you about the Coast Guard or anything related to maritime life.

I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.

I am pleased to speak to the bill to amend the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act. It is a long title, but at closer glance, it appears that the change, as the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan was saying earlier, is purely cosmetic.

Everyone at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans agreed that the basic problem is the chronic underfunding of the Canadian Coast Guard. It has been the topic of many speeches over the past few years. It has also affected different ridings in different ways. In the riding of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine in particular, Coast Guard services were reduced as a result of decreased funding over the years.

In my remarks, I would like to go over a number of recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. It is worthwhile to recall certain parts of this committee report which will help to better understand the situation. Recommendation 9 in particular provides:

That a renewed Canadian Coast Guard be established as anindependent civilian federal agency.

The bill before us does not do that at all. That is why it is important to look at the overall issue in order to improve the situation and have better, efficient service.

In addition, the Coast Guard should be governed by a new Canadian Coast Guard Act that would set out a number of its responsibilities, which is not the case right now. These include search and rescue, and emergency environmental response. Goodness knows, situations can happen that call for an emergency response.

I will also address the Coast Guard's lead role among the several federal departments involved inmarine pollution prevention. To increase the effectiveness of its mandate, the responsibilities of the Coast Guard could include a formal mandate in national security with respect to Canada’s coasts, including the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway. There is more.

Full operational funding was recommended in response to many comments and historical situations experienced in the past that have made us realize that we are indeed facing a situation where the services provided by the Canadian Coast Guard are not adequate. We could look at various aspects. We could look at the fleet, for example, that is to say what the Coast Guard has to operate and to carry out its mandate.

With respect to the fleet, in recent years, the Coast Guard has found itself in a situation where it did not have sufficient funding to effectively carry out its mandate. That is one aspect; sadly, there are others.

I say sadly because, when we look at the underfunding of the Coast Guard, we can see that, where maritime service is concerned, we can find ourselves facing unusual situations such as those experienced in recent years.

Such a situation occurred in an area of my riding, the Magdalen Islands, where we had to put up a fight. Residents of the Magdalen Islands took to the streets or, rather, the Cap-aux-Meules wharf, to send a strong message to the effect that the government should absolutely not make new cuts in Coast Guard services, under the pretext that it would save a few thousand dollars, because it would then completely abdicate one of its primary responsibilities, namely marine security.

As members know, the Magdalen Islands are located 250 kilometres off the Gaspé Peninsula. Being out at sea, they are quite isolated. The services provided by the Coast Guard go far beyond the notion of services: they are a matter of security. The Magdalen Islands have a seafaring tradition, which means that people use boats a lot to give a little boost to the local economy. If the Coast Guard decides that it wants to save a few thousand dollars, the result could be that, instead of relying on the Coast Guard to provide effective and quick service in case of an emergency, a distressed ship may have to wait for help coming from much further away.

As we know, travelling at sea is not like travelling in the air. Speed is calculated in knots, not in hundreds or thousands of kilometres per hour. The speed of ships is calculated in knots. In this context, the notion of Coast Guard services takes on its full meaning. Fiddling with the figures—this is the expression that comes to mind—to save some money may jeopardize the safety of seamen who are trying to make an honest living. These people do not want to be faced with catastrophic situations that could put their lives at risk.

Unfortunately, this is what has been happening in recent years. We witnessed more than mere threats; the Coast Guard's budget was actually cut, with the result that it had less money to provide its services.

The Coast Guard has a very important mandate. This is why it is absolutely critical that we not make mere cosmetic changes, to paraphrase the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan. Rather, we should take this opportunity to massively invest new money. This would not improve the situation, but at least we would be able to deal with it.

In this case, as I also had the opportunity to do during the election campaign, we could talk about the defence issue. We know very well that, when we talk about the defence issue, we talk a lot about being a little on the defensive, which is somehow apt. However, we are not talking about development.

Concerning the Coast Guard, we must not only be on the defensive and demonstrate, as the people from the Magdalen Islands have done on the wharf in recent years. These people want to go out on the wharf of Cap-aux-Meules, but not necessarily to demonstrate.

In this sense, we found ourselves in a tough spot, with many defence issues such as this one, instead of talking about development. Development means improvement. It also means being able to face changes. There are many changes. It may be quite difficult sometimes to face situations where we should ensure that sailors in trouble receive help.

