Carole Lavallée

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, April 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois readily supports the principle of Bill C-3, the international bridges and tunnels act, but we still have some reservations, which I will explain in the next few minutes.

I would first like to make the point, for the benefit of the Quebec audience, that there is only one international bridge in Quebec, the one in Sutton. It is on the Vallée-Missisquoi road and crosses the Missisquoi River in Sutton. An old, metal bridge, it is approximately 50 metres long and was built around 1929. It spans a beautiful gorge. It is used by many trucks and appears in need of repair. It is owned by both Vermont, primarily, and the municipality of Sutton. It is inspected by Quebec's Department of Transport and in conjunction with Vermont as well. The municipality is responsible for repair costs, under a Quebec infrastructure fund. Vermont pays approximately 70% of repair costs.

Now that I have clearly described our international bridge in Quebec, I will address the positive aspects of Bill C-3.

There has been a legal void in the area of international bridges and tunnels. Bill C-3 aims to improve the security of these structures. According to the Department of Transport, local stakeholders are in favour of the provisions of this bill.

Let us now move on to the negative aspects. In the international brides and tunnels legislative framework, a very broad policing power is being given to the government such as the power to investigate without a warrant and a very authoritarian power of seizure. The government has the power to legislate, but the financial responsibility rests on other shoulders. In time, this situation can lead to conflicts.

The current bill left out a number of important and highly useful measures that were in Bill C-44. I will come back to that.

For example, there was a requirement that airline advertising be more transparent. The airlines would have had to change their advertising methods. They would have been required to list the total price of the flight including related fees. This measure was much demanded by the consumer associations.

The provisions of Bill C-44 that are missing from Bill C-3 would have improved the conflict resolution process for sharing the rail lines between passenger transportation companies and freight companies. Bill C-44 included a section under which a railway company wishing to sell a railway line would first offer it to any interested urban transit authorities, giving municipal governments priority in order to avoid tearing up the tracks.

The new VIA Rail Canada Act, proposed by Bill C-44, would have given it greater decision-making power, in the hope of improving rail transportation, reducing environmental impact and achieving energy savings.

Section 32 of Bill C-44 would have provided the Canadian Transportation Agency with authority to address complaints relating to railway noise in order to require railway companies to take measures to prevent unreasonable noise, particularly around marshalling yards.

I will speak later about these measures which are not found in Bill C-3. First, I would like to give the background of this last bill, which was introduced at first reading on April 24, 2006. It seeks to bring forward part of former Bills C-44 and C-26.

There are 24 international vehicular bridges and tunnels connecting Canada and the United States: 14 in Ontario, nine in New Brunswick and only one in Quebec, as I mentioned earlier. In addition there are five railway bridges and tunnels in Ontario. Only five of these crossings are owned by the federal government. According to the Department of Transport, the events of 9/11 brought to light the importance of protecting these vital infrastructures.

Responsibility for international bridges and tunnels lies with the federal government, which has sole legislative jurisdiction in this matter . However, the federal government does not have the clearly defined legislative and regulatory authority to administer these crossings. According to the Department of Transport, there is currently no process to approve the construction of new bridges or tunnels or alterations to existing structures.

In the past, the construction of a bridge or tunnel was authorized by a special act of Parliament and by the adoption of identical legislation in the United States. Again according to the department, consultation of key players was carried out and the provisions of Bill C-44 received considerable support. The majority of players were eager to participate in the regulatory process.

The provisions in this new bill are practically identical to those in Bill C-44. The enactment contains two new provisions: approval for all changes in ownership, operation and control, and clarification of the process for obtaining permits to build bridges over the St. Lawrence River.

Besides confirming the federal government’s jurisdiction with respect to international bridges and tunnels, the proposed legislation would enable the federal government to issue guidelines concerning approval for the construction or alteration of new and existing bridges or tunnels; specify conditions regarding bridge maintenance and operation; approve changes in ownership, control or operation of international bridges or tunnels; and finally, ensure that the crossings are safe and secure.

The expression “international bridge or tunnel” means “a bridge or tunnel, or any part of it, that connects any place in Canada to any place outside Canada, and includes the approaches and facilities related to the bridge or tunnel”. As hon. members know, international bridges or tunnels cannot be build without government approval. Such approval may be given to the site or plans of an international bridge over the St. Lawrence River.

Other provisions state that the government may make regulations respecting the maintenance, repair, operation, use, security and safety of international bridges and tunnels. The bill also provides that the Minister may make any appropriate directions, if he is of the opinion that there is an immediate threat to the security or safety of any international bridge or tunnel or to the safety of persons. Government approval would also be necessary to change the ownership, control or operation of international bridges or tunnels. Under this bill, it would also be possible to establish a crown corporation to administer a bridge or tunnel.

