Debates of Oct. 31st, 2005

Pacific Gateway Act

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Madam Speaker, I can tell members that long before the federal Liberal government came out with this proposal and with its legislation related to the gateway Asia-Pacific project, the official opposition, our leader and certainly members such as the member for Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam and others had been advocating for full support for British Columbia on this initiative.

I want to say that the infrastructure obviously is essential and I want to talk about that in a minute, but we think big on this side of the House and we have not narrowed it simply to the very important infrastructure requirements. This goes beyond the Department of Transport. This goes beyond transport policy. This includes trade policy. It includes foreign policy. It includes national defence policy.

What we are proposing embraces a far bigger project than what the federal Liberals are proposing, and as with so many of their proposals, unfortunately, they come into the game late, especially in a run-up to an election that may be coming soon and probably in the next several months. In that run-up, their habit is to make announcements on things that we have been advocating for, but always they abbreviate the announcement. They come out with a dollar figure that sounds impressive, but after the election the dollar figure dissipates.

I want to say from the start that we want to work cooperatively not just with the province of British Columbia, but for the few months that the federal Liberals are in power, we do want to work cooperatively with them. As well, something is better than nothing. We want to make that clear. We appreciate the fact that they have realized at least a measure of the importance of what is involved here.

However, to look at just how short the Liberals fall, the infrastructure requirements alone that have been laid out by the province of British Columbia are in the area of $3.5 billion. Even a 50% infrastructure share of that from the federal government, which would be a minimal amount that should be looked for, even that amount of $1.7 billion or so, is far in excess of what the government has committed. The government has committed approximately $590 million over and up to the next 10 years. That is pitifully short.

Let us look at history. Members across might think I am being partisan here, but I am simply stating historical fact. If we look at history, we see how these grandiose announcements--even though this one falls short of being grandiose--play out in the ensuing years. The Liberals never come through, even with the amount that they themselves have talked about. That is our concern.

Yes, I am pleased that the federal Liberals have listened to the province of British Columbia and the opposition and are making some movement, but it is pathetically short of what it should be. If the government is talking of $590 million over 10 years, let us say it is $59 million a year. The government may be front-loading some of this, but let us say it is $59 million a year.

The government is talking about a $35 million price tag just for a council of people who will make the decision on what the priorities will be. That is $35 million for people whom the government will appoint to a council and who will tell the B.C. government and the rest of Canada what the priorities are when the B.C. government has already spelled out those priorities in very clear language. The very fact of this is what we are concerned about. All of that hard work has been done. This council has a price tag of $35 million. That is more than the cost of some of the projects themselves. It would cost $30 million to do the Delta port rail grade separations. The $35 million council is more than that.

We suggest that the Liberals' priorities here are to appoint people who will be of benefit to them politically and then to make announcements at politically correct times. They are missing an opportunity to grab a much larger vision. It is a vision for British Columbia, yes, but this project, as envisioned by the B.C. government, by people in British Columbia and by the official opposition, is good for B.C., good for western Canada and, in fact, good for the entire nation.

Looking briefly at the issue of priorities and how short the dollars fall, I will quote the proposals about British Columbia's priorities. There is very little recognition, if any, of the Kicking Horse Canyon project from the federal Liberals. These are the words from the B.C. government's proposal about the Trans-Canada Highway, “strengthening the province [of British Columbia] as Canada's gateway to the world”. States the B.C. proposal, “This project is the province's number one transportation priority”.

It hardly gets a look from the federal government, just a minimal glance. The B.C. priorities, with the engineers and everybody else doing the work, already have identified the North Fraser Perimeter Road at a cost of $800 million. This is a direct quote from the B.C. government gateway proposal: “it is essential to the expansion of the containerized freight industry”. It is essential, says B.C., but it is virtually ignored by the federal government.

Let us hear what the B.C. gateway proposal says about Port Mann-Highway 1 project. B.C. has already done the heavy lifting in terms of the analysis and states, “Without the Port Mann/Highway 1 project, the growth potential of the Lower Mainland ports will be compromised...resulting in significant economic loss as export traffic shifts to United States competitors”.

