Antoine Dubé

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, before commenting on Motion No. 6, I would first like to respond to the remarks by the hon. member for Scarborough East, who has a lot of hopes riding on this matter. He is probably quite sincere. I know him, and he is sincere in what he is saying.

He has high hopes that with the tabling of the annual report a number of his questions will be answered. He spoke of reasons for detention, of the proportion of citizens and non-citizens and of how the relevant provisions will be applied. Apart from the third question, he would have been more prudent had he made sure these questions were transformed into criteria determined ahead of time so he would have some assurance of their being considered.

The law currently provides that the annual report cannot be debated in the House; it is merely tabled. Theoretically, it could be examined by a committee, but a House committee is not the House.

I think the member has gone as far as he can as a Liberal backbencher. He could go no further. He said the people in his riding have made him aware of their concerns. He said the people in his riding are of diverse backgrounds, and some are afraid of being targeted by the police.

I am picking up his remarks, because, under the circumstances, it is probably the best speech we have heard from the members opposite since the start of the debate on this matter. Unless I have misunderstood him, he is sure this bill will be challenged and for well founded reasons.

In the situation where I was faced with a bill I was pretty sure would be challenged by people in my riding, and for good reason, I would oppose it. I do not know whether the member for Scarborough East is listening, but in such a case I would oppose it. This is not what he seems to want to do. It is incredible to hear that. I do not doubt his sincerity and his honesty, but I have doubts about his sense of consequence.

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this bill ratifies at least two or three international treaties that have been in limbo here for the past few years.

What explanation is there, under the circumstances, for the minister's desire to rush through consideration of this bill now, when she dragged her feet in having parliament ratify the international treaties? How does she justify so much political power being given to determining the famous certificates?

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take part in this debate from the perspective of my short experience as a member of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Even though this bill deals with internal security in Canada, I would like to express my views with that new experience in mind.

Witnesses from various countries and international associations who appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Rights and International Development told us how important and urgent it is that Canada intervene to uphold human rights in other countries.

We should acknowledge that, over the years, Canada has earned an excellent reputation because it advocated the protection of human rights and it has been, to use the Prime Minister's words, the best country in the world as far as the defence of human rights goes.

But, in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the government has introduced a series of bills, including Bill C-36, dealing with judgments, arrests, and so on, in response to terrorist activities.

At the same time, the government has introduced Bill C-35, aimed at changing international conventions, and Bill C-42, on public transportation safety. We realize that the government reacted in a state of panic.

Although the importance of the terrorist actions of September 11 must not be diminished, including what occurred at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, actions that are unacceptable, we have reacted, because something had to be done. But it had to be done without losing sight of the balance to be maintained between safety and the right to individual freedoms.

Otherwise, as some members of my party have said before me, it would be an inappropriate reaction, playing into the hands of those who were responsible for the September 11 terrorist actions, that is, changing our democracy, our system of individual and group rights to suit the objectives of those rightly called terrorists.

This is not the intent. Safety may be increased and all measures improved, with new ones even being added, in order to increase security.

I personally have nothing against the fact that, for example, we spend more time in line-ups at the airports in order to get to our ridings, because I understand that to fight effectively against attacks like those carried out with planes on September 11, we must all accept that things take longer. I do not think many people in our country are against that.

We have all accepted measures, and there could be others, of course. But there is a limit. I am going to make a comparison. A bill was unanimously passed by MPs last spring against organized crime. There were a lot of deaths—I do not have the figures, but it seems to me there were over 160—which resulted from bikers' wars. Sometimes, it was a settling of accounts among criminals, but sometimes there were innocent victims too. The bill is still awaiting passage in the Senate. It must be following a fairly singular process, since, according to the government, there is some urgency.

There are therefore two processes, so that they are jostling each other at the doors, so to speak. So the bill was passed in a panic during the night.

My colleagues, the hon. members for Berthier—Montcalm, Châteauguay and Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, spent the night proposing a series of amendments in reaction to the pile of amendments proposed by the government, and discussed very rapidly. The whole thing had to be passed within hours.

