Manon Perreault

[Persons with Disabilities, December 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, today is the International Day of Persons with Disabilities. We represent 15% of Canadians.

In 2010, the government ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The agreement stated that in April 2012 a report would be submitted on steps taken to improve the living conditions of Canadians with disabilities. Eight months later, the Conservatives still have not fulfilled their obligations.

Where is the report? When will it be tabled? This time, I hope I get a real answer.

[International Day of Disabled Persons, December 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, on this International Day of Disabled Persons, the NDP is celebrating everything that these individuals have done for our country.

An estimated 4.4 million Canadians have a disability. A great deal of progress has been made in eliminating barriers for people with disabilities. However, too often, they are still expected to meekly accept the barriers that prevent them from reaching their full potential and from participating in certain aspects of life that the rest of Canadians enjoy.

The NDP is aware of the difficulties that Canadians with disabilities face: greater financial insecurity, substandard housing, limited job opportunities and unequal access to the health care services they need. We are calling on the government to fulfill its obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as quickly as possible.

The NDP team is dedicated to building a fairer and more prosperous Canada where all Canadians can reach their full potential. The NDP is asking all members to work with us to improve the lives of Canadians with disabilities.

[First Nations, November 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Motion No. 386, which asks for the House's support in initiating a formal process of direct engagement with the first nations that would replace the Indian Act with a series of new agreements.

These consultations would begin and end according to a precise schedule. They would lead to the writing of a report that would establish specific, meaningful elements on which the government could take action once the consultations are complete.

The repeal of the Indian Act will not be a sad occasion. It is a completely outdated, irrelevant, heavily bureaucratic tool for oppressing the first nations.

We are nowhere near having an act that meets their needs. In fact, the opposite is true. This issue deserves to be treated seriously. It is a call for action to eliminate the government's trusteeship over the first nations.

We must put an end to their status as wards of the federal government. This is one of the most pressing problems facing Canada. It is time to change things once and for all. It is time to put an end to the old habit of settling each dispute on a piecemeal basis. According to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the act not only includes discriminatory elements, it is discriminatory in itself.

The Indian Act is full of paternalistic and discriminatory policies with regard to the first nations. I will not go into details and enumerate its many provisions, but we must recognize the incalculable consequences of this interventionist and controlling attitude on the lives of all first nations.

The act is typical of all the government's attempts to maintain the marginal status of the first nations. Now we must think in terms of renewal. We believe that the Indian Act must be replaced with new legislation, in an equal partnership with the first nations, a real nation-to-nation collaboration.

The fact is that the current legislation is completely outdated, discriminatory and must be replaced by modern legislation. This government has never tried to do that. We in the NDP want the first nations to be able to prosper, and this involves replacing the current legislation with modern legislation.

It is important to understand that the very existence of this legislation hinders progress for first nations communities and is not viable on every level, especially in terms of the relationship between the first nations and the government. This is precisely what the first nations have been saying for years now.

Why is the government so stubbornly refusing to listen to those who are most affected and to really respond to their interests? By governing practically every single aspect of the lives of people living on reserves, this legislation has adverse effects on progress by first nations.

The government claims it is overflowing with goodwill, but its claims are false and misleading. It sees amendments to the legislation as the answer, even though it is clear that the legislation is outdated.

How can they claim to be modernizing an act that they know is completely out of date and has only been used to marginalize first nations for the past 136 years? The process has to be led by the first nations, in keeping with the principles set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the concept of their free, prior and informed consent.

The process must protect treaty rights and inherent aboriginal rights. The first nations do not have the legislation they need for health, education and funding at their disposal. This is a vacuum that must be taken into account in drafting modern legislation and setting up a timeline for the process. Modern legislation could then guarantee an improvement in the first nations’ economic and social circumstances.

This legislation undermines the efforts made by first nations to improve their living conditions. On this, we have the support of the Assembly of First Nations, which is entirely in agreement with us. The National Chief called on the government to take action months ago, but the government chose to drag its feet. It is not as though there is a shortage of cases.