An essential priority identified by the B.C. gateway proposal is just given a glance, fiscally and policy-wise. On the New Westminster rail bridge, the gateway report already has said that the province has identified this 100 year old bridge as a “crisis need”. This is virtually ignored by the federal Liberals.

We will work with the federal Liberal government to try to broaden its horizons and help it understand the importance of the priority projects that have already been identified. We will do that. We will cooperate as far as we can, but I have to point out how short the Liberals fall and how much further we will be there. The official opposition, the Conservative Party of Canada, will be there for the B.C. government for this proposal that is a B.C., western Canada and in fact trans-Canada proposal.

There are other areas that the Liberals do not touch on. Yes, it is important to pursue trade with China. We obviously have concerns related to human rights and individual freedom issues, but it is our party and our leader that have pointed out the importance of a free trade agreement with India, with which we have a common historical and cultural background, and as well, there is the evolution of parliamentary democracy in that country.

There is so little said in the federal proposal about free trade with India, or with Japan, another robust democracy with an invigorated economy. Yes, China is important, but why is there so much focus there and so little focus on other areas like India, Japan and, as one of my colleagues talked about, the other economic tigers in that region?

That is the area of trade policy, but as well, we have heard nothing about defence policy, which goes with this overall approach. Canada has clear responsibilities in the Pacific. We have identified some $1.7 billion in terms of increases related to national defence, Coast Guard capabilities and monitoring capabilities on the Pacific coast. The federal Liberals virtually ignore that in their gateway proposal. This is of major impact. This would have a major impact on the possibilities for shipbuilding alone, for the increased presence of our national defence capabilities on the Pacific, where they should be. This is virtually ignored by the government.

What our leader and the Conservative Party of Canada talk about in terms of the gateway proposal takes in this broad spectrum of fantastic opportunities for British Columbia, which will spread throughout western Canada and in fact all of Canada. It is a big vision and big picture approach to work closely with the B.C. government on the priorities that it has announced. It would have a long term effect and it would mean jobs, economic growth and a competitive edge for all of Canada. It would bring new hope to the rural areas of British Columbia, western Canada and other areas of Canada which would be manufacturing and then shipping through the newly enhanced corridors.

This is a proposal for B.C., western Canada and all of Canada. We are there for the province of British Columbia and the people of Canada in a big and realistic way, not with the minimized, diminished approach that the federal Liberals are talking about.

[Gary Carr, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think what the member said in terms of the grand plan and so on is something that everybody can agree with, but in this day and age, and the hon. member in a past life was a treasurer in Alberta, it is very important to target specific money. I do not mean this to be critical, but I am hopeful that when opposition parties talk about things they would like to do, as I think the member and his seatmate talked about the run-up to the election, it is incumbent upon all members to talk about specifically what that would be.

I know the hon. member's responsibility has shifted into the trade area, but I think people need to know specifically, when he talks about helping B.C., what that will mean in terms of a dollar figure. If I could be so bold, and I know the member is not the critic but he is well versed in this area, what will that mean specifically in terms of the investment it would take to get to this so-called grand plan that he talked about?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, the B.C. government has identified up to $3.5 billion, and a 50% share would be $1.7 billion and some. The amount that we have advocated for some period of time, the 5¢ per litre going back to the provincial government from the gas tax, has been a recommendation of ours for about three years.

People ask if I enjoy being in opposition and I say that yes, there are little moments of joy, but it is frustrating. The few moments of joy are when the federal government sees our good ideas and seizes them with its hands, grabs them and claims them for its own. In the process Canadians somewhere are benefited by our ideas, so we were pleased to see again a small step forward on the part of the federal government toward our proposal in terms of giving some of those gas tax dollars back to the provinces from whence they came.

