Mario Laframboise

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to resume debate on the throne speech. I would like members to think about all the pussyfooting, and the comments made by our great journalists and editorial writers. They said the throne speech was supposed to be the Prime Minister's legacy after 40 years of political life. They were partly right. The Prime Minister did not deny it. He was proud of his throne speech. It is the legacy he wanted to leave to Canadians and Quebeckers.

Today, I will talk about the legacy the Prime Minister, “the little guy from Shawinigan”, left to Quebec in his 40 years of political life, a legacy that is not mentioned in the throne speech, but should have been. I will talk about Mirabel airport, the biggest mistake ever made by the federal government in Quebec.

During his 40 years in politics, the Prime Minister was a member of the Liberal cabinet for a number of years. Of the 37 years of the Mirabel Airport saga, the Liberals were in power for 26. The present Prime Minister was in one or another portfolio for most of those 26 years. He was one of the cabinet members making decisions and recommendations on Mirabel airport.

This, I should point out, is in my opinion the only true legacy the Prime Minister has left in Quebec. The white elephant of Mirabel is all too typical of him. Discussions on Mirabel began back in 1966 under Lester B. Pearson. It was a major decision. There was Expo 67 and all that. Paris and New York City were building second airports. Montreal was, of course, the air entry point for Canada at that time. It was said that Dorval would no longer be able to accommodate the demand after 1985. The decision was made therefore to build a new airport. This was a political choice made by the Liberal government of the day.

Discussions were held, and a variety of concepts proposed. Would it be built on the north shore or the south? Finally, on March 27, 1969, federal minister Paul Hellyer put an end to the suspense and announced the expropriation of 100,000 acres in the Sainte-Scolastique sector, which has now become the city of Mirabel. At the time, this was bigger than the city of Laval, 10 times larger than other major world airports and 27 times larger than Dorval. More than 3,000 property owners were expropriated or moved. It was often described as the greatest population displacement in the history of Quebec, the greatest population displacement since the deportation of the Acadians.

That same day, on the way to church, Jean Marchand promised that 100,000 jobs would be created in the Mirabel sector. It must be kept in mind, of course, that in 1969 Montreal was still the aviation port of entry into Canada. After much discussion, Mirabel Airport was inaugurated on October 4, 1975. The announcement was made by then Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Everyone was of course delighted; there were 100,000 acres of land and predictions of major industrial development.

The development plan provided for completion of highways 15 and 50. A rapid train was to reach the airport. Once the work was completed there was going to be--and there still is--a place where trains would arrive. The work was done, in the sense that the airport terminal was built to accommodate trains. Plans were to go ahead and everybody was going to pitch in. The federal government was supposed to invest over $500 million plus another $300 million to complete highways 15 and 50. It was supposed to look after building the necessary infrastructure for the rapid train to arrive directly in the airport terminal.

This is not what happened. Over 25 years later, the reality is quite different. The Liberal government--I will remind members that the Liberals were in power for 26 of the 37 years the Mirabel saga lasted--was being pressured by the establishment, which is mostly controlled by Ontario. Toronto, just like English Canada, has never accepted that Montreal should remain the gateway to Canada for air travel.

What happened between 1975 when the airport was opened and 2002? We have witnessed a shift in air travel, and Toronto is now the gateway to Canada. This is what the Liberal Party establishment of the time wanted, with the support of the Montreal's West Island establishment, which has obviously never accepted that economic development might be exported outside of Montreal's West Island. That is what happened. That is not what history books will say, but it is the political reality. Those decisions were made by the cabinet of the time, of which the current Prime Minister was a member for most of the time the Liberal Party was in power.

Since the airport opened in 1975, there have been various developments, including the creation of ADM in 1996, when one independent airport administration was created to manage both Dorval and Mirabel airports. However, it is important to remember that on December 4, 1986, the federal government decided to keep both airports. Then there was the saga from 1975 to 1986, the period when Canada's gateway shifted from Montreal to Toronto. The Liberal government and representatives at that time, with the complicity of the Conservative government as well, took advantage of the situation, redistributing traffic and redirecting air traffic to Dorval.

So in the end, we have the situation that exists today, where Mirabel is but a shadow of its former self. As far as I am concerned, no matter how you read the Speech from the Throne, in English, in French, backwards or upside down, there is absolutely no mention of the development that could have been achieved with the whole Mirabel airport area.

This is an area that has experienced land grabs over the years. One hundred thousand acres of land were expropriated, and it soon became apparent that the federal Liberal government did not have the will to finish the project according to original plans. Land was returned to those who had been expropriated. In the end, more than 80,000 acres of the 100,000 that had been expropriated were returned.