I am thinking of economic development, self-government and the sustainability of communities. There is every indication that we have cause for concern. What will spur the government to action?

The NDP would not amend the Indian Act by replacing certain elements. We believe that this would be futile and unwise. However, everything leads us to believe that that is the government's intention. Just think of the declarations that came out of the Crown-first nations gathering last January. The government said that it wanted to work with the first nations to change things, but that did not last very long.

Private member's Bill C-428 sparked shock waves. It includes amendments to several sections of the Indian Act, but first nations were not consulted about this bill. This unilateral action makes no sense. It shows contempt for the first nations. And this is not the first time that the Conservative government's contempt has surfaced, which indicates that it is deeply rooted.

For example, if we go back to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Canada used all kinds of poor excuses to delay adopting the text and then it voted against its adoption, in 2007. It was not until 2010 that Canada ratified the declaration, after being so damaging to the work done by the UN to adopt the text.

What is surprising in all this, to say the least, is that the Liberals are responsible for a large part of this legislation, of its irritants and of the lack of consultation when attempts were made to impose changes. Remember the infamous 1969 white paper, whose author was none other than Jean Chrétien. This was a pure and simple attempt to assimilate first nations.

Motion No. 386 also does not mention the absence of distinction as to sex. Yet, it is crucial to deal with this issue in the context of gender equality, and it should be part of the basis for future consultations. The rights of aboriginal women were violated, particularly when they would marry outside their first nation reserve.

Despite the fact that the law was amended in 1985 with regard to women's rights, discrimination against women continues unabated. That was the finding of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, which pointed out in its 2003 report on Canada that aboriginal women continue to be the victims of systematic acts of discrimination in all aspects of their lives. The consultation process would thus give us the opportunity to harmonize the individual rights of aboriginal women with their collective rights as members of first nations.

I am asking all my colleagues to think carefully about this issue, which is of the utmost importance to first nations and Canada as a whole. This is a basic issue that involves guaranteeing real respect for the rights, needs and priorities of first nations, which are too often overlooked in this country. This is also an opportunity to make Canadians aware of the discrimination faced by first nations people. This is not a matter of making changes to the Indian Act but of replacing it with new, modern legislation. Consequently, the first nations communities that worked with the government will be able to help to determine what the next steps will be in promoting the development and well-being of their communities.

This co-operation is part of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the purpose of which is to get the states to consult and co-operate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned. Any commitment in this regard must be based on real co-operation among equals. We must implement a real consultation process and establish a real partnership. By so doing, we will finally be able to focus on reconciliation and harmonious relations between nations.

Unilateralism can lead only to failure, as it has always done in the past. So, let us revoke the Indian Act and scrap this 19th century law that has led to so many problems and discontent once and for all. Let us start fresh with new legislation.

The NDP wants to work with the first nations to develop modern legislation that will help these communities to prosper.

[Persons with Disabilities, November 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the disability tax credit was created to recognize some of the additional costs incurred by persons with disabilities. However, a number of people with disabilities are not eligible for income security programs that would allow them to have a decent income, to save for the future and to reduce their stress level.

Instead of using this tax credit as a prerequisite for disability programs, why do the Conservatives not propose a plan that would guarantee income security for all persons with disabilities?

[Asbestos, November 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the motion put forward by my colleague is absolutely crucial for our country. It is about the public health of Canadians and other populations around the world, but also about a better economic future for local communities that depend on the asbestos industry.

We know that many workers made a living in Quebec's asbestos mines. However, the two existing companies are only exporting what they have left in stock. Therefore, this is an opportunity to hold a public consultation to determine the measures to be included in an industrial restructuring plan for affected local communities. It is crucial that the government develop such a plan.

On the other hand, the overwhelming medical and scientific evidence on the damage caused by asbestos has been known for many years. In France, asbestos was recognized as a carcinogen in 1977. That was 35 years ago. We also can no longer justify exporting asbestos to developing countries, because we know full well that its use is hazardous to health. We spend millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to remove asbestos from buildings in Canada. Therefore, we should stop pretending it can be used safely.