That would be the first area of draw which would exceed, with great capacity, the amount that has been projected over 10 years by the federal Liberals of $590 million. It would be in excess of that, so not only will we be in excess of the proposed $590 million over 10 years but we have also gone further.

We have identified areas of significant waste within government, helped by the Auditor General. The last figure, before election time, that we put out to independent auditors was some $6 billion in poorly managed or wasteful areas, identified by the Auditor General, not by ourselves. Obviously, B.C. would not be able to claim that entire $6 billion, but a portion from that would go to the enhanced infrastructure needs.

The final area would be related to the tax invigoration that comes when taxes are lowered, especially on small and medium sized business, on other business and on hard working people. When those taxes are lowered, the economy is reinvigorated and more revenue is brought in, which that side of the House has not contemplated, and from that share of increased revenue, some portion of that would also go to these infrastructure projects.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, this government is opening the market to unbridled imports from countries that, in most cases, provide unfair competition to Canadian companies. I want to point out that to date this unfair competition has been mostly harming companies in Quebec, which are closing one by one, despite the call for federal aid to protect them.

These businesses can compete unfairly in that, in most cases, they do not respect human rights. Canadian and Quebec companies that are not very respectful of those around them and that are only interested in themselves are offered a chance to set up their production in those countries and then sell us their products. We are not against opening a road to ensure development for the western provinces that, in the meantime, would help them become aware of the unfair competition these countries have over these provinces. Perhaps the western provinces would then become more aware of Quebec's demands. We hope so.

I want to know whether the hon. member thinks it would not be beneficial for the current government to create trade policies that would protect the Canadian and Quebec economy before these new roads are opened.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would ask the member, in reply to his very good question, to carefully read the words of former Quebec premier, Mr. Bouchard, who recently talked about the fact that a country that is overly protectionist, overly taxed and overly regulated stifles innovation and entrepreneurial spirit. The people of Quebec are remarkable for their entrepreneurial spirit. They have proven time and time again how innovative they can be. They have proven that they can compete with the best in the world, but past policies within the province of Quebec have in fact created an uncompetitive atmosphere.

The proposals that we are talking about in the gateway legislation have to do first with the west coast, but the benefits come all the way across Canada. I would want to work closely with our colleagues in Quebec to do what can be done to dismantle the heavy federal burden of the over-regulatory regime, over-taxation, and the unnecessary continued federal involvement in areas of provincial jurisdiction, which puts a weight on the people and the industry in Quebec and makes them less competitive.

We want to see the people of Quebec absolutely removed of these unnecessary burdens, so they can be free to compete and succeed with the best in the world, as they have proven they can do.

[Gary Carr, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-68. I will talk a bit about the Canadian Pacific gateway council.

Canada, as has been mentioned by a lot of members in this House, is probably one of the most trade dependent nations in all the G-7 countries. Much of the prosperity depends upon trade. We all know that in the neighbourhood of 86% of our trade is presently with the United States.

However, the Government of Canada has long recognized that the Pacific gateway is strategically positioned as a gateway to North America. Not only the Prime Minister but all members in this House from all political parties realize that the trade that will be coming in place with China and our friends in India as well is very critical. They are known as the emerging Asian tigers.

I think there is agreement here that we need to, on all parts, diversify our trade. We have been blessed being right next door to the largest market, the United States, but there can be downturns for whatever reason. There have been economic downturns, historically, in the patterns of the economy. We need to ensure that we diversify into some of these emerging markets.

The fact that we probably have right now the largest number of people coming from China and India to Canada gives us a real leg up in that area. I am pleased that Bill C-68 will take a look at the Pacific gateway and ensure that we have the infrastructure in place.

I agree with my hon. friends that we need to look at some of the work that the B.C. government has done in taking a look at this issue. As has been mentioned, and I know friends from the Bloc Québécois feel the same way, the provinces have a very strong say in what happens in their trade policies. That is one of the reasons why Canada, in the past, has gone on trade missions and invited the premiers from all of the provinces to attend. We are fairly decentralized in terms of our federation and the provinces do need to have a say in exactly what is happening.