This also brings me to the famous unanimous report. I come back to the concept of unanimous, because it is important. Indeed, we realize that Liberal colleagues, at the time, and I hope they will not deny what happened at the time—

[An hon. member]

They have a short memory.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

We often say also “selective memory”. However, speaking of memory, we need to get back to certain points about the unanimity of this report and the report itself.

That report put its finger right on the sore spot. I cannot help pointing out again the underfunding of the Coast Guard. When it comes down to it, this is nothing more than a bill that will negate many hours of debate. I will just point out that this process took months, of course, and culminated in a unanimous report from the fisheries and oceans committee.

My former boss, in my parliamentary assistant days, was in fact a member of that committee, along with members of other parties. As the member for Halifax has just said, one member spoke at length about ensuring that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which was responsible for the Coast Guard, would have proper funding.

When it comes to merely transferring responsibilities from fisheries to transport, since that is what we have before us today, no basic change is being made to the law. The rules remain unchanged, as do the powers and functions of the minister. Only the identity of the minister responsible changes. We are talking here of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Transport. The bill, of course, gives no indication of the cost of such a transfer . The shipping industry is not opposed to the changes proposed, since they will have little impact in actual fact.

In this context, we need a little background. In 1995, that is 9 years ago already, the responsibilities involved were transferred to Fisheries and Oceans. So this is a kind of turning back the clock without making the real changes required.

I come back, obviously, to the principle of underfunding. On December 12, 2003, when the current Prime Minister—who could be called the father of fiscal imbalance--took office, policy and operational responsibilities were transferred by order in council from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to the Department of Transport. Thus, the purpose of the current bill is to clarify existing legislation in order to formalize the order.

As far as this bill is concerned, I would say that if there is no additional funding for marine safety and environmental protection, we are going to have a serious problem. I call on all my colleagues to demonstrate anew—not on the Cap-aux-Meules wharf—the unanimous desire they once had to change the very essence of funding for the Canadian Coast Guard.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 73(1) it is the intention of the government to propose that Bill C-12 be referred to committee before second reading.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what my hon. colleague had to say about Bill C-3. I had a first look at the bill just a few minutes ago. I did not intend to speak to it, but some of its provisions caught my attention and have me worried, to say the least.

This bill is far from innocuous. Although some would argue that it is only a housekeeping bill, it does transfer some of the powers from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to the Minister of Transport, including the Coast Guard services. Among other things, the Coast Guard used to and hopefully will continue to deal with security issues. This is about to change. Security will be handled by the Minister of Transport, who has some very specific clients, including major ship owners. Let us not forget that the speed limit for ships using the St. Lawrence Seaway is set by the Coast Guard. It is a voluntary limit. From now on, Transport Canada, whose main clients are ship owners, will be responsible for enforcing the speed limit. That could put at risk the biodiversity of the St. Lawrence and of all the other bodies of water coming under the Marine Act.

We need to keep one thing in mind: the purpose of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is to protect our resources. This bill will transfer one of the powers of the department in charge of protecting our resources, namely the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, to a more industry oriented department. So, there is reason to be worried.

I wonder if the member agrees that this could have an impact on the protection of biodiversity and marine pollution.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his comments and question. That leads me to insist on one point. Without wanting to appear redundant, I find that maritime safety and pollution are words whose maritime meaning can make a difference in terms of resources, when a person in danger can be saved. The same is true in the case of the environment in terms of the resources involved.

I remind the House that the landed value of marine resources in Quebec may amount to $157 million. That is the 2003 figure.

In economics, it is customary to apply a multiplication factor of three, for the intermediary levels. Thus, the industry may be worth a half million dollars in Quebec alone. That is a different debate, but I can say that if Quebec had really occupied its proper place and could take back its share of historic quotas, it would be even greater.

So it is a question of economics, employment, development, protection of the resource and safety, too. That is why it is important for the Coast Guard's services to operate in developmental mode instead of always being on the defensive.

The bill before us focuses us on what has already happened and in doing so, we are not in developmental mode. If I may slip in a pun, we have definitely missed the boat.

It would be a way to improve services. With respect to the Department of Transport, I remind the hon. members that people in the shipping industry have fought long and hard to ensure that the costs of ice removal, dredging and the like do not rest solely on the shoulders of the industry. Negotiations on this have been going on a long time but have not come to any conclusions.