They proposed some 60 amendments themselves, close to 66, in keeping with the Bloc Quebecois’ objections and aimed at improving this bill. To us, these amendments were a way of being consistent with our vote on second reading, which addressed the principle of the bill and was aimed at improving the situation in order to adopt new measures so that there could be an effective battle against terrorism and at the same time protection of our rights and freedoms.

When one speaks of preventive arrests, these are based on presumptions and on information received, without much idea of where it will lead. Preventive arrests are going to be made only on that basis, without complete evidence, supposedly in the name of national security. This information may sometimes come from the information services of other countries without any decision on them being made by the information commissioner; instead it will be the Department of Justice, or one might almost say the Minister of Justice, because there is sometimes much differentiation.

Hon. members will realize that the definition of terrorism is not clear, even though an attempt was made by a colleague to clarify it. In our opinion, this is not enough. This is why we feel that Motion No. 1 is incomplete. We agree with the other three motions, which are in line with the amendments that the Bloc Quebecois proposed in committee, but that were rejected.

The democratic process is at stake. The government prides itself in being a model for democracies. It keeps making that comment at every opportunity, whether it is when making representations or sending a delegation abroad, and even within the country. The government is very concerned about how human rights are respected elsewhere, but here some parts of the legislation will not be governed by the 1982 charter of human rights, the Trudeau charter. And it wants us to pass this bill very rapidly, after hearing witnesses very quickly.

This is an extremely important bill, yet the provinces were not consulted and no consultations took place outside Ottawa. And the government is gagging us once again. It is telling us that it will use closure, because it is in a hurry to pass this bill as quickly as possible.

As the NDP member said earlier, generally speaking, when a bill has a major impact and includes several new measures, parliament takes all the time necessary to review it. Hon. members do not feel pressured, as is the case now, to do things as quickly as possible and to discuss the legislation as little as possible.

Yet, the government has the necessary tools, including the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which could broaden its consultation. But instead the government is resorting to closure. We must always go faster. It is this kind of pressure which, in the end, generates even more concern, as was pointed out by several organizations, including one in particular.

I went to the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development. Amnesty International is concerned. It feels that the definition of terrorism is not specific enough and that this puts at risk those who may openly express their opinions. We should at least have the support of an organization like Amnesty International.

I would still have a lot to say but I will conclude by congratulating once again my three colleagues who worked really hard to try to propose an acceptable position.

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I believe this is not the same thing.

I hope that when international organizations want to take part in meetings, they do not use the services of people whom they know are members of organized crime.

When it comes to international meetings in Canada, what rules would the member or any other participant like to refer to? There should be some kind of code of conduct that other governments would have for him. We should always keep this in mind. What the member is suggesting is that countries that invite us are treating people from international organizations as if they were members of organized crime.

To do this would be excessive. I believe that organized crime must be controlled through the activities of the solicitor general and under the Criminal Code. We are examining a bill that deals with international organizations and foreign missions. Let us not confuse the issue. In my view, yielding to this temptation would lead to a police state.

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to speak on Bill C-35, which, my Liberal colleague reminds us, deals not with immigration or antiterrorist measures, but rather international meetings and foreign missions. This is what we are talking about now. We are now at third reading and realize that the government is refusing to withdraw clause 5. Most of my comments will focus on this.

Despite our voting in support of the principle of this bill at second reading, the fact that clause 5, which basically confers more powers to the RCMP, unrestricted powers, is being maintained, we do not believe it is appropriate to include powers for the RCMP in a bill that deals with the Department of Foreign Affairs. There are already provisions or powers granted to either the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General

It is somewhat strange to have measures dealing with powers conferred to the RCMP suddenly appear under the responsibility of the Department of Foreign Affairs. I have not researched the laws in other countries, but I am told that this is not the usual approach.

So one has to ask why, all of a sudden, RCMP powers, including the power of determining safety perimeters during international meetings, have to be included in a bill under the jurisdiction of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Apparently some of the government witnesses who testified before the committee—I was not present myself—have said themselves that for the next G-8 meeting in Alberta next June, there is no need at all to amend Bill C-35.

Since this is the only international meeting planned for now, one has to ask why? If it is not necessary for this meeting, which is only planned for June, why do it?

