Debates of March 5th, 2013

Religious freedom

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to be here today to speak to Motion No. 382. I want to congratulate the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex for having the courage to bring this forward and for his great leadership on this issue and also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs for his work and commitment on the issue as well.

I would also like to take a moment to thank my staff member, Joycelin Ng, for the work she has done on this issue, in particular, and on other issues dealing with religious persecution as well. I want to acknowledge her great work on this.

As others have said in the House, I do support the motion. I see this as a seminal document, a seminal declaration by this Parliament. It is past the time that it should have been brought forward, and I appreciate the fact that we are able to discuss this now.

The real issue on this topic is actually the fundamental right that people around the world should have. That is the right to choose what they believe, the right to speak about that belief and the right to change that belief if they so choose. That is really what is encapsulated in the beginning of this motion and what we want to reinforce today, because an increasing number of citizens around the world are under attack simply for their religious beliefs.

Governments around the world continue to repress religious freedom, but it is the right to choose, the right to believe and the right to change belief that needs to extend to every individual in every community and country.

As the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has said, it is a basic tenet of humanity, a moral, ethical and legal duty. For many around the world, Canada can really provide leadership to protect this fundamental human right.

The reality is that religious minorities around the world are constantly harassed. They are arrested and imprisoned.

I would like to acknowledge my colleague in the NDP and thank him for his enthusiastic support for the motion. We are glad to see that. He pointed out that the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has reported that 75% of the world's population, as of mid-2010, live in countries where governments, social groups or individuals restrict people's ability to freely practise their faith.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom lists, in particular, countries such as Burma, North Korea, Egypt, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, China, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and a few other countries as countries of particular concern where religious persecution is most severe.

It is obvious that the motion is necessary, despite the protections of religious freedom in international rights law. We talked a little about article 18 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and every country has signed on to that, as obligated, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Religious minorities still continue to face a global crisis of persecution. Individual countries, such as Canada, where this is not a big issue for our people, should do their part in recognizing religious freedoms in their foreign policy and promote those values abroad.

Just to address the concerns that my colleague from the Liberals has, what we are doing here does not in any way take away from the defence of other rights. Our Minister of Foreign Affairs has been very vocal about those rights. Our Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs has stepped up to defend those rights. We have been clear on that. I would like to think that the members opposite would see this as a declaration that complements our position on the other rights, not restricts it. That is how it was intended by the author of the declaration, the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, who has brought it forward.

Successful passing of the motion would ensure that our commitment to human rights and democracy, for which we are known around the world, includes the basic right and freedom of religion and that it would become a mainstay of foreign policy in years to come. We think that is a good commitment to make.

A parliamentary motion outlining this commitment sends a message to the international community that we condemn all acts of violence against religious groups and are coordinating efforts to protect and promote the fundamental right to choose to believe and to change beliefs.

To address the concern that the member opposite from the NDP raised, we are not talking about sending the UN into countries when we are talking about protecting. We do want protection and that should be extended. Governments should understand that they need to extend that to their rights, but we want to see that done consistently and effectively.

The motion puts Canada on the international stage with like-minded countries. We are working together with other nations, multilaterally, that can strengthen the international capacity within the United Nations, OSCE, the IPU and other monitoring bodies such as the European Union, Council of Europe, Organization of American States and entities like that.

I would like to point out that in researching for the motion, it became evident that some other countries have led the way in this. The United States, for example, in 1998 passed a bill, the international religious freedom act, which led to the creation of the Office of International Religious Freedom. It made the U.S. one of the first to officially recognize the protection of religious freedoms as a foreign policy objective. It also established, at that time, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom.

In 2010 the German Bundestag passed a bill that served to establish religious freedom as a human rights priority in the German Bundestag. That was a resolution, not a bill, but it expressed its resolve toward a number of issue areas, including its opposition to laws that used defamation of religion, and we see that in the motion before us today. It continues to take a stand on religious freedom issues, even as recently as defending the rights of Jews and Muslims and their right to practise religious circumcision, which is an issue that has been somewhat in the news.

The European Parliament has passed a number of resolutions dealing with religious freedom. The resolution on the situation of Christians, passed in 2011, recognized that the majority of acts of violence were perpetrated against Christians and recommended ways in which an EU strategy could enforce religious freedom for Christians and other faith groups around the world.

The United Kingdom has what is called a freedom of religion or belief toolkit, which is interesting way. It outlines ways foreign officials can assess religious violations in their assigned countries.