As for the Coast Guard, it is very important to stand up and say that current funding is inadequate. This bill will not provide safe passage through this situation, which may potentially be catastrophic for the resource and may also endanger human lives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for highlighting the different mandates that may be given to the Coast Guard and that are currently deficient in terms of their implementation.

My colleague from Ottawa—Orléans mentioned earlier that the government was seriously examining the unanimous report of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I urge the government to examine this report as soon as possible and to replace the current project as quickly as possible. Indeed, this project seems pointless, because virtually no comment would support it. I recommend instead that the government introduce a bill that would improve the Coast Guard mandates by following the unanimous and very serious recommendations regarding our environment and the protection of all Canadian coasts.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank again the new member for Alfred-Pellan for his comments. There will need to be many of us working on this issue, because it is unfortunately going to be a huge task.

I do mean unfortunately. It should be a matter of common sense when we talk about maritime security or marine pollution. Sufficient funding should be provided, but it is not.

It is not sufficient at present and it is not likely to be sufficient after the bill before us today is passed. In that sense, it is absolutely essential that all my hon. colleagues have the opportunity to review the unanimous report by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and even to read it again. This would give them a clearer picture of the situation and help meet the challenge of having a Coast Guard that is able to effectively carry out its responsibilities.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker,—

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

My colleague was allotted 20 minutes to speak, but indicated at the beginning of his remarks that he would be sharing 10 minutes of his speaking time with me. I would like to know if that is still his intention. The hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine clearly indicated he was sharing his time with me. I just want to know if that is still his intention, Mr. Speaker, before you recognize the hon. member across the way.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

He didn't give you much time.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I must admit that I did not hear that the time was to be split. In fact, the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine spoke for almost 20 minutes himself, so I assumed that was the full 20 minutes and we used it all up in questions and comments following. I believe we will have to resume debate and we will catch the hon. member in the next round.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Again, Mr. Speaker, my congratulations to you.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to the House about the importance of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act, which has been introduced by the Minister of Transport.

As members know, the transportation industry as a whole is a vital component of our economy. When looking at the marine sector of this industry, we must keep in mind that it operates both domestically and internationally.

In recent years, a substantial amount of work has been done in an effort to modernize our national transportation system and prepare this sector to meet the needs of the coming century and the demands of the global marketplace.

To achieve these objectives, the government has taken a number of initiatives in all operational modes, and its efforts have mainly focused on simplifying acts and regulations. These initiatives are still within the overall federal framework relating to transportation, which promotes a national vision on security, safety, efficiency and environmental responsibility.

On December 12, 2003, the Prime Minister announced that the responsibility for marine safety and security would be consolidated under the Minister of Transport.

To effect this centralization, some parts of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have been transferred to the Department of Transport. Following these changes, Transport Canada now has all policy responsibilities and some operational responsibilities for pleasure craft security, marine navigation service, pollution prevention, environmental intervention and waterway protection. These are very important changes for the marine transportation industry and its stakeholders.

Canadians will now have a single point of contact for policy issues associated with marine safety and security. This consolidation of responsibilities is expected to improve efficiency in both marine policy and operations. As the content of this bill is considered to be policy neutral, these changes can only be looked upon as positive by the marine industry.

The intent of Bill C-3 is very clear to us today. Most important, it clarifies each department's responsibility as a result of the transfer of December 12, 2003. It consolidates policy responsibility for all aspects of marine safety in one federal department. It improves the responsiveness, coherence and consistency of the marine regulatory framework in Canada. It enhances service delivery on marine matters for all stakeholders.

It ensures that the roles and responsibilities of the government remain the same in whatever department they are found. It preserves the authorities of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to carry out the operational role assigned to it by the orders in council. It ensures that the powers, duties and functions transferred from the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans to the Ministry of Transport are unambiguous, in order to prevent litigation or any contentious issues. It preserves the logic and coherence of the affected statutes.

The changes introduced in the bill are changes that marine stakeholders have been suggesting for quite some time. In addition, these changes are welcomed by both the Department of Transport and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

The enactment of this bill is a vital step to effecting the Prime Minister's announcement on December 12, 2003. At this time, I would like to reaffirm my support of Bill C-3 as tabled by my colleague today.