Talking about the corporate accountability of companies that export asbestos just does not cut it. It is a bogus argument. It is unbelievable that regulations on asbestos in Canada are so strict, but that we do not apply them to other countries. We take asbestos out of our public buildings, including this Parliament, yet we shamelessly export our stock to third world countries.

If this product is deemed dangerous in Canada, why would it not also be dangerous in other countries? There is a double standard here. Consider what the two main organizations concerned, namely the World Health Organization and the International Labour Organization, have to say about it. Both agree that there is no safe level of asbestos exposure.

The government must stop denying the facts and hiding the truth about asbestos and the danger that it presents to populations around the world. However, it is doing just the opposite. It must take its responsibilities seriously. It must stop travelling to dozens of countries around the world to promote the sale of asbestos. This government sponsored 160 trade missions. Meanwhile, Canada's international reputation is being tarnished.

Asbestos cement has been found in Indonesia's dump sites, and the local population is exposed to it. Bags from Canadian businesses are being found in these dumps. Any financial support for this dying industry must stop immediately. Asbestos must be added to the list of hazardous chemicals right away. That is the only way to control it.

Adding asbestos to the Rotterdam Convention list would force exporters such as Canada to warn importing countries of any health hazards. Currently, there is no obligation to put labels on exports to warn workers of the dangers to their health and safety. Importing countries would then be able to ban the importation of asbestos. However, in 2011, the government refused to add asbestos to the Rotterdam Convention list of hazardous materials.

We cannot simply accept evasive answers from the government like the ones we heard in September. Asbestos must be added to the list of hazardous materials as quickly as possible, and we must stop believing that it can be used safely.

We know that the government will no longer oppose the inclusion of chrysotile in Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention during the next round of talks. However, the government remains evasive when asked whether it will place chrysotile on the list of hazardous products in the future. There is an important distinction to make here. Canada must not remain silent during future talks.

Epidemiologists around the world agree that the mineral cannot be used safely. We need only take a look at the figures from the World Health Organization to get a good idea of where things stand.

This is nothing new. We have known since the 1970s that it is not safe to use or export this product. We want Canada to stop supporting the asbestos industry once and for all.

That is why we are calling for an industrial restructuring plan for the economies of the mining regions affected. This industrial restructuring plan must be put in place as quickly as possible, once the public has been consulted within six months of the adoption of this motion. We owe that to these regions that have relied on asbestos for so many years.

These regions have a right to a better economy, and that is what we will offer and guarantee them. We must support Quebec workers in these regions by investing in restructuring the regional economy, but we must ensure that this process is transparent and that stakeholders are consulted. We must support the workers throughout this restructuring.

We must stop subsidizing this outdated industry. It makes sense to invest in these regions so that they can transition towards other types of businesses. Epidemiologists from around the world consider this to be a public health disaster. Now is really not the time for the government to be biased towards the industry. It must fulfill its responsibilities to all Canadians and to the entire world. We need firm guarantees from the government.

Are we really going to continue to send this fibre to developing countries? That is completely misleading and it is harmful to the public health of populations that are already vulnerable.

The other public health reality is that of public and semi-public buildings containing asbestos. We absolutely must remove the asbestos from these buildings. It is an important public health problem that must be resolved.

As we know, from the 1930s to the 1980s, asbestos and other fibres were used to insulate buildings. As a result, there is asbestos in the Parliament buildings and in government buildings, schools and hospitals. We therefore want an exhaustive list of federally-regulated public and semi-public buildings that contain asbestos to be published. We must also take steps to guarantee the safety of people who work in these buildings. The government must also help the provinces and municipalities when it comes to removing asbestos.

What needs to be done is to get the community and stakeholders involved in this industrial conversion plan in order to create new industrial opportunities. These new opportunities will be sustainable, which is not the case with asbestos.

That would be the purpose of the public consultation. It is through true democratic consultation with interested parties that we will succeed.

Let us put an end to the export of asbestos once and for all. It is up to the federal government to legislate in this regard. It has a responsibility to fulfill.