Norway has what is called the Oslo coalition on freedom, religion or belief, which has been in operation since 1998 and was established by its ministry of foreign affairs.

We see this is not something that is new around the world. Canada is taking its place as a leader, as one of the leading nations that is doing this, but it is not something that is brand new either.

I would like to talk a bit about my own personal commitment to this. We heard Shahbaz Bhatti's name mentioned a couple of times in the House today. In 2011, I had the chance to meet him for about 20 minutes before I went to listen to his presentation at the subcommittee on human rights the next day. He knew full well that if he went back to his country, he would probably be assassinated because of the courageous stand and leadership that he had shown. It was only about three weeks after he was here that he was in fact assassinated as he drove down the driveway of his mother's house. I think not only myself but a number of people in the House have been energized by his commitment and by the great leadership he showed.

We have hosted some forums on religious freedoms. Members of the House have come to those and we have seen the benefits of being able to be part of that.

I want to point out Motion No. 382 could establish credibility among advocacy groups, organization and faith groups, the very groups that are most familiar with these issues of religious freedom. It would give our country credibility internationally on the issue of protecting freedom of religion. The establishment of the Office of Religious Freedom is a commendable step toward defining Canada as one of the few distinguished nations willing to recognize religious freedom as a foreign policy priority.

I would like to point out that I believe a successful motion passed by the Parliament of Canada, and it sounds like we will be able to have that, will ensure that the steps taken by our Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade have the broad majority support of Parliament and that will ensure religious freedom becomes a mainstay of foreign policy for future years.

We have looked to other nations and seen what they have done. We believe Canada can be a leader in this issue as well. I want to thank the member for bringing this forward. As we pass this, we will be able to share around the world Canada's commitment to the issue of religious freedom.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all this talk about a motion to set up an office to promote religious freedom and the comments from government members saying that they are making a commitment leave me feeling skeptical.

The motion's intentions are excellent. I do not have a problem with them. However, I do have a problem with the credibility of this government that wants to open such an office abroad, when every day it is violating most of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The government introduces vicious bills that attack fundamental human rights and the freedom of association in our own country.

Before promoting these values abroad—values that are essential to community development—the government needs to take a stand and promote them in our country. I have not seen the Conservatives do so since I have been here.

Hon. members will recall that, in June 2011, we had to filibuster for 56 hours because the rights of postal workers were being violated. These were fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter, the right to associate and to stand together in the defence of rights.

With regard to credibility, this bill is far from anything individuals or society could accept.

The Conservatives are defending a noble bill. It is a good example but, tarbarnouche, the fundamental rules governing rights and freedoms—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

“Tarbarnouche” is not a swear word. It is just Quebec slang, like “câline” and “ah”.

[An hon. member]

Do not dig yourself in any deeper.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

At first glance, this motion was written for the clear purpose of upsetting the opposition parties. It also includes a section regarding the current Minister of Foreign Affairs that is inappropriate and unconscionable from a parliamentary ethics perspective. This has become somewhat frustrating coming from this government.

The sections that are not designed to upset us do nothing but duplicate the work that is already being done by consular offices.

In many areas of the world, religious persecution is commonplace. That is very unfortunate. Foreign consulates have often shared what is happening through the Department of Foreign Affairs.

However, the Conservatives promised to create such an office in the 2011 election campaign. This motion promotes the creation of that office.

The three priorities of this new office will be to protect and advocate on behalf of religious minorities under threat, to oppose religious hatred and intolerance, and to promote Canadian values of pluralism and tolerance abroad.

What about promoting these values in Canada, these values of pluralism, multi-ethnicity and the basis of our inclusive society? Why not address what is going on here first? Why not build up our credibility and then promote it abroad?

The estimated cost of creating this office is $5 million a year. Work to create this office would already be under way, but it seems that there has been some difficulty finding an ambassador, which is causing a delay.

And although we know that the office will have a vague mandate of fighting religious persecution in the world, we are not really sure how the office will be run or what its promotion duties will entail.

This certainly has a whiff of the former government's firearms registry about it, with its mismanagement and skyrocketing costs.

Let us look a little closer at the content of this motion. The sponsor of this motion, the hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, wants the House to agree:

That…the government should: (a) continue to recognize as part of Canadian foreign policy that (i) everyone has the right to freedom of religion and conscience, including the freedom to change religion…

Of course, all this is in keeping with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which contains the basic principles and elements for fair respect of individual rights, which should also be promoted here.

We live in a society of law where reasonable and justifiable limits can be demonstrated in a free and democratic society. Do we currently have in Canada this context that allows a free and democratic society to flourish and grow?