Everyone can hypothesize as to why. My own feeling is that the answer can be found in the effects of the unfortunate events of September 11 at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in the United States. One cannot help but feel sad and we do, but, at the same time, I believe that governments around the world must refrain from contributing to spreading panic needlessly by using these events to broaden the powers of the police. I am not taking aim at the police per se. Giving more powers to the police without giving them guidelines on their use is like giving a hot potato to my neighbour who might not know immediately how to handle it.

I do not want to impugn motives and say that in general the police do a poor job. However, occasionally they can make mistakes because of tiredness or for all sorts of other factors.

The Quebec City summit where the blame could be laid on both sides is a case in point. I am not here to applaud people who carry out acts of vandalism, but at the same time as a member of the standing committee on foreign affairs and human rights , where all year long and as events unfold we hear witnesses and observers testify that human rights are consistently being trampled, we at home should not be too free about giving increased powers to the RCMP. It could arrange to be less lenient. Then, we would have less freedom of speech. Again I must stress that we are not talking about the anti-terrorism bill neither are we discussing the changes to the Immigration Act.

We are discussing a bill intended to support the desire of the minister, of the Canadian government, to hold international meetings here. Unless, of course, no more are wanted. Judging by what the previous speaker just said, every time foreigners come here, we would have to take care.

On the other side of the coin, when we take part in international meetings outside the country, we have a right to expect a certain number of rules and guidelines relating to immunity and security, because not many would go to an international meeting if told “In that country, the Geneva convention is not applied, nor the various other international conventions. It is not certain that there will really be security, and the agenda topics will be highly controversial. But feel free to go”.

I am pretty sure that no hon. members would go to international meetings if that were the case. We are, like it or not, fully into an era of globalization: communications, faster and faster air travel and so on. Whether we like or dislike globalization, it is here to stay. Increasingly, problems are international in nature.

At the same time, every nation wants to see its representatives address these questions. It is like politics. When I was younger and less interested in politics than my father was, he kept on telling me “You may not be interested in politics, but politics will be interested in you”.

I would say the same about international politics, about globalization; it will be interested in us. So we have no choice but to deal with it. This means taking part in foreign missions and receiving in our country international bodies that are organizing meetings here.

I forgot to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Joliette, provided he arrives in time. If not, I have a pinch hitter lined up in the person of the hon. member for Lotbinière, who will step up to the plate as soon as I have finished my allotted ten minutes. I still have three minutes to find out who will be speaking next. I apologize for doing things this way, but I wanted to make sure I was following the parliamentary rules, since I am talking about respecting rules internationally. Needless to say, the rules here have to be respected as well.

Let us now talk about these three new provisions under clause 5. The first one is very direct and cannot be said to be engaging in excessive diplomacy, since it says:

10.1(1) The Royal Canadian Mounted Police has the primary responsibility to ensure the security for the proper functioning of any intergovernmental conference in which two or more states participate, that is attended by persons granted privileges and immunities under this Act and to which an order made or continued under this Act applies.

As for the other provisions, they relate to the first one and refer to security perimeters and all such issues.

Again, the rules governing diplomatic immunity do not apply to a refugee who wants to come to Canada. They are rules on temporary immunity that apply to someone who comes from abroad in the context of an international meeting. Of course, there are also ambassadors, consuls and consular staff who are here all year round.

This legislation will modernize and update what existed previously, but did not include some international meetings and non-governmental organizations that are present in Canada on a permanent basis and are entitled to be treated as international organizations, just as we expect our people, whether they are volunteers or have some other status, to be treated in the same fashion when they belong to international organizations abroad.

There is no reason to keep clause 5, which gives greater powers to the RCMP, particularly since these powers are not limited. The RCMP—or the mounted police as the Prime Minister would say— might not know what to do with these powers, since there are no controls. Some would interpret the act in their own way, which would sometimes be the proper way, sometimes the not so proper way, and sometimes the wrong way, because there are no controls.

The Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice already have powers under several acts.

Because of the new context resulting from the September 11 events, we would not want to see a tightening of rules bringing us closer to a police state. This is not what we want. I am not saying this is the case, but we must not take steps in that direction.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 20th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-10.

Bill C-10 is a rehash of two predecessors, identified at the time as Bills C-8 and C-48. This raises the following question: why did the government not pass C-8? Why did the Liberals, in their third mandate, not pass C-48?