Let us also support the workers in the asbestos region. Let us work together to establish a real plan to transition to a sustainable economy. This would be a major economic conversion to new promising industries for local communities. Such an economic shift could only benefit these communities.

In short, if asbestos is so dangerous to us that we take the time to remove it from our public buildings, then it is also dangerous for people in developing countries. They are human beings like us. We therefore have a responsibility with regard to their health. We know that asbestos is so strictly regulated in Canada that it is practically prohibited. We also know that Canadian taxpayers pay tens of millions of dollars to have it removed from our public buildings.

Since exporters are not currently required to provide information on the toxicity or safe handling of these dangerous substances, the best thing to do is to regulate them and consider them hazardous substances.

[Income Tax Act, November 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill, which I support, is to recognize the value of volunteer work. Providing volunteers with a tax credit in respect of travel expenses is an excellent way to do that. Organizations across the country are working hard to increase volunteerism.

This bill also provides an opportunity to improve the relationship between government and the volunteer sector, a relationship that could do with some improvement because the volunteer sector has been neglected for too many years. A more strategic relationship would support volunteerism. This bill could be a starting point for that conversation.

We must recognize how important this sector is to vulnerable populations, particularly in times of crisis. Consider the 1929 crash and, more recently, the record floods that devastated the Montérégie region in 2011. Thousands of volunteers lent a helping hand to the victims and the cleanup effort.

This front-line sector needs human resources because it meets the urgent needs of vulnerable populations. It mitigates the effects of crises, austerity measures and economic slowdowns like the one we are experiencing now through the commitment of the volunteers and the services and support they provide.

However, the sector faces major challenges that must be addressed before they begin to threaten its viability. By supporting volunteerism, the government would be investing in the common good and the greater welfare of the community, as well as in social integration and participation.

Volunteers give their time to vulnerable populations and help people in need. They make our communities better places to live. Historically, volunteerism has always been about people helping people to meet a community's needs.

This bill would provide from $500 to $1,500 to volunteers who perform at least 130 hours of eligible volunteer services and make at least 12 trips in order to do so during the taxation year. I believe that people who volunteer for organizations that help people with disabilities are deserving of at least a little recognition on the part of the government. People volunteer for organizations whose mission is to help those in need.

We know that not enough volunteers are being recruited. Therefore, we must encourage people to volunteer by acknowledging their experiences, sacrifices and the benefits to communities. Most organizations that rely on volunteers work with vulnerable populations.

Many organizations could not operate without volunteers. It is difficult to recruit volunteers, and this jeopardizes the activities of organizations and their very existence. Charitable organizations that provide social services have a growing need for the unpaid work of volunteers.

In times of economic slowdown and fiscal austerity, volunteering takes on a whole new meaning. Helping those in need allows people to put into practice the principle of solidarity. In such times, having the help of as many people as possible is crucial. In difficult times, the demand for services of some organizations is at its peak. That is the case for food banks, soup kitchens, emergency shelters and many other organizations.

The financial uncertainty of charitable and non-profit organizations is alarming. The most recent recession and the government's austerity measures have wreaked havoc. With the weakening of the social safety net, people are turning to such organizations for help.

There is a need for more volunteers and more volunteer hours. Thus, it is crucial that the importance of volunteerism, of giving of oneself, be recognized in these difficult times. Volunteerism has an impact on the quality of life of many Canadians and the vitality of many communities.

Volunteerism is a basic component of civic engagement that is closely tied to the social and economic development of Canada. Volunteerism, especially when it comes to helping vulnerable groups in society, is most definitely a crucial form of community participation, and must be valued appropriately. Tangible measures must be taken to attach value to civic engagement.

There is no denying that, in recent years, stagnating donations of time and money have posed a challenge.

I also want to point out that a small proportion of volunteers account for the largest proportion of volunteer hours.

Organizations have fewer and fewer resources, yet demand for their services continues to grow. The viability of the sector is in jeopardy right now.