I am pleased that we are listening to our friends in B.C. and the B.C. government, and what they are looking at doing in expanding in that area. I know the previous speaker talked about that a little bit and was actually very helpful, in terms of understanding what the B.C. government is doing. That is one of the reasons these debates are helpful. My good friend to the left here who spoke a little bit earlier and my friend from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca talked about some of the things happening in that area. So, I am particularly pleased that the government will attempt to look at these emerging markets, particularly with our friends in China.

The Government of Canada is fully developing the Pacific gateway. To do this most effectively, many interconnected issues need to be addressed. I think that is paramount. It is not just one solution. There need to be some interconnected issues, not only transportation infrastructure but building deeper links with Asia-Pacific and, as well, maintaining secure and efficient borders and labour market pressures. While we talk about some of the infrastructure, and particularly in this case the transportation infrastructure issues, there are also other issues.

Federal policies and investments in this area have achieved real results for Canada. However, we cannot rest on our laurels. We need to continue to have greater focus on the need of connecting them in the gateway context. These interconnections reach beyond transportation, and so must the consensus building. That is why I believe that the advisory process of future decisions is so very important.

We must recognize, as a federal government, that we do not have all of the answers to the solutions and that we need to look at the advisory process and get some good advice in the other areas.

I am glad members on all sides have talked about some of the things that the B.C. government is doing by sharing those ideas and repeating them in the House. Having them reinforced with the various ministers can only help in achieving our goal of helping everybody who is affected by this.

There are some who would say that it affects just one area of the country. I do not believe it does. Our trade affects all the country. When we do one thing that is good for a particular area, it benefits all of us in the spin-off jobs that come as a direct result of it.

Canada's Pacific Gateway council would be created through the legislation to advise on the decision making process on a full range of transportation and other issues. I am glad to see it in the legislation. I know governments of all political stripes attempt to consult, but I like the fact that the legislation deals with transportation and other impacts affecting Canada's great Pacific gateway.

The council would provide a dedicated forum for examining these interconnected issues in an integrated way. It is important, when we are having the debates and discussions, that they be in an integrated way. There is no sense moving ahead on one front if it needs to happen on perhaps one, two, three or four other fronts as well. By having the advisory process, it will help to ensure and to reinforce the things that need to happen and get a consensus on the priorities.

I think all members would agree that sometimes priorities have to be made not only in this area, but also in areas of health care, education and the spending. If we can build a consensus on the priorities, it will make it much easier for the government to make the decisions. Far too often in the political process we do not build the consensus on the priorities. We sometimes seem to manage from day to day. By doing the long range process, we can build a consensus on priorities and that can provide the advice to the government.

I know opposition members will say that the government does not listen in respects. I think on most occasions the government attempts to listen when there is a broad consensus on what it should do. Having been involved, I know the government attempts to look at all the good ideas coming forward from all members.

If we can set the priorities, if we can get a consensus on priorities, if we can stop some of the partisanship that happens as a result of this, then I think it will be helpful to the government. We probably could do that in building the consensus on the priorities.

The council would have a mandate to advise the decision makers on the full range of issues that impact on the effectiveness of the Pacific gateway and how well the Canadian economy can capitalize on those opportunities. It is not just setting up the infrastructure. We need to ensure that Canadian businesses across the country, small, medium and large, are able to capitalize on that.

We have been blessed in many respects. We have a lot of natural resources, wood, oil and minerals. However, our single biggest factor in making us successful is not the physical attributes with which we have been blessed. It also is the fact that we have the greatest people in the world. It is those people in the small, medium and large businesses who will capitalize on these opportunities.

Where they need help from the government is in the infrastructure. That is where we as parliamentarians can assist them. I have every confidence in the world that if the government can do the right thing in helping with the infrastructure and with some of the things we have talked about, then our small, medium and large business will be able to compete in this new marketplace.