There are a number of reasons why. In the latter case, it is because the Prime Minister decided to call a hasty election in order to catch his adversaries by surprise, particularly the new leader of the Canadian Alliance. He put vote-getting ahead of a number of bills, and this one, along with 22 others fell by the wayside. I remember, because one of those was a private member's bill on shipbuilding.

Now we are only a few weeks away from the anniversary of that election call, at which time that bill on shipbuilding had gone through all the stages, second reading, clause by clause examination in committee and report stage. All that remained was third reading, but the Prime Minister preferred to call an election. I know that my bill was not the only reason; it was primarily to gain political advantage, one might say.

There is another question. If the government had not yet passed this bill on marine conservation areas, it is certainly not because it was a priority. If it was not a priority during the two previous mandates, is it really a priority now? I doubt it. I would tend to believe that the government does not have much to offer to the House in terms of a legislative agenda while the anti-terrorism legislation is still in the planning and consultation stages. In the meantime, it gives us this bill to discuss.

As I recall, when we were dealing with Bill C-8 and Bill C-48, on each occasion I took part in the debate and spoke against those bills for the very same reasons.

We in the Bloc Quebecois often bring up the fact that there is duplication between the federal and provincial governments. This is another case in point. Under the Constitution, natural resources and public lands come under provincial jurisdiction. It is a proven fact.

Nevertheless and in spite of warnings, in spite of the opposition, and in spite of the result of botched consultations, we have this bill before us. If an independent firm were asked to report on the kind of consultations that were carried out on the bill, it would not be very likely that the same company would be hired again. The data is not conclusive.

Moreover, this duplication is, I do not know how to say this, “intrafederal”. We are talking about creating marine conservation areas which would come under the Department of Canadian Heritage, but we already have marine protection areas under the responsibility of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We also have marine wildlife areas under the responsibility of the Department of the Environment.

It bears repeating: marine conservation areas, marine protection areas, and marine wildlife areas.

This, as my father would say, is a lot of hogwash. It is incomprehensible. By trying too hard to protect natural resources, the government may actually harm them, and I wonder about their motives. Apparently conservation is what they have in mind, but conservation in terms of heritage. I suppose that fish could be admired for their beauty or like any other typically Canadian item.

But these things are related and, during the consultations, people said “Yes, but there is a very distinct possibility when there is a desire to protect natural species for heritage reasons in the same areas as fisheries and ocean's marine protection areas”. But fisheries and oceans officials want there to be more fish and fisheries products to feed us, as well as provide work for people in regions such as the Gaspé or the maritimes. The Department of the Environment is also concerned because all this is very closely related.

And precisely because it is closely related, should these three kinds of areas not come under the jurisdiction of one federal body? Imagine the situation for people in Quebec or in other provinces trying to manage projects or areas under the authority of one or the other of these three departments. The federal government is in the process of inventing a weapon by which it can attack provincial jurisdictions from three different angles. One would think we were in Afghanistan, so intense is the bombardment. This will not do. It is intrafederal duplication.

The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord is laughing, but I know that he agrees with me. He too thinks it is ridiculous. But now, he can no longer say so because he is sitting with the Liberal majority. He is obviously forced to toe the party line. But when he was on this side of the House, he was in favour. Then, he was right to support the creation of the Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park.

Why was that a good project? Because there was an agreement between Quebec and the federal government intended not just to protect but to develop this beauty, which the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord could still develop.

I could give another example of co-operation that took place, but that is not moving as quickly as we would hope. I am referring to the St. Lawrence action plan, which concerns primarily the shores of the river. Many projects are waiting for funding and money. I saw the tremendous work done by priority intervention zones. The zone in my region is called the Zone d'interventions protégées de Chaudière-Appalaches. Several projects are waiting for money to develop and protect the environment, and to help the ecosystem.

But instead of that, what we have before us is a virtual bill, since it does not target a specific territory. This is an omnibus bill that would allow the government to get involved in jurisdictions that, again, belong to the provinces, this within a framework that does not include public lands alone, but also natural resources that belong to the provinces. This is being done after a rushed consultation process.