One part of the motion seeks to support article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Since when have we given up these principles?

Article 18 says that “[Everyone] has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion...”. I would say this is a carbon copy.

The motion also says that the official statements of the Minister of Foreign Affairs denouncing violations of religious freedom are to be promoted. Is it not already his role as a representative of a free and democratic country to denounce these things? His duties abroad include denouncing such things. Do we need an office to promote that?

The motion also talks about supporting opposition to laws that use “defamation of religion” and “blasphemy”, both within states and internationally, and encouraging Canadian missions to report incidents of violence.

Quite frankly, our consulates and the Minister of Foreign Affairs should already be condemning these acts. What we want is for this government to be responsible and credible when it speaks out against events abroad.

I have already said that this is a very noble motion and we will support it. However, as you know, I have been criticizing for some time this government to which I belong indirectly because I want it to be credible. I am a member of the official opposition. I have the right to criticize my government, but I also have the right to participate in its activities, for example, by proposing amendments to bills in committee so that we can discuss them together. We must be able to talk about the issues. It is part and parcel of the freedom of expression, the freedom of association and the freedom of thought. In a democracy it is essential that these freedoms be recognized and promoted.

In closing, I will mention one last small thing. We are a little concerned that freedom of religion, that we will be promoting abroad, will conflict with other human rights, such as the rights of women, gays and lesbians, religious minorities, and also of first nations and aboriginal peoples. There are many people who belong to these groups in other countries, and we must protect their rights and freedoms and respect their traditions.

As I was saying earlier, we are still not quite sure how this famous office will work or what it will do. It—

Bill C-42--Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I regret to advise that, with regard to Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts respecting RCMP accountability, no agreement was reached pursuant to Standing Orders 78(1) and 78(2).

As a result, pursuant to Standing Order 78(3), at the next sitting of the House a Minister of the Crown will move to set a specific number of hours or days for consideration of this matter.

The House resumed consideration of Motion No. 382.

Religious Freedom

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Compton—Stanstead has one minute left.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, right now, we are witnessing persecution here in Canada by the phoneys who are in power. Just think about unemployed workers or the various environmental advocacy groups. The government is going to change the definition to include them on the list of terrorist groups. That is shameful. And it is just the beginning.

It is also surprising that, to date, no Muslim organizations have been invited to participate in the consultations related to the creation of the office in question, and neither have any human rights advocacy groups, such as Amnesty International.

In closing, here is an excerpt from a Jimi Hendrix song:

Freedom, that's what I am. “If you wanna get out of here alive, Freedom, give it to me.”

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

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

Employment Insurance

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today to go into further detail about an issue I raised in the House last November. I asked the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development why access to employment insurance was being further restricted for those who need it most and who have paid into the program.

Just who are the people being denied employment insurance benefits? There are no records being kept. People have come to my constituency office. They are looking for work, and they start looking early in the morning and finish late at night. They want to work. They are not earning any money and are not part of any statistics. They are unfortunate enough to be looking for work either in a field where the government cut nearly 19,000 positions—the federal public service—or in seasonal industries. I am thinking about the man who shingles roofs or the woman who works on-call as a benefits clerk.

In November, I talked about new data from Statistics Canada that showed that only 40% of unemployed workers were collecting employment insurance benefits. In other words, over half of these people are not getting a service for which they pay. This is the lowest access rate in 10 years. It is outrageous.

I cannot accept the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, who said that around eight out of 10 individuals in Canada qualify for employment insurance. What the parliamentary secretary said completely contradicts the data from Statistics Canada.

Restricting access is part of the Conservative government's pseudo-solution to save money on the backs of the unemployed. This is the Conservative government's scheme to save money by taking it from the fund that belongs to workers, from the benefits they should receive when they are between jobs, until they find another job or return to their regular job when seasonal work starts up again.

Since the introduction of the employment insurance counter-reform, Bill C-38, thousands of Canadians have spoken out against the negative affects these changes will have on our economy, and have called this a direct attack on unemployed workers.

One of the direct consequences of reducing employment insurance is a lower unemployment rate. In turn, claimants will have to have more qualifying hours, and they will receive fewer weeks of benefits. When the unemployment rate goes down in a region, residents there receive fewer weeks of benefits. That is clear.