It would be fair to say that they also need government assistance for the infrastructure. This is where I believe the government can take a very strong role. It is one of the reasons the Prime Minister and our party in the last election called for an increase in the infrastructure for municipalities. We believe we have a role to play.

I know some people on all sides who disagree with that. They have told the government to stay out of the jurisdiction of municipalities. In the vast majority of the cases, municipalities, certainly in my area and I think in all areas, welcome the infrastructure investment.

The council would consist of governor in council appointments with expertise in a number of areas. Those areas will be a cross-section. They include transportation, which we have talked about a great deal here today. They include international trade, which is extremely important. We need to ensure that we have the discussions on international trade. They also include labour, which also is extremely important.

As I said earlier, our people give us the great strength. The labour issues need to be addressed and talked about with the various labour unions. They are the producers of the great products that we are then able to ship out. Again, we have the best workers in the world, bar none, in virtually every industry.

The people in the area where I come from produce cars faster, better and cheaper than anywhere else in the world. It is not because of the infrastructure. It is because of the people. When I say that, I mean the Canadian concept. I know my friends, particularly from the Bloc, may not sometimes think of that. Canadians across the country compete with the Americans. There are producers not only in Ontario, but in Quebec. I say this for the aircraft manufacturing as well. We produce products faster, better and cheaper than anywhere else in the world with the great expertise of our people.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The member will have eight minutes and 36 seconds remaining in debate.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I hope the government finally has a response to a point I raised on the government's record on the environment. When I raised the David Suzuki report with the environment minister, which placed Canada near the bottom of the pile yet again with the OECD, the response by the minister was quite remarkable. He said that I could not list one promise that he had not kept since he had been in office.

The whole time of this current Parliament, there have been two bills on the environment, one old bill moving Parks Canada and another bill on shipping, which has received a lot of controversy. That is it.

We have a Kyoto plan with no targets applied to it. We have had no emission requirements in an auto plan. All of it is voluntary and all of it falling in the wake of the progressive moves on the part of the government of California.

In terms the government keeping its promises, so few promises have been made when it comes to the environment. No wonder the minister can stand up and say what he did with a straight face.

Next we have COP 11. I hope the parliamentary secretary is able to address some serious concerns that the Government of Canada should have as it approaches COP 11 in Montreal. This is a meeting of the parties that have signed on to Kyoto. The world is coming together to watch Canada potentially embarrass itself. While the government likes to chastize George Bush at every opportunity, on this particular front the embarrassment of our record when it comes to the environment is second to none.

One would hope the government will first apologize and humbly seek the world's forgiveness for having made so many commitments. I am sure the parliamentary secretary will clarify this. As the Auditor General has said, the government has a particular affection for making announcements, but is usually out the door before the confetti hits the ground and does not follow through on those announcements and commitments.

How can we stand with any credibility on the world stage, calling upon other governments to get serious about things as important as climate change? Across the board, the industrial sector and on has said that this is one of the most important, if not the most important pressing issue for world security, for our environment and for our economy. We would hope the government will not be laughed out of the place. This would be rather embarrassing because Montreal is the environment minister's hometown. I am not sure where he would go, potentially back to Ottawa.

Water has been a critical issue in this House. I hope the parliamentary secretary will also address this, although I am getting suspicious now that I see prepared notes.

With respect to not having a national standard for water quality, this weekend the Minister of Health, somehow with some credibility, lamented in the British Columbia press that there was no national standard for water quality, that it was a travesty and that it was impossible to believe. It was as if someone else were in charge, as if someone else had held the pen on all this for the last dozen years or so, looking potentially to shift the blame. Perhaps the minister has forgotten he is no longer in opposition in the midst of a credible party, but now sits in government in a party that has no credibility on water issues.

The pivot of the question is focused around the government's ability to stand up with any sense of credibility on an issue like the environment. The environment minister's answer was vague and unpromising as always. I hope the parliamentary secretary will deviate from those well prepared notes and answer some of the concerns that we raise.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I do not have to depart from my notes because they cover all the items the member mentioned and even more that he is obviously not aware of because he is not celebrating Canada's environmental record.