When we want a copy of the supposedly 300 pages on the outcome of these consultations, we are given 73. It is as if the protection of these areas were a military secret. It is almost forbidden to say where these areas will be located, as if this were a highly strategic piece of information. If this were a priority, the government would have included it the first time, in Bill C-8, and the second time, in Bill C-48. But it did not do so.

Now that things are quiet and that the government is not ready to go ahead with Bill C-36 because consultations are still going on, it is making us debate this issue in parliament.

I say that it is too bad for the Liberal government. Every time, we tell the government the same thing and say “You are getting involved in provincial jurisdictions. Instead of doing that, put money in your own jurisdictions, in national parks”.

Instead, a report from the auditor general talks about negligence and insufficient staff and funds, before adding that it is an ill-protected area. And the government wants to develop more areas. This just does not make sense.

[Contraventions Act, November 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answer of the parliamentary secretary, and I recognize his honest concern for the industry.

I know I have only a minute, but I would ask him to tell me, if the program exists, whether he has accepted applications? If so, how many and for how much?

I will not make a secret of this, I informed him of my question this afternoon, so I expect he was able to get the information. If no projects have yet been accepted with respect to future project applications, what might the deadline be for such an application?

The case of Davie is a matter of some urgency, because a creditors' meeting is scheduled for November 23.

[Contraventions Act, November 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have risen numerous times in the House to ask questions, make speeches, take part in question period, make comments, and speak during adjournment debate. I can see that the parliamentary secretary is preparing to respond.

This adjournment debate is on a question that I raised in the House on May 30. I will not repeat the preamble, but I ended my question by asking the following:

Why is the Minister of Industry not acting on the report entitled “Breaking Through”, which proposed effective and innovative policies instead of subsidies to support the shipbuilding industry?

We know that this report, which was made public in late March, was written by a committee that the minister struck himself following a commitment that he made as industry minister two days before the election was called. He made this promise in St. John's , Newfoundland. I was there myself and I heard his promise.

Of course, on June 19, after the House had risen, the minister responded to the recommendations made by the committee's report. He did respond to the recommendations.

We have been waiting ever since, not just me but all those interested in shipbuilding in Canada are waiting for an actual shipbuilding policy. We are still waiting for a shipbuilding program or programs with actual amounts attached.

In fact, the same day the minister said in a press release that $150 million, mainly in the form of loan insurance, would be spent over five years for shipbuilding. I checked with various shipyards in Canada and with a third party I had asked to get information directly from Department of Industry officials. Apart from having set up a shipbuilding division, most of the employees of which used to work for the department but now work in a new structure, nothing specific had been done and not one cent had been spent on shipbuilding in Canada.

My question is a very simple one. I would like to know more, and if I am mistaken, I would like the parliamentary secretary to the minister to say so today, about what exactly has been spent to help shipbuilding in Canada.

Since that time, I would remind the House, Davie Industries has gone bankrupt. Right now various committees are trying to help the industry get back on its feet in my riding. I am naturally concerned but, at the same time, I know that the shipyard in Saint John, New Brunswick, has not reopened. It has been closed for a year and a half, as has Marystown, and the list goes on.

Nothing has been done. It has been a year and some weeks since the formal commitment by the new Minister of Industry with respect to shipbuilding.

[Softwood Lumber, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for Champlain.

It is my pleasure to speak today in this emergency debate proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, and accepted by the Chair on Thursday last. In the end, this debate is taking place tonight because I believe it was more convenient for most members. I am also thrilled to hear from the Liberal members, because we often criticize them for being so silent. However, tonight it is fair to say that they seem to have found their voices, and we agree with what they have had to say.

This really is an emergency debate, since on October 31, the U.S. department of commerce began charging an additional duty of 12.58% on top of the 19.3% countervailing duty charged in August.

This is what three businesses in my riding were fearing when I met with their senior management on October 9. These three companies are Les bois Blanchet, owned by Leggett Wood, Moulin de préparation de bois en transit and Perfect-Bois. Together they employ 262 people.

This may not seem like a lot of people when compared to Davie Industries, which was mentioned frequently yesterday in the House. However, 262 employees is considerable, and the consequences are considerable for them and their families. This also has an economic impact. It has an impact because it supports manufacturing, and that is important.