The government is once again limiting access to employment insurance by changing the appeal mechanisms for workers who are denied. We have proven that it will become increasingly difficult for claimants to appeal. It will have to be done in writing, and the wait times are increasing for responses. Not to mention the fact that there are fewer people to respond to claimants or to potential claimants hoping to receive benefits, since they are among those 19,000 people I mentioned earlier, who are unemployed and looking for work.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the question posed by the member opposite regarding access to employment insurance, which we recognize is a vital resource for those who lose their jobs.

According to the 2011 employment insurance coverage survey, results among unemployed workers who have been paying EI premiums and those who are laid off show that 8 out of 10 are eligible for EI benefits.

We know that most Canadians want to work.

Our government's top priority remains job creation and economic growth. That is why we have introduced changes to better connect Canadians with available jobs. We are providing enhanced labour market information to claimants to support their job search efforts, including enhanced online job alerts. EI recipients can now get job postings up to twice a day for their chosen occupation within their community, as well as postings for jobs in related occupations.

These job alerts will help them to make more informed decisions about how to conduct their job search.

We have also strengthened and clarified what is required of claimants who are receiving EI regular benefits. The definition of suitable employment is based on a number of criteria, such as working conditions, hours of work, commuting time and personal circumstances. Two additional criteria, type of work and wages, vary based on the claimant's EI history and the time spent on claim.

EI claimants will never be expected to take a job that is hazardous to their health or physically too difficult for them to perform. They will never be expected to take a job that makes them worse off than they would be on employment insurance.

We are also increasing the coordination between the temporary foreign worker program and the EI program. Many employers have said they are facing significant skills and labour shortages and need to have access to temporary foreign workers. We want to ensure, though, that Canadians who are available and have the right skills have the first crack at those jobs. That said, the temporary foreign worker program will continue to be there for employers, as is needed.

These changes are about empowering unemployed workers, helping them get back into the workforce and focusing resources where they are needed most. That is why Canadians elected us to do what the NDP continues to vote against time and time again.

Finally, let me make it clear that the employment insurance program is there and will continue to be there for unemployed Canadians who lose their jobs through no fault of their own, and it will continue to be there when they need it.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I feel like we are playing cat and mouse. The secretary of state is saying that 80% of Canadians are eligible for employment insurance, but we are saying that only 40% of those eligible are receiving benefits and that people are being excluded because they cannot access EI, which is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain.

I found some figures to illustrate this. The number of people receiving regular benefits dropped in all provinces in December. The largest decline, in percentage points, was in Prince Edward Island, where there are very few jobs in the winter and where the number of claimants dropped to 4.6%. In Newfoundland and Labrador, it dropped by 4.1%. In Manitoba, the number of people receiving regular benefits is now 3.3%.

In December, the number of claimants in Saskatchewan dropped by 2.5%; in Nova Scotia, by 2.1%; in New Brunswick, by 1.9%; in Alberta, 1.7%; in Quebec, 1.1%; in Ontario, 0.8%; and in British Columbia, 0.8%.

In conclusion, it is obvious that this reform is being completely improvised, and Canadians deserve a better safety net than that. They are entitled to more.

We are entitled to ask this government the following: what will happen to these people without jobs and without any income?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that both the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development expect Canada to be among the growing economies of the G7 this year and the next.

However, we are not immune to global economic uncertainty and we are well aware of our recovery during this fragile economy. That is why the economic action plan brought changes to the employment insurance to help better connect Canadians with available jobs, and since July 2009, our labour market has created over 900,000 net new jobs.

It is important to also note, and I have mentioned this before this evening, that employment insurance will continue to be available to those who need it and have paid into it. Those who are unable to find employment will continue to have employment insurance available to them, as it always has been.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it will be interesting to see who answers the question. I was somewhat hopeful that it would be either the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration because I have been raising a very serious issue. Not only was it a number of months ago that I raised the issue about services, but I have been talking about this issue as recently as the last few days in the House.

There is a great deal of concern from residents across this land, from coast to coast to coast, in regard to how long it is taking to acquire citizenship. Back in 2005, the Liberal government committed close to $70 million to speed up processing times for individuals who met the residential requirements and wanted to get citizenship. I have no idea what the government has done with that money. What we do know is that the processing times have gotten worse and worse every year. This is completely unacceptable. We want the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism to deal with this issue. He seems to be more preoccupied and focused on his potential leadership ambitions or whatever it might be, as opposed to dealing with what is important to Canadians. What is important to Canadians is to speed up the unacceptable processing times to get citizenship.

We are not interested in the rhetoric from the government. We want to see tangible action. What is the government going to do to speed up processing times for citizenship? It is not acceptable that it now takes two years and longer, especially if people want the residency test applied. Then we are talking four, five or six years before people can get citizenship.