Today, Mirabel airport covers some 5,000 acres. Another 11,000 acres are rented to the former owners or to new farmers. There is the potential for a further 16,000 acres to be developed, and this could very well have been mentioned in the Speech from the Throne.

While Mirabel has had an increase in job creation lately, it is not solely due to industries in the aviation and aerospace sectors like Bombardier. There is also Technicolor and other businesses that can benefit from moving to industrial parks near airports around the world.

The Government of Quebec decided to create the Mirabel international trade zone, to grant tax credits to attract businesses that would not have settled in Quebec, but that would nonetheless have set up shop near other airports around the world. These tax credits have led to the creation of 2,500 jobs since the international trade zone was created by the Parti Quebecois government.

The Speech from the Throne would have been a good opportunity for the federal government to correct the terrible mistake made with Mirabel, by giving the same tax credits in the international trade zone. The federal government could have done what the Quebec government did, and this would have given us a true duty free zone in Canada, not to compete with businesses in the rest of Canada, but with multinationals that open facilities close to airports all over the world. But we do not have such zones, whether it is in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal.

There is nothing in the throne speech to help those who were part of the largest displacement of people on Canadian ground since the deportation of the Acadians. Mirabel Airport is the largest tract of federal lands in Quebec. Stop dreaming and thinking that there are some in your region. The largest tract of federal lands is the 100,000 acres the federal government expropriated, and that is located in Quebec. Mirabel Airport was the largest federal property in Quebec.

Now, it has become a white elephant. The Château de l'aéroport, a federally-owned hotel, closed its doors in August 2002. When we travel along highway 50 and drive by Mirabel Airport—we are told that there will still be chartered flights until next spring—we see a hotel, which is closed and whichbelongs to the federal government. ADM, the authority that manages the airport, is not looking for new tenants and is actually suing the previous tenant.

This is a saga. ADM has already been ordered to pay $17 million to the former owner for loss of revenue, because ADM deliberately reduced the number of flights at the airport. Of course, this resulted in a reduction of the number of clients at the hotel. The court sided with the owner. ADM has decided to appeal the ruling.

In the meantime, this federal property, this hotel located alongside the highway, could still attract potential clients, and the owner wanted to discuss a resumption of operations, because there will still be chartered flights and potential clients, at least until spring. But nothing is happening, because ADM is not accountable to the public, and because the federal government, through the Minister of Transport and the Prime Minister, is taking cover behind this independent authority, which is accountable to no one, except itself.

Talk to all the journalists who are trying to reach ADM for whatever reason; it does not even return its calls.

This is a federal asset which is managed by an independent authority, and that suits the present federal government just fine. I would like to quote from a statement by the Prime Minister. I think this is the worst thing that could be disclosed today:

On February 9, 1996, Jean Chrétien, the Prime Minister of Canada, said he will not be sorry when one of these airports closes down, if it seems that one of them is not needed.

He knew very well what was going on. His establishment was protecting Montreal's West Island and Mirabel Airport. So he will not be sorry when Mirabel Airport closes down next spring. He will have contributed to that. During the 40 years he has been a member of Parliament, the “little guy from Shawinigan” has been a minister. During the last 37 years of the Mirabel saga, he was a member of cabinet during most of the 26 years when the Liberal Party was in power. Obviously, he had his say in the decisions made, and he contributed to the fact that the gateway to Canada for air transportation was Montreal in 1966 and has been Toronto since 1985. The Liberal government had a major role to play in the transfer of the gateway from Montreal to Toronto.

It is a real tragedy. More than 500 million dollars was invested in Mirabel Airport and the infrastructure needed for its development has not been built yet. The best way to kill the project was to make an announcement and not follow through by completing highways 15 and 50 and building the infrastructure required for the high speed rail system to get to the terminal that has already been built for it. The train could arrive at the terminal, which exists, but the tracks have not been laid and the investments required to ensure that the train reaches the airport have never been made.

This is what is happening now; this is the dream that has been kept alive among the whole population of Quebec by the Liberal government, by the ministers, by the current Prime Minister among others. It is a dream that will end next spring. As far as I am concerned, Mirabel Airport could have been the legacy of the Prime Minister, “the little guy from Shawinigan”.

I hope that every time he drives by this airport, he will think about it, because he was directly involved, with his cabinet colleagues, including the member for LaSalle—Émard, in the decisions. This member's father was a member of cabinet, and he also had a say in the decisions to close Mirabel Airport and to transfer the Canadian airline gateway from Montreal to Toronto. This is what the Liberal government did.