Unfortunately, very broad police powers are being granted to the government, such as the power to investigate without a warrant and a most authoritarian power of seizure. I am referring to clause 39.

A great deal of what Bill C-44 provided for is not covered by Bill C-3, particularly with respect to rail transportation. For instance, Bill C-44 proposed improvements to the shipper protection regime for rail service users and the elimination of the requirement for the Canada Transportation Agency to determine whether the commercial harm to the shipper would be substantial.

It would appear that the time allotted me has expired.

[Saint-Hubert Citizen Advocacy, April 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the mandate of the Parrainage civique Saint-Hubert community agency is to help adolescents with mental and physical disabilities become socially active in the community. The agency does this by pairing adult volunteers with young people who are having a hard time integrating socially due to a temporary or permanent disability. In other words, they match a dedicated adult with a young person in need.

Adults devote a few hours of their time, around the same time every week, to an adolescent who may be experiencing difficulty due to a physical or mental disability.

Every summer, Parrainage civique Saint-Hubert also organizes day camps for such young people, thus giving their parents a well-deserved rest.

Next week, April 9 to 15, is citizen advocacy week in Quebec. Thus, now is the perfect time to highlight the extraordinary work of this agency and, particularly, its president, Richard Rioux, its general manager, Yvette Leblanc, and their collaborators, Marianne Veilleux-Poulin, Jacinthe Barabé and Benoît Renaud.

[Canada Labour Code, November 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government voted yesterday against the Bloc Québécois bill on preventive withdrawal, which would have allowed Quebec women in workplaces regulated by the Canada Labour Code to receive the same benefits as women working under by Quebec law. They would have received 90% of their net income, instead of 55% of their gross income. Furthermore, they would have been able to keep their weeks of maternity leave.

How can we tell them that the government is refusing to give women whose jobs are regulated by federal legislation the same benefits that women in Quebec get under Quebec law?

[Canada Labour Code, November 22nd, 2005]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on Bill C-380 concerning preventive withdrawal.

First, I would like to commend my colleague, the hon. member for Shefford, for introducing this excellent bill. As we know, he is an experienced unionist, a man sensitive to the interests of the workers, both men and women. He has taken it upon himself to introduce this bill to make the lives of pregnant or nursing employees easier.

In Quebec, we have a situation that does not make any sense. We have two categories of female employees. There are those covered by the Quebec labour code, who account for 90% of all female employees, while others work for enterprises under Quebec jurisdiction and are entitled to benefits from the CSST, Quebec's occupational health and safety commission, when they are pregnant and working in an inappropriate environment for them or their child to be. On presentation of a medical certificate, the organization takes steps to reassign the employee, which is the thing to do. When that is not possible, which unfortunately happens far too often, a complete mechanism is set in motion to ensure that this difficult, painful and unfortunate situation has as little impact as possible on the employee.

In Quebec, the government, in cooperation with the CSST, has put in place a mechanism to ensure that these employees start receiving immediately and with no waiting period 90% of their salary for as long as necessary. That does not prevent them from taking advantage of parental leave benefits for a total of 65 weeks.

Some 90% of workers in Quebec are in this situation. Furthermore, 8% of workers are subject to the Canada Labour Code. They work for banks, airline companies, in ports, airports and telecommunication companies. Unfortunately, they have no mechanism to avail themselves of should they end up pregnant in an inadequate work environment. They receive employment insurance benefits, go through the two-week waiting period, and receive only 55% of their salary up to a maximum of $413 a week.

To punish them further, every week of their preventative withdrawal is subtracted from their 65 weeks of maternity or parental leave. That is not much of a benefit. What do you suppose happens? There are women who, financially speaking, cannot afford such a pay cut or a two-week waiting period because they had the nerve to work in an environment that was not healthy for them, their baby or their fetus.

It was for those reasons that the Bloc Québécois, through the hon. member for Shefford, introduced Bill C-380. This is not the first time the Bloc has presented this: this is the fifth time it is introducing this bill in this House. We are doing so because we truly do not want there to be two types of workers in Quebec; we want all of them to have the exact same quality of work and the same quality of family life. This absolutely must be advantageous to all women. It is not right that this difference has existed for so long. It is easy to imagine how discouraging and frustrating it must be for these women who are exposed to situations that are unhealthy to them, their baby or their fetus.

I have most certainly noticed that our NDP colleagues will support this bill. I also see that our colleagues from the Conservative Party will vote in favour of it. I am quite disappointed, however, to see that the Liberal government is going to oppose this bill for the rather odd reasons it has provided.