I would also like to speak on behalf of the neighbouring ridings, because I am from the Chaudière—Appalaches region. This is one of the main areas in Quebec in terms of private forests. There are even businesses in the Chaudière—Appalaches region that process lumber from Maine, and then ship it back to the U.S.

This is somewhat exceptional. It may well exist elsewhere, but a number of companies in the Beauce region depend on this. It worked well for people on both sides of the border. On the American side, as we know, around Beauce, there is a fairly large area, and the Americans were happy to come and process their lumber in Quebec, and then turn around and take it back to the U.S.

Following recent events, the position of the Bloc Quebecois has not changed. I will repeat it and I know that several of my colleagues will do it also, but it cannot be overemphasized. As was mentioned by the Liberal members who just spoke, we want a complete return to free trade.

If I may, I will make a remark of a somewhat partisan nature here. I will say in all friendship that it is reassuring now to hear Liberal members speak in favour of free trade in their speeches. I remember the 1993 election campaign when the Prime Minister went as far as to talk about tearing up the free trade agreement. It is kind of amusing to see the change, but it is also interesting to see that these people have understood the importance of free trade in today's context.

We are calling for a meeting of all stakeholders to review Canada's strategy in this matter. For the past week, I have heard the Minister for International Trade say on several occasions “Yes, I talk to them. I phone them individually”.

However, as a group, the stakeholders want a summit to give everybody the opportunity to discuss this issue at the same time, to ensure that the agreement between the stakeholders continues to exist, to ensure that there are no backroom negotiations or last minute concessions.

We are concerned in Quebec because we are the second province that is the most affected by this issue, after British Columbia, of course. Quebec has 25% of Canada's production in that industry, which represents 40,000 jobs.

The sawmills employ 20,430 people and the forestry industry 10,000. We know that the total in Canada is in excess of 130,000 jobs. The softwood lumber industry injects more than $4 billion into the Quebec economy annually. That is a lot of money.

More than 250 Quebec municipalities have developed around lumber processing, and in 135 towns and villages 100% of manufacturing jobs are connected with it. The U.S. receives 51.4% of Quebec softwood lumber exports. The value of these exports is some $2 billion. This is all extremely important.

An aside here, for a rather special point. Yes, the Liberal MPs are fervent promoters of free trade. That is all very well, but I would point out that certain things like Davie Industries, shipbuilding and shipping were excluded from NAFTA. This is something I have always found regrettable and still do.

The American attitude is very often protectionist. Even in another area—not the subject of debate this evening—this was the case for tomatoes. Yet the Americans need us, particularly when it comes to fighting terrorism. We agree with them, but they often do need us. So they also need to play fair with softwood lumber.

The Bloc Quebecois is calling upon the Prime Minister to intervene personally with President Bush in order to get him to understand this. Today, during Oral Question Period, my leader called for a publicity campaign to raise the American public's awareness of the problem. It is in the best interests of the U.S. consumer to have more affordable, quality lumber for construction.

One cannot be pro-free trade just when it suits one country. One must be pro-free trade all the time and in all areas, if one believes in the principle.

There is one aspect of the problem the Liberal MPs have not addressed, although I believe they are sympathetic to these proposals. Emergency measures would have to be adopted to help those who are unemployed because of the softwood lumber crisis. First, by reducing the number of hours required to qualify for EI. Let us keep in mind that all this started in August and lumbering is a seasonal job.

The Bloc Quebecois is calling for a single minimum threshold of 420 hours for seasonal workers to be eligible for employment insurance.

Second, the Bloc is calling for an increase of five weeks in the maximum benefit period. Third, it wants longer benefits for older workers who have been laid off and who lack the skills needed to find another job quickly. Fourth, the Bloc proposes an increase in the coverage of insurable earnings from 55% to 60% to allow low and medium income workers to better endure a lengthy work stoppage.

I know that my time is passing quickly, but we have heard Liberal members, the Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade speak of free trade. This last person sometimes uses words that make us a bit nervous. Without speaking of negotiations, he talks of discussions and of the fact that they will do something based on free trade. This hints at a certain compromise that will not exactly be free trade and at certain conditions.