As a result, it is time for the government to reconsider its relationship with the volunteer sector, and this bill opens the door to a discussion.

The government should develop a strategic approach. Our policies and regulations for the volunteer sector are lagging far behind those of other countries. It is time to correct this situation and for the government to stop neglecting this sector. After all, Canada's volunteer sector is the second largest in the world, representing 7% of the GDP.

Volunteers make a significant contribution to society, but the Canadian government has yet to provide proper recognition for this civic engagement. We must recognize the contributions volunteers make to our country's economic and social cohesion. The economic value of volunteering is widely recognized and measurable. When we value volunteer work, we acknowledge the value-added feature that it represents. In all types of charitable missions and volunteer organizations, volunteers play an important role in helping to strengthen and energize local communities, which benefits the country as a whole.

Organizations that recruit volunteers recognize the importance and value of what these volunteers contribute. Now is the time for the government to do so. We need a vision for this country's volunteer sector, and it is up to the government to develop one. There is a lot to be done in our communities and we must support those who want to make things better for the most vulnerable members of their communities. These people want to help improve quality of life in their communities. They are pillars of our society and we must enable them to continue to actively participate in our country's social life.

If the federal government has even the slightest interest in the volunteer sector, it must demonstrate that interest by taking real action and providing support for the people who give their time to charitable organizations in their communities. It is also known that, in some cases, the volunteer sector is able to reach certain segments of society more easily and more effectively than the government can.

The services provided by volunteers can thus meet the needs of certain segments better than services provided by the government.

Part of the reason why the volunteer sector exists is to fill a gap; however, that gap is becoming increasingly difficult to fill in the absence of real action by the government. By taking real action to promote volunteer work, the government would also promote community development.

Recruitment is often problematic for many organizations, which threatens their sustainability and that of this sector as a whole.

In these times of fiscal restraint, when thousands of households are living in situations of insecurity and poverty, the demand for such services will increase and must be accompanied by practical measures from the government.

The volunteer sector has deep roots in Canadian society, and it must be allowed to reach its full potential, which it is not doing currently. We must stop underestimating the volunteer sector's contribution to society and to the well-being of Canadians.

That is why the government must strengthen its ties with this sector. One good thing about this bill is that it brings up important issues, such as how to get started on strengthening these ties, by initiating a strategic discussion on the relationship that could be developed between the public and volunteer sectors, and potentially the private sector as well.

This discussion must take place if we want to guarantee that we have a rigorous, active and sustainable volunteer sector.

Naturally, we know that volunteer work in our communities is becoming increasingly important. Volunteers are people who are extremely involved. We find them in every area, helping people with disabilities, helping with sports, and so on. Volunteer work plays a huge role in our communities and small towns. It really is very important. We must ensure that the government takes practical measures and helps these people and organizations to have more backup because right now they do not have any. Asking people to take money out of their own pockets in order to volunteer is no way to encourage them.

We are thus of the opinion that real action needs to be taken.

[Persons with Disabilities, November 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, let us get back to the issue and talk about Canada's commitments under the convention.

The government has a commitment to ensure that no Canadian lives in poverty simply because he or she is disabled. According to the recent HungerCount 2012 report, more than one out of every ten people assisted by food banks relies on disability benefits as a primary source of income.

Why does the government allow the disabled to live in poverty? These people are forced to turn to food banks just to have enough to eat. The convention recognizes that disabled persons have the right to an adequate standard of living, including adequate food. We need to know how the government is upholding its commitments to disabled persons. We need to know whether the government is following through on its commitment, whether the programs implemented are in line with the targeted objectives, the guiding principles and the obligations of the convention.

In less than a month it will be the International Day of Disabled Persons. Will the government present its long-awaited report by then, yes or no?

[Persons with Disabilities, November 6th, 2012]

Canada ratified the convention in 2010 and had two years to issue its follow-up report, which was due in April 2012. This obligation is set out in article 35 of the convention. At the time, the government was over two months late issuing the report, and now it is over seven months late.