I appreciate that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is somewhat aware of the issue. The minister addressed it when I first asked the question, and the parliamentary secretary addressed it the more recent times I asked this question. He needs to be straightforward with residents. We are talking about more than 300,000 residents all across Canada who have been waiting in excess of two years to get their citizenships processed. That is just not good enough.

The question I would now pose to the minister is the same question I posed last Friday. Will the government acknowledge that it needs to speed up the processing time for people applying for citizenship and agree to have a specific target of less than a year as a goal? Is he prepared to make that commitment today?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to hear the Liberal Party, while it is now sitting in third place in the House of Commons, talk about expediting, rushing, hurrying, being fair to citizens, being fair to those foreign skilled workers who are trying to come to this country and being fair to temporary workers who are trying to fill positions here that cannot be filled by Canadians.

It is great to finally hear the Liberal members. It is too bad that while they were in government, they did not even think about trying to tackle the immigration file, about trying to make it better, trying to make it more efficient and trying to make it more responsive. It is great to hear them finally acknowledge all of the mistakes they made while they were in government. They turned them over to us and are now starting to complain about the fact that they should have done a much better job.

It is good to hear that they are finally on the right track when it comes making sure that we are moving forward on the backlogs, because immigrants from across this country resoundingly rejected the Liberals' handling of the immigration file in the last election. When we look at their record, it is no surprise as to why.

We will not take any lessons from the Liberals on how to manage this immigration system, based on the kind of wait times they left for those who are trying to become Canadian citizens and those who are trying to come here through the various other areas of immigration that we have.

It is important to point out that the ministry is now accepting applications and payment online for a growing number of immigration streams and is moving toward a paperless system. This means that much less physical space is required. We are able to expedite individual files on a much more timely basis, while at the same time maintaining a ministry office in each and every province in our country.

We have also revamped the website, including online wizards, how-to tutorial videos, and online help centres, so that applicants can receive the information and help they need. It is a lot more convenient, and it is 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

When it comes to processing times, the member has asked on a number of occasions about this question. Let us look at the facts.

First of all, Canadians should be proud that there is such a high demand for Canadian citizenship. After all, who would not want to be a citizen in the greatest country in the world?

Second, I am not sure what the Liberal Party is bragging about, because under the Liberals, in 2005, one year before we took office, the processing time for citizenship was 17 months. Between 2006 and 2011, the average processing time for citizenship was 17 months. It was exactly the same.

What the member is purposely not mentioning is the fact that our government has welcomed the highest sustained levels of immigration in Canadian history. That means there has been a significantly higher demand for citizenship. We have processed 30,000 more applicants on a yearly basis, and we have maintained that 17-month processing time.

I think we have addressed the issue. We are going to do some more work. We are obviously trying to make sure that we expedite every single backlog that we have in each individual area within this ministry. In fact, 185,000 individuals have become Canadian citizens each and every year since we have been in government.

We have made improvements and we are going to continue to make improvements. One thing we are going to make sure of is that the threshold for Canadian citizenship in this country will continue to rise because of this government.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals were in government and recognized the processing times were getting lengthy at 17 months, we made a commitment of $69 million to speed up that processing time because we believed that it needed to be under 12 months.

Today it has become a lot worse. There are a lot more residency requirements, and individuals are waiting two, three, and four years, and even beyond that. The area that the minister is responsible for has gotten a lot worse. We budgeted additional money to reduce the time.

The question is actually very simple: when you think ahead to the 300,000-plus people, which is a record high number, when are you going to be able to deliver citizenship in a more timely fashion? We need to speed up the processing time. Will you set some goals?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to the parliamentary secretary, I would like to remind all hon. members to address their comments to the Chair rather than to their colleagues.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have addressed the question. In fact, this government and the Minister of Immigration have addressed the question.

Since we took government, we have lowered the backlogs in every category we received from the Liberals, whether it be foreign skilled workers, or those seeking refuge in our country or those seeking citizenship. We have ensured that all wait times and backlogs dealing with family reunification, sponsorship and adoption are down because there is a higher demand for those who want to become Canadian citizens and permanent residents because of the last six years of this government. We are processing faster and processing more.

I can assure the House that we are delivering on the time frames to which we have committed.

Health

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak about a very serious matter that I discussed with the Minister of Transport on November 29.