I am delighted by the speeches of the Liberal members who spoke before me. I think they sort of reminded their government of the way to go, although I realize that to be a member of the party in office is like diplomacy. They cannot proceed quite as directly as a member of the opposition.

Still, I enjoyed the speeches I heard, and I hope this will be the line followed by the current Liberal government, the Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade.

[Canada Labour Code, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-340, as moved by the hon. member for Laurentides. She had no difficulty at all securing my support for her bill.

I think it is a matter of pure common sense. We in Quebec believe it is about common sense, because for several years now, all women in this province, except those under federal jurisdiction, are covered by a loss of income program with respect to precautionary cessation of work or nursing in situations that may be dangerous to their own health or that of the child.

I thought this was self-evident. I was a little surprised the first time the hon. member mentioned this to me, saying it did not apply, because there was no legislation allowing it.

I have listened to the hon. members from the various parties in the House and was especially pleased to hear the Alliance member say that he will support the bill, even though he asked several questions. I gather my colleague will answer at least part of these questions, with the exception possibly of those requiring specific amounts, but we will see. I know she studied the matter very extensively.

I sensed agreement in principle in my colleague from the Canadian Alliance, and I am delighted with it, as well as with the support of the representatives of the other parties, including the NDP and the Progressive Conservative Party/Democratic Representative Caucus Coalition.

As for my colleague from the Liberal Party, who is of course entitled to speak in this House, he spoke on behalf of the government. We have heard his arguments. As far as prudence is concerned, the need for caution, because other provinces do not apply a measure similar to Quebec's as far as preventive withdrawal, I would like to take a few minutes to say that I am a bit astonished by this position.

In Quebec, even where areas of Quebec jurisdiction are involved, we find, and complain very regularly here about it, that the federal government is invading areas of jurisdiction that are exclusive to the provinces. In this case, it is not a matter of invading a jurisdiction, but allowing the provinces to solve a problem. I think that the federal government has a duty to set an example to the provinces, not in the sense of obliging them to action, but at least to removing constraints.

I hope to convince my colleague, who spoke on behalf of the government, that this is a premature measure. The hon. member for Laurentides reminded the House that this was the case for this bill, as did other colleagues who spoke to the amendments to measures contained in other bills. Each time, it was greeted with interest. But in the end, it never translated into any real legislation.

Given this fact, the member for Laurentides—and I would like to congratulate her—proposed a bill to provide the government with an opportunity to take action on the issue, because it had been forgotten, even though this measure seemed acceptable to many government members.

As we know, the standing orders were changed regarding the designation of certain bills as votable or non-votable. This bill was not designated votable, which is a real shame.

I know that the member for Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, a young member of this House, has often said that parliament must not only be a place where people speak, it should also be a place where people are consulted, and where people make decisions.

I know that he would agree with me when I say that, despite the member for Laurentides' wonderful initiative, the time we spend here discussing this bill, if we follow the logic or the rules of the House, is just that: time to debate it.

Indeed, the government does give us a lot of time to debate, but not very much time to decide, and seldom the opportunity to vote. It is all fine and dandy to debate, but we hardly ever get to decide or vote anymore.

When I explain this to my constituents, they tell me that they thought our role was more important than that. They also tell us “We are confident in your power of persuasion, and in that of a number of your colleagues, and we hope that through it, things will change”. That is why we talk, because we hope to be able to change things.

My message to the government representative is as follows. I know him somewhat and I know that his ideas are usually open. He is known to be interested in social issues in his riding. It was surely with no great pleasure that he agreed to read a speech prepared by the officials of the Department of Transport, probably. I trust that he could change his mind and help the government change its mind too, so that, in the future at least, this parliament is not just a platform for private members' business.

Members take time to formulate a bill and to draft it, with the help of the legal advisors here. They consult their community and experts in a given field, as the member for Laurentides did, and so this should be a votable item.

I would appreciate it if it could be. In the minute I have left, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to have this bill, which seems to be positively received by everyone, made votable. If we could vote, it could go to committee, witnesses would be heard and all questions could be answered, including those of the Alliance member, who wants more detailed information. At second reading, after an agreement in principle, he could vote for it or against it.

I therefore request unanimous consent to have Bill C-340 introduced by the member for Laurentides made votable.