The purpose of this convention is to protect the rights and dignity of people with disabilities. The government has an obligation to promote, protect and ensure the full enjoyment of human rights by people with disabilities and to ensure that they enjoy full equality under the law.

I did not receive an answer to the question that I asked in June. No reason was given to justify the fact that this follow-up report was late and no indication was given of even an approximate date as to when the report would be issued. The minister did mention it, nor did she mention the process. Instead, she spoke about the programs that the government put in place for people with disabilities and her intention to implement new programs.

The government has indeed introduced various programs for people with disabilities, but that is not the issue. The issue is what progress has been made or what steps backward have been taken. Nothing could be less certain in this regard. A number of reports published over the past few months have suggested that there are still serious problems when it comes to education, accessibility and equality of opportunity and income for people with disabilities.

Let us talk about these programs, such as the disability tax credit, which is problematic in many respects. In order to be eligible for the tax credit, a person must have a severe and prolonged impairment in physical or mental functions for at least 12 months. This condition is difficult to fulfill for people suffering from chronic or recurrent conditions, such as multiple sclerosis, chronic fatigue syndrome, mental illness or hearing loss. These people are rarely eligible. Some impairments, such as those mentioned, are different. For example, people with multiple sclerosis may be able to carry out daily activities and even work for a certain amount of time. Then, suddenly, it becomes impossible for them to do anything.

Unfortunately, because of the cyclical nature of these diseases, these people are very vulnerable and rely on most of the programs for those with functional impairments, including the tax credit. In fact, the tax credit is based on the idea that the disability is permanent and does not change significantly. To give an idea to those who are watching, in Canada, 55,000 people have multiple sclerosis and 333,000 people have chronic fatigue syndrome.

Consider the most recent report by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. This report, which came out this past summer, points out the significant gaps in equality of opportunity for persons with disabilities.

If the government does not implement adequate corrective measures, then there is cause for concern. However, again, we do not have all the necessary information to take action.

Canada has to report to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on the progress it has made in implementing the convention. This progress report is a requirement under the convention. The public wants to know what has been done to implement the convention and the impact that the legislation and the programs for persons with disabilities have had. People want to know in what tangible way the lives of persons with disabilities have changed, what shortcomings have been identified and what the government intends to do about them. A modicum of transparency would be welcome.

I will repeat my question: when does the government intend to table this report?

[Persons with Disabilities, November 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, on June 8, I asked the minister where the follow-up report on the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was, why it was late, and if it was overdue because the government was dragging its feet. The government ratified the convention in 2010 and had two years to issue its follow-up report—

[Blue Sky Policy, October 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Conservative Motion No. 387 is to further liberalize international commercial air service through a new open sky agreement with other countries. The goal is to further open up the Canadian market to foreign passenger airlines, which will supposedly result in a net benefit for Canada.

The government's blue sky policy is commonly referred to as an open sky policy elsewhere in the world. I will therefore refer to it as the open sky policy for the rest of my speech.

Generally, open sky agreements lead to greater competition and expanded air services around the world. Deregulating commercial aviation is not a new phenomenon. In the 1970s, several countries including the United States began negotiating bilateral agreements in order to further liberalize international commercial air service.

When the government introduced its blue sky policy in 2006, this provided a framework for subsequent open sky agreements. The goal was to approach things in a more structured way, compared to what had been done in the past by other governments. This led to the negotiation of a number of new bilateral agreements regarding air transportation, including with the United States and members of the European Union.

It is important to note that agreements represent 87% of all international air traffic in Canada. Other agreements have been reached more recently with a number of other countries. However, the policy that led to the bilateral agreements negotiated since it was adopted is rather protectionist. We simply have to compare it to the American open sky policy and it soon becomes clear that it does not go far enough and it is not as liberal.

What is important is that this not hurt our aviation industry or Canadian consumers. We must ensure that foreign competition is fair, balanced and manageable. How can we have that assurance when Motion No. 387 does not provide for any measures in that regard? In fact, the motion does not mention any concrete measures. Nor has any assessment been done since the blue sky policy was introduced in 2006. We have no idea if deregulation has had any positive spinoffs for the Canadian economy.