I welcome the 2005 report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. The report clearly reminds us that the job of ensuring that Canadians, today and in the future, will enjoy a safe and healthy environment and a sound and prosperous economy is an ongoing one and one that requires cooperative efforts internationally by all levels of government, all sectors of the economy and individual Canadians.

I would like to assure the hon. member and the commissioner that the government is listening and taking action.

The recent passage of Bill C-15, an act to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, substantially enhances Canada's ability to deal with oil deposits into the marine environment by extending its enforcement regime to the outward edge of the exclusive economic zone. In fact, the Minister of the Environment was recognized by IFAW just last week for his invaluable work on this important file. I was at the awards ceremony and it was heartwarming to see Canada's Minister of the Environment being recognized by such an important environmental organization.

We are also taking action with regard to protecting the ecological integrity of Canada's national parks, as the member mentioned. Through the budget 2005 allocation of $269 million in additional funds, we are preserving not only ecological integrity and Canada's magnificent heritage, but an essential source of revenue for Canada's tourism industry, for many communities and for Canada's aboriginal people.

The Government of Canada's agenda for water includes a five year water management strategy, with investments of $600 million to improve water and waste water services for first nation reserve communities and $28 million is devoted to the first phase of the government's oceans and action plan.

I will depart from my notes just to react to something the member said. It is not in my notes because I do not think anyone would have believed he would be suggesting that we take away responsibilities from the provinces and municipalities.

We have an $85 million strategy to combat the proliferation of invasive exotic species. We are moving ahead with a 10 year clean air agenda, including addressing transboundary pollution, emissions in the transportation sector and from major industrial sources, and advancing the science on these issues. One of its key elements is a strict regulatory action plan for vehicles, engines and fuels which will reduce smog forming emissions from new vehicles by 90% by 2010, compared to levels in 2000.

I will depart again from my notes to explain that our auto emissions agreement is much better than California's agreement.

As important, we are laying the foundation for fundamental changes we will need to ensure long term environmental sustainability. Over the last year, the Prime Minister has given unprecedented momentum to Canada's environmental policy. The Speech from the Throne contained no less than 13 actions that became the basis of project green. Project green puts environmental sustainability at the heart of our economic agenda. Last February the Minister of Finance gave Canada its greenest budget since Confederation.

In April the Government of Canada released a comprehensive plan for honouring our Kyoto commitments. Our environmental agenda is going ahead on all fronts but we also agree with the commissioner that more needs to be done.

Through project green, our action plans for clean air, water, nature, contaminated sites and climate change will provide enormous benefits for Canadians. We are moving forward and I am confident Canadians will continue to see the progress that we are making.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for deviating so wildly from his prepared notes but I need him to address a couple of specific items when we are talking about this, as we move forward to COP 11, this important international debate.

The government took a report from the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, a report that was endorsed by members of his own party, and took the maximum allotted time to respond. It must have diligently been going through its response. It responded by refusing, refuting and denying just about every recommendation the committee made.

The committee went through the issue of climate change witness by witness over a number of months. We devoted most of our time during the last sitting to make some very concrete proposals. We negotiated out from the different parties and interests across the country, along with members from all four corners of the House, and the government took the report and said, “Thanks anyway but no thanks”.

The government is now going to move over to the international stage in Montreal hoping to have some sort of ability to criticize other countries and yet, even in our own internal documents, the Auditor General and others, we are failing on our climate change plan.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I have already mentioned a few of the examples that we will celebrate at COP 11. We are not there to criticize other countries. We are there to celebrate all the accomplishments I have just mentioned.

As I said, in 2005 we have put in $5.2 billion in long term investments for the environment. This also demonstrates the government's commitment to advance the type of innovative market based mechanisms that will better serve to align economic and environmental signals.