Unfortunately, even though the situation is serious and the concerns are shared by a majority of the population, the Minister of Transport gave an unsatisfactory answer. I spoke about it to groups working on this issue, that is the people who are really concerned about and directly affected by the red dust and contamination by various heavy metals, as proven by analyses.

I will not repeat in the House the comments I received because it would be too easy to accuse me of using unparliamentary language. However, that gives an idea of the tenor of the issue and the indignation of the people of Quebec City with regard to the response by the Minister of Transport.

I will distill the minister's response. He clearly said that the Port of Quebec is an independent organization that assumes its responsibilities. Whether the Minister of Transport likes it or not, the reality, as the Department of Transport clearly stated, is that the Port of Quebec is one of the Canadian port authorities under the supervision of Transport Canada, which is also responsible for compliance with environmental laws, in particular the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

According to Transport Canada, the department also oversees the environmental management of leased facilities. Port authorities have a certain amount of autonomy, but they are accountable, and the Minister of Transport must take responsibility for them.

There is something very disturbing about this whole situation. Since I raised this question, Véronique Lalande, the woman who warned the public, received her lab results and was able to take a closer look. The samples she sent for analysis contained potentially dangerous metals such as arsenic, copper, lead, zinc and nickel.

I will focus on nickel, which is a potentially highly toxic metal. It was present in very high concentrations and could be quite dangerous.

For the benefit of the Minister of Transport, I simply want to remind the House that nickel dust can be carcinogenic. It can cause lung and throat cancer.

In addition, the skin reacts to varying degrees after coming into contact with nickel. A significant percentage of the population is potentially allergic to nickel—some studies say as much as 12%. In Limoilou, thousands of people were affected.

First, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport again if he was aware of the problem. Second, I would like to ask him if he has really taken any action on this issue, instead of simply waiting for the situation to deteriorate.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the hon. member for his question. In response to the question from the member for Beauport—Limoilou, I am pleased to comment on the incident that occurred last October at the Port of Quebec and that affected some residents in part of the Limoilou sector.

On October 26, 2012, Quebec Stevedoring, a company that operates on the quays in the Port of Quebec, unloaded a ship containing a cargo of iron oxide, which is a fairly fine iron ore substance that also contains fine dust. Unloading began during the day, and no incident was reported. However, unloading continued until dusk, and fine mineral dust in the bottom of the ship's hold was discharged. That was when the unloading created a red dust cloud that affected part of Limoilou's residential sector.

After learning about the incident, Quebec Stevedoring put in place measures to respond adequately to the situation and to make sure that this kind of incident does not happen again. Specifically, Quebec Stevedoring set up a telephone line for residents who were affected by the dust cloud to help them get financial assistance to clean their goods and property.

Quebec Stevedoring also improved its operations to minimize the risk of a reoccurrence, mainly by adding water cannons. For its part, the Quebec Port Authority is installing a new dynamic system to monitor the nature and quantity of air emissions from port operations.

As you can see, the port authority reacted promptly to the incident on October 26, 2012. I would like to point out that this is an isolated event despite the millions of tonnes of dry bulk cargo that are transported to the Port of Quebec each year. As a result, there is nothing to indicate that we are dealing with a public health problem.

I am fully confident in the ability of Port of Quebec officials to take the action required to ensure that strategic economic activities can continue in Quebec and in Quebec City, and to protect the health of city residents and the environment they live in.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my disappointment with the answer I was given. Beyond warnings and, at the very least, public concern, there are some stakeholders, such as the Agence de la santé et des services sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale and the Quebec department of the environment, who took the incident very seriously and made arrangements to examine the issue.

I would like for Arrimage du Saint-Laurent, which is the name of the company, and the Port of Quebec to take some measures, but that does not in any way absolve the minister of his responsibilities and does not mean that he does not have to take an interest in what is happening. The analyses that Ms. Lalande received showed that there were very high—potentially toxic—concentrations of heavy metals. This issue cannot be avoided. Provincial authorities do not have jurisdiction over port facilities, which are a federal responsibility.

What is stopping the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities? Is he waiting until he is backed into a corner?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I am fully confident in the ability of Port of Québec representatives to take the action required to ensure that strategic economic activities can continue, and to protect the health of residents of beautiful Quebec City and the environment they live in.

The Port of Québec's tonnage rate for 2011 makes it a leader among port authorities on the St. Lawrence. Nearly 29 million tonnes of goods passed through Quebec City's port authority in 2011, which is an 18% increase over 2010. Quebec City's port and marine activities generate over $786 million in economic spinoffs every year.

The economy is our main priority, but we can protect health and the environment at the same time.