Before we go any further, we need to know how successful the government's policy has been since it was implemented. This motion only calls for more bilateral agreements. It does not call for the adoption of more specific measures. And it comes from a backbench Conservative member, which says a lot.

Furthermore, this motion reveals a strange paradox, since the member who moved it does not have an international airport or an airline in his riding. We have to wonder where he suddenly got this idea that signing more bilateral agreements should be a priority for the government, at a time when there are much more serious issues before the House.

We know that for purely ideological reasons, the Conservatives want greater deregulation of the Canadian air market. The question is why this motion is being debated now. There is no reason for the government to put it before the House, and it seems to be another tactic to distract people from other more important and pressing issues.

What is important to know is whether this will truly lead to lower fares and an increase in the number of passengers flying out of Canada instead of the United States. But we have no idea. There is no analysis of the commercial gains this will entail for airlines. There is no evaluation showing what kind of effect open sky type agreements have had on the Canadian airline industry and the prices paid by consumers. We need proof and studies confirming the effects of previous agreements before we open up the market even more.

Since 87% of international air traffic is already covered by such agreements, is there any real potential here? I should point out that the only main exceptions are China and India. These are emerging powers with large markets, but in recent years, bilateral agreements have been signed with much smaller countries.

We are talking about opening up the market to Chinese airlines that enjoy significant state subsidies. These emerging countries are important players, and this kind of foreign competition could have long-term negative consequences for a market like ours and for our airline companies. This would become a problem if they were in a position to offer lower fares, which would affect the market.

In the past, we refused to open the market to the Emirates airline, which receives considerable political and financial support. I do not see how the situation is any different today. Moreover, Air Canada does not have the same means to operate in other markets. Thus, these agreements would lack so-called reciprocity.

This motion is also being introduced at a time when we know very well that the government is abandoning stakeholders in the aerospace sector. We must protect the workers in this sector and defend our aerospace industry.

Canada also has its share of problems in the commercial airline industry, such as air security, poorly serviced rural communities, wait times and the exorbitant prices that consumers end up paying. These are the consequences of the Conservatives' policies, budget cuts and layoffs.

These policies adversely affect both consumers and airlines. We believe that the integrity of our airlines and jobs in the sector must be protected, while ensuring that consumers have access to competitive prices. In that regard, we know that Canadians travel to the U.S. to take cheaper flights. A recent report released by the Conference Board of Canada indicated the extent of the problem. Approximately five million Canadians cross the border to fly out of American airports because it is much cheaper.

This situation is not sustainable for airports or for Canadian carriers. According to the Conference Board of Canada, changes to Canadian policies could alter this situation significantly and bring back two million passengers to our airports.

The decrease in Canadian passengers could have other serious consequences such as less frequent flights, higher travel costs and, inevitably, inferior service for all Canadians.

As a result, we must be sure to provide our Canadian airline industry with adequate support in order to make it effective, safe, prosperous and viable. We need to know the net benefits that the agreements entered into under the policy may have yielded since the policy was implemented in 2006. But we do not. We do not know what effects the policy may have had on job creation, income, GDP growth or the reduction in airline ticket prices.

I can guarantee that any open sky policy that clearly demonstrates that Canadians will obtain a net benefit, such as a decrease in the cost of airline tickets for consumers, would be welcome. However, right now, there is no study or assessment to demonstrate that such is the case. We do not have any guarantees from the Conservatives with regard to existing jobs and routes. How can we know that the increase in competition will not affect certain routes, which will then be deemed to be non-competitive?

I am opposed to this motion for all these reasons. The government must conduct an analysis of the performance of the agreements that are already in place before making new ones. For now, the government should focus on resolving existing problems in our air services and our aerospace industry.

The NDP opposes the motion for many reasons, particularly because it pushes for a more open Canadian passenger airline market without providing for any measures to protect Canadian consumers or the aviation industry and without any evidence that previous deregulation was good for the Canadian economy.