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, understandably, my remarks will be similar to those of my colleague from Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, since our ridings face each other, on opposite sides of the magnificent St. Lawrence River.

Many municipalities in my constituency are found along the river. There is Grondines, Neuville, Donnacona and a small part of Saint-Augustin-de-Desmaures, to mention just a few. Naturally, there are a number of wharfs in my riding. Some of them are more for recreational boating while others are used more by industry.

It is easy to understand why I would worry about this change from one department to another. One would think a department like DFO would be more conservation-minded while the Department of Transport would place more emphasis on the development of resources. I can certainly understand why the Prime Minister is interested in shipping.

The Liberal member opposite mentioned that this bill has a positive impact because its impact is neutral. The only thing I can see right now is the old Liberal habit of making cosmetic changes instead of dealing with underlying issues.

Maybe I am a bit naive, as a new member of Parliament, but I have a hard time understanding how the government can fail to take into account the unanimous report of a committee on which it had a majority. Why does it not implement the recommendations of this committee? Its own members voted unanimously for these recommendations.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will say that over my previous number of years as a mayor and a member of the Great Lakes St. Lawrence mayors' conference, one of the issues that we were mostly concerned with was of course the safety and integrity of the lakes and the efficiency of the transportation situation, so I am very cognizant of the member's question.

I know that it has been addressed not only municipally, provincially and federally, but by myself as the member for Thunder Bay--Rainy River. The port of Thunder Bay of course is at the western end of this great system that we have. This legislation, I believe, very strongly reflects many years of input from people who have been very concerned about the efficiency and protection of the Great Lakes. I truly believe they are on the right track. This is very sound legislation.

The member's question is well founded and I am pleased to say that those issues are being addressed.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for at last giving me the chance to speak. I know you are still getting used to the position and I know you are making quite an effort to understand our language. I congratulate you on that. You can probably understand that some of us on this side of the House also sometimes have a bit of trouble pronouncing the names of certain western ridings, so we are even on that score.

Like my colleagues from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine and Alfred-Pellan, I am concerned about this most vital question of Bill C-3. It is even more vital to Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière than to most ridings. I do not want to launch into a travelogue here, but there are five lovely villages along the shores of the St. Lawrence: Saint-Nicolas, Saint-Antoine-de-Tilly, Sainte-Croix, Saint-Louis-de-Lotbinière and Leclercville.

Those five parishes represent the roots of French colonization.They have been in place for two or three hundred years. Generations of their inhabitants have taken pride in living on the shores of the majestic St. Lawrence. I shudder at the thought of Fisheries and Oceans' responsibilities being handed over to Transport Canada. It is scary to think about what will happen when the Department of Transport steps in to slow down the huge ships that ply the St. Lawrence, particularly the Martin family ships.

We have had such a hard time figuring out all the red tape that ensued from the federal government's cuts to Fisheries and Oceans Canada. We eventually managed to cut through it all to get information, to find out who in the department has which responsibility and who will give us straight answers. Now, in order to improve the system, those responsibilities are going to be transferred to Transport.

Who at Transport will provide answers on important issues, like Fisheries and Oceans did? We know what reorganizing the work means. Will Transport employees be equipped to provide the same service that the Fisheries and Oceans people did? These are questions that need to be asked.

I have some experience and I have seen many departmental reorganizations on the other side of the House; so, we shall see.

Still, usually when the ministers are shuffled, and often when a new prime minister comes in, the names are all changed, and then we MPs must explain to the public how it works.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada looks after fauna, protects against pollution, and also is responsible for ice breaking on the St. Lawrence River. The department's experts have done their best, even though they have been faced with savage cuts since 1993 by the former finance minister, who is now the Prime Minister of Canada.

How are we to understand the logic behind this transfer? How are we to understand this government, which prides itself on being pro-environment and yet does such things as this?

When these responsibilities are transferred to the Department of Transport—and I hope they never are—will that department give as much attention as Fisheries and Oceans did to the issues, jurisdictions, and decisions that DFO officials had to make respecting an area as important as fisheries and oceans?