For example, we are rewarding creativity and innovation by funding projects that reduce greenhouse gas and smog-causing emissions through the climate fund. We are increasing our focus on renewable energy through tax and production incentives. We are providing additional support for wind power production by quadrupling investments in the wind power production incentive. We are working with the private sector to improve the commercialization of environmental technologies through market based incentives and by increasing funding to the green municipal fund to encourage uptake for environmentally sustainable technologies.

We have much to celebrate at COP 11. The environment world is coming to Canada. It will be our biggest meeting of any type, except for sports. This is a great initiative that Canada is taking for the environment internationally.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, this adjournment debate marks the second time in two weeks that I rise in this House regarding the closure of the Quebec City sorting centre and its transfer to Montreal.

The minister's replies last week to my numerous questions, and those of his parliamentary secretary, are totally unacceptable and are a show of contempt towards the 130,000 petitioners who oppose the decision made by Canada Post. These include socio-economic and political stakeholders, and postal workers affected by this decision.

Given such a large number of people from the whole Quebec City region opposing the decision, the minister can no longer remain silent and take cover behind Canada Post officials. He must now show leadership regarding this issue and take concrete action. This is what the Quebec City region is asking him to do. First, he must put that decision on hold until an overall postal services restructuring plan is developed, and he must also agree to meet coalition officials to discuss this issue.

The minister tries to justify his wait-and-see attitude by saying that the closure will not result in the loss of any jobs. Last week, I thought I had shown that, over time, the Quebec City region would lose 500 jobs, which represents $15 million in salaries. Either the minister does not understand the situation, or he does not want to understand it. If I did not succeed in convincing him, he should meet with coalition members. They will confirm my claims.

It has now been four weeks since the coalition opposing the closure of the Quebec City sorting centre asked to meet the minister. The coalition did not get a reply. It did not even get an acknowledgment from the minister. I thought that the representations I made last week would have spurred the minister into action and that a member of his office would have quickly organized a meeting with the coalition or, at least, would have acknowledged its request, but none of that has happened.

Out of respect for the 130,000 petitioners represented by the coalition, the minister should at least respond to the written request he received. That is just plain good manners. Either he denies the request or, as I once invited him to do, he can agree to meet with representatives of this coalition in order to hear and talk about the many reasons to keep a mail sorting centre in Quebec City.

This would also be a sign that the minister was open and acting in good faith here. Can he assure the members of this House that this will be done without further delay?

Once again, the minister has not given a clear answer to the questions I have asked him in the House. I want the minister to stop saying that Canada Post's efficiency and productivity is behind the closure of the mail sorting centre in Quebec City. He is disregarding one of Canada Post's arguments to justify closing the sorting centre in Quebec City. Why then are there six in Ontario, two in Alberta, two in British Columbia and only the one in Quebec City is to be closed? Why the one in Quebec City?

His argument about productivity would be more convincing if it was accompanied by an overall restructuring plan. This is what we want from the minister. It is very plain and simple. He needs to present his restructuring plan and then we will be able to see the overall issue and understand why Quebec City is the first. Why should Quebec be subject to a closure before Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to have a second chance to talk more about the great work Canada Post does and its modernization.

I can assure the member that 500,000 jobs will not be lost at this particular plant because of its closing. I would ask the Bloc Québécois members once again not to attack other provinces when they are trying to make their case.

I would like to talk briefly about Canada Post and hopefully answer some of the member's questions.

Canada Post is a company in which we as Canadians take pride. It is a company recognized around the world for its reliability, efficiency and postal expertise.

Canada Post makes a significant contribution to the national economy. Each year the corporation spends $2.8 billion on the purchase of goods and services, thereby creating 30,000 additional jobs. It does this responsibly. While the former post office department often posted deficits of about $500 million a year, Canada Post is now earning profits for its shareholders, all Canadians.

The creation of Canada Post Corporation in 1981, approved by all political parties of the House of Commons and by the postal unions, has paid off. What an outstanding turnaround in a very short period of time.