If the trend continues, there is a strong possibility that we will not be sitting in this House next week. If we had all voted in favour of this bill today, it could have been passed quickly. This is what we should have done, this is what the Liberals should have done. However, they decided to oppose this legislation. The vote will take place tomorrow.

The Liberals could have done a good deed and extend a helping hand to pregnant workers. It would not be that complicated because, in its present form, the bill provides that pregnant workers in a province, such as Quebec, would simply have to avail themselves, after an agreement is reached between the federal and provincial governments, of the existing remedies, if applicable. So, the Liberals could have done a good deed and extend a helping hand to female workers.

It is difficult for the Liberal government to display something it does not have, but still it could have tried to show some sensitivity towards female workers and do a good deed. It could have stopped showing contempt towards them. It could have been sensitive to the difficult situations of people who are not rich and who have limited means. Unfortunately, the government prefers to vote against this bill, under the pretence that, some day, it will amend part III of the Canada Labour Code.

The government will try to win votes by saying that it is sensitive to families, and that it has programs to help them. But if the government had really wanted to do something to help them, it would have voted in support of this bill. Today, tomorrow and the day after, women who are only getting 55% of their salary could have received 90%, like women in Quebec, where this provision is already in effect, and where we do not have to reinvent the wheel. We are not asking for changes coast to coast. We are only asking that there be no differences in Quebec—or that these differences be eliminated—so that all female workers can enjoy the same benefits. That is not very complicated.

On the eve of an election campaign, one wonders how the Liberal government can continue to claim to help families, women and workers, when it will not even support this bill. This government could straighten out the situation of working women by quickly reaching an agreement with its Quebec counterpart.

[Privilege, November 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to ask the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands some questions. In fact, there is something that I do not understand.

The member for Bourassa tells us that the Bloc householder is detrimental to his job in the Parliament, and he is asking for apologies. However, the Bloc Québécois exists to defend the interests of Quebeckers. This includes informing them properly. There is something that does not make sense. The sponsorship scandal, that is the scandal surrounding the management of the sponsorship program, was mentioned not by us but by the credible Justice Gomery. He says this in his report:

The Commission of Inquiry found:

clear evidence of political involvement in the administration of the sponsorship program;

Later on, he states:

a complex web of financial transactions among Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC), crown corporations and communication agencies, involving kickbacks and illegal contributions to a political party in the context of the sponsorship program;

At the end, he adds:

the refusal of ministers, seniors officials in the Prime Minister's Office and public servants to acknowledge their responsibility for the problems of mismanagement that occurred.

That is why I do not understand how someone can ask for an apology from the Bloc Québécois in such a context.

Is it not the Liberal Party which should stand in the House and apologize to Canadians? It should send householders, not only in Quebec, but across Canada, to apologize for spending and squandering our money, Canadians' money. It should create websites to apologize. It should also get the word out in major weekly publications.

[Sponsorship Program, November 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will have to repeat my question because the members opposite are unable to answer simple questions.

With regard to the sponsorship program, Jean Chrétien said that he had ordered Treasury Board to make the necessary checks and said they assured him many times that there were no problems.

Does this not prove that the Prime Minister, who was then vice-chair of the Treasury Board, decided to turn a blind eye, stick his head in the sand and refuse to hear the mounting evidence with regard to the sponsorships?

[Sponsorship Program, November 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Jean Chrétien said, with regard to the sponsorship program, that he had ordered Treasury Board to make the necessary checks and said they assured him many times that there were no problems.

Does this not prove that the Prime Minister, who was then vice-chair of the Treasury Board, chose to turn a blind eye, even if there was mounting evidence to the contrary with regard to the sponsorships?

[Sponsorship Program, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, today the Gomery report clearly demonstrates that there was political direction from the head of the government down and an organized kick-back system to the advantage of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Will the Prime Minister admit that all Liberal Party of Canada candidates in the 1997 and 2000 elections benefited from sponsorship money?

[Sponsorship Program, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, according to Justice Gomery, former Prime Minister Chrétien has to shoulder part of the blame for the sponsorship scandal. The current Prime Minister has refused to answer questions from the media about whether he blames Jean Chrétien.

This is my question. Does the Prime Minister share Justice Gomery's conclusion that Jean Chrétien must take part of the blame for the sponsorship scandal? Yes or no?

[Justice, October 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in June, the Bloc Québécois called on the government to make a commitment to afford justice before Canadian courts to victims of torture in foreign countries. At the time, the Minister of Justice said that he was studying the matter. But yesterday, Louise Arbour criticized the Canadian government for being soft on the subcontracting of torture, as did the UN Commission Against Torture and, just recently, Amnesty International.

Four months later, has the minister had enough time to think? Will he finally act now?