I will not be giving a course in semantics this afternoon, but in order for the people to understand, usually the department bears the name of the resource to which it is attached. For everyone, it was simple: Fisheries and Oceans meant that they looked after fisheries and oceans. Now we will have to convince the public that the Department of Transport is looking after fisheries and oceans, although the Department of Transport is identified with aviation, highways, and everything to do with roads. Now, with Bill C-3, we will attempt to convince the public that the Department of Transport can do this work. It is impossible.

Moreover, in proposing this game of musical chairs, if the Liberal government had said that such and such a responsibility was being assumed, that it was being moved to a particular sector, if improvements had been proposed, such as enhancing the services provided by Fisheries and Oceans, if it had added more money and resources to enhance the security of people who deal with the DFO, perhaps I might have accepted Bill C-3.

But only responsibilities are being transferred. There are no improvements, no additional funds, no additional resources.

[An hon. member]

Only risks.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

There are only incredible risks to the fauna, the environment and the St. Lawrence River.

Experts are addressing increasingly the very important question of the beauty of the St. Lawrence River. We know that the St. Lawrence is the pride of Quebec and is associated with Quebec. It is an incredible gem, a place where business is conducted. It is a shipping channel. Nonetheless, with everything we hear about the intentions of the Liberal government, and in particular to dredge the St. Lawrence Seaway, and everything being presented in Bill C-3 today, I understand why the residents of the municipalities I mentioned earlier are worried. I am sure that the residents of both sides of the St. Lawrence, from the Gaspé to Montreal, including the regions of Montérégie, Centre-du-Québec, Quebec City and Îles-de-la-Madeleine, have the same concerns as the people I represent. Like all my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois, I oppose the principle of Bill C-3.

Let me come back to the long title. Note the great expectations they have with a title like: act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act. It is a long title. One would expect major changes with such a title, but they are empty words.

The purpose of this bill is to amend four acts. First, it mentions the Canada Shipping Act. Do we have a Canada Shipping Act? We have the semblance of an act. Look at what happened with the shipyards. There was a shipyard in Sorel and one in Lévis, but we know what happened. Now, they would have me believe that with Bill C-3 we are going to change the Canada Shipping Act? What act? If it exists, is it solid? I do not think so.

There is also the Canada Shipping Act, 2001. As with the former act, are they trying to convince us that they are going to change an act from 2001 that did not satisfy anyone in this House?

Of course, let us not forget shipowners and the Martin family. These people are very influential when the time comes to make decisions. Here is a good one: I do not know if this is always the case but, apparently, the Martin children must go through the ethics counsellor to speak to their father, who is the Prime Minister. This is how the government would have us believe that the Prime Minister has no say whatsoever in the administrative decisions made by his children. Come on, give me a break on this Friday afternoon. Who is going to believe this? Who finds Howard Wilson credible? What credibility was there in Jean Chrétien meeting with Mr. Wilson to indicate to him, whenever there was a problem, what to say, or else be fired? This is how they tried to sell us the idea that the government was acting objectively and ethically.

The more things change in this Parliament—and we have only been here since October 4—the more they stay the same. The Prime Minister has changed, as have a number of ministers, but nothing has really changed. We do not see any improvement, and this is particularly true with Bill C-3.

The Liberals have a thing about respecting, or rather not respecting, unanimous reports. Think about the one on employment insurance, which was also not respected. Here we are dealing with the recommendations of another unanimous report tabled in March 2004. Either this government has trouble remembering things, or it has trouble reading the documents available to it.

If a different party were in power, someone other than the Liberals, we could understand some little hitches as files were transferred. But no, it is the same gang, still the Liberals. When it comes time for action, they have big gaps in their memories. I would say they have a selective memory, which tends to favour those who support the Liberal Party and to ignore the interests of Quebec. Selective memory is what it is.

Could you indicate how much time I have left, Mr. Speaker? You will understand that I want to respect your authority.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is about one minute before the adjournment of the House.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

I am pleased to conclude here, because I get the feeling that many in this House are anxious to see this week come to an end, myself included. Not that I want to see the end of my speech, because there is plenty more I could say on this bill.

I will just state that we are opposed to Bill C-3 and that we, the 54 members of the Bloc Quebecois, will keep watch steadfastly, day in and day out, over the interests of Quebec.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member will have five minutes when the House resumes its sitting on Monday.

It being 2:30 p.m. the House stands adjourned until Monday, October 18 at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)