Canada Post's financial success has not been achieved on the backs of Canadians. Quite the contrary, letters are now delivered at some of the most competitive rates in the world, despite a harsh climate and a vast country.

However, without wishing to appear alarmist, the corporation is facing major challenges similar to all postal administrations around the world. Communication methods are changing fast. Canada Post must adapt to market changes in response to declining mail volumes noted in recent years, a decline that will be proportional to the rise in electronic communications. At the same time, improvements to processes, productivity and equipment in recent years have developed greater processing capacity in some postal plants across Canada.

In this very real context, Canada Post is continually assessing its network of mail processing plants throughout Canada to optimize its operations and improve service to Canadians. Given this current context, the recent announcement that processing of letter mail and ad mail will be transferred from Quebec City to Montreal over the next two years was necessary.

The transfer will be carried out without putting a single permanent employee out of a job. This is remarkable. This commitment is possible because Canada Post can easily reassign its employees affected by the transfer to other locations in Quebec. Some 300 of its 1,400 permanent employees will take a well deserved retirement of their own free will. A vast majority of retiring employees are postal clerks and letter carriers. Canada Post is providing them with a good retirement consistent with their collective agreement.

The situation will not be unique to Quebec. In fact the decline in the number of letters to be processed, a result of the growth in electronic communications, is forcing Canada Post to review its operations at the national level. It must also consider that no fewer than 10,000 employees will retire over the next four years of their own free will and in full compliance with their collective agreements.

In Quebec City, Canada Post will continue to invest in the community and will remain a large employer by maintaining 1,100 jobs and economic benefits of $90 million.

Planned investments for the Quebec region by Canada Post include $750,000 to renovate its facility on Hughes-Randin Street for use as a parcel processing hub. It will also have to build a new letter carrier station to replace the one now at 300 Saint-Paul Street. That means an investment of another $2 million to $4 million. The same is true for the need to move administrative employees to another location, which will invest $1.2 million in Quebec. Clearly Canada Post is not leaving Quebec.

On the matter of the future of the building at 300 Saint-Paul, and given that it will not close for another two years, this leaves enough time to find the best possible use for this location.

Canada Post will continue to meet its service commitments in Quebec by adapting its network and processing operations. These changes will have no effect on the quality of service presently provided. Some 70% of this mail is already forwarded to Montreal after being processed a first time in Quebec City. By sending it to Montreal right away, service will be made better.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, the response of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources is the same as the one given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue last week. Since the response is the same, that makes one more person from this government minimizing the issue of closing the Quebec City sorting centre.

How can we talk about efficiency when a letter sent from Lévis goes through Montreal to then be sent back to Lévis? I have seen better efficiency in my day. How can we say that no jobs will be lost in the Quebec City area? Jobs will be lost in the medium term. We know full well that when the employees retire, this will be done by attrition. The employees will not be replaced. Furthermore, no one talks about the 160 casual and part-time employees. Mum is the word about that.

I, personally, am quite dissatisfied with this government's response. In Quebec City, 130,000 people have signed a petition against closing the Quebec City sorting centre and no one will listen to them or negotiate with the coalition in order to reach a satisfactory agreement—

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, as I already pointed out in the initial remarks, no permanent employee will lose his or her job. This commitment is possible because Canada Post will easily be able to reassign its employees affected by the transfer to other locations in Quebec since some 300 of its 1,400 employees will take a well deserved retirement of their own free will. The vast majority of retiring employees are postal clerks and letter carriers. Canada Post is providing them with a good retirement consistent with their collective agreement.

In Quebec, Canada Post will continue to invest in the community and will remain a large employer as it means 1,100 jobs and economic benefits of $90 million. The 1,100 jobs include mail processors, letter carriers, mail service couriers, postmasters and assistants, rural and suburban mail carriers, supervisors, administrative employees and members of management.

Canada Post is confident it can improve its efficiency and service without permanent employees losing their jobs.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:52 p.m.)