Ontario is probably grateful for this. Still, there is a harsh reality: we are left with a $500 million plus facility that was left unfinished, and with Dorval Airport, one of the worst airports in the developed world.

My colleagues in the House of Commons should pop in to Dorval to check the condition of that airport. It is the worst in all industrialized countries, and attempts are being made to fix it. Since 1996, over $800 million was poured into Dorval Airport, and another $500 million—for a total in excess of $1 billion—will be required to bring this airport up to modern standards. Why? Because, to do a real good job, the airport should have been shut down for five years, completely torn down and rebuilt from scratch.

Instead, the old building is being renovated, but it dates back to the 1940s. This does nothing for development. The proof is in the figures: a small increase in air traffic; a large one in Toronto, but none in Montreal. All this because the Liberal government put an independent authority, namely ADM, in charge of managing the airports, following in the footsteps of the Conservatives.

Just today, I received a letter the Minister of Transport sent me at the end of September, saying “There is nothing we can do for the Château de l'aéroport, because ADM is in charge and we trust them. They are supposed to manage in the interests of the Government of Canada”. That is not true, ADM is not managing in the interests of the Government of Canada.

At present, ADM is trying as best it can to safe face. The chairman and members of the board are replaced every three years, again, in an attempt to force bad decisions on them. The bad decision was made by the Liberal Party, which was in office during 26 of the 37 years that the Mirabel saga has been going on. For most of this 26-year period, the current Prime Minister was an influential member of cabinet.

I see that there is nothing in the throne speech about de development of the airport at Mirabel. There is every indication that the statement made by the Prime Minister in 1996, when he said that it did not bother him to see an airport close down in Quebec, will translate into reality and actually be his monument, his legacy to the Quebec government: a white elephant, like himself.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, October 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question to my colleague from Laval Centre.

This afternoon, in the House, a Liberal member rose to tell us not to discuss Bill C-4 in combination with the Kyoto protocol. Discussing nuclear energy without referring to the Kyoto protocol does not make any sense. This is the object of my question to my colleague from Laval Centre.

The government should, as soon as possible, have a debate on the Kyoto protocol, especially before passage of Bill C-4, whose purpose is to facilitate the development of the highly polluting nuclear industry, one of the most polluting industries on the planet. Is it not the time for the government to put that front and centre, table all relevant information and immediately hold a debate on Kyoto?

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, October 10th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Joliette. This bill is aimed at reducing the responsibility of bankers and industry administrators.

That is what I have tried to explain to those who are watching us. It is the only industry in all of Canada where bankers or those who have an interest in the industry would be free from any responsibility. This is the choice that members of this House are making on behalf of the public, of their listeners, of those who elected them.

From a legal standpoint, it is a terrible choice. This kind of arrangement does not exist in any other industry in Canada. The government tried to explain to us that there is danger associated with the nuclear industry, but in the legal world, an exclusion of responsibility is also synonymous with danger. All those who have signed contracts in their lives know it. When the seller wants to be free of any responsibility, it is dangerous. What we are doing right now in this House is taking the place of those who already have a responsibility and freeing them from that responsibility, in the name of the public good. And we would become responsible for any problem.

In that respect, the worst legal decision that this Parliament can make is the one that the Liberal government is making right now, with the support of the Canadian Alliance and the Conservative Party.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, October 10th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is right. One of the conclusions of the report was that the best place to store nuclear waste was in the Canadian Shield. The reaction in Quebec was strong. It is not an industry that we favour. We chose hydroelectricity instead. Imagine if, to add insult to injury, we were forced to bury nuclear waste in Quebec's portion of the Canadian Shield. The reaction is already bad, and it is easy to foresee the battle that would ensue if such a decision were made.

We deal with our problems. Of course, it must be understood that, in some respects, we will never accept being the victims of everyone else's problems.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, October 10th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for his question.

It is clear that we must discuss Kyoto as soon as possible. I hope that, at least, we will do so before adopting Bill C-4. Let us never forget that the nuclear industry is an industry that pollutes and that increases greenhouse gas emissions. Our objective with the Kyoto protocol is to reduce such emissions.

Today, we are discussing a problem that will increase pollution, and the purpose of the debates on Kyoto is precisely to ensure that, together, we reduce the pollution we create, including greenhouse gas emissions.

Therefore, I hope that we will have this debate on Kyoto as soon as possible, and I also hope that it will be before Bill C-4 is passed. If we ever manage to convince the Liberal government, the official opposition and the Progressive Conservative Party that Kyoto must be urgently ratified, as we hope to do, then Bill C-4 will surely have to be reviewed.

Also, instead of helping lobbyists from the nuclear industry, the government should perhaps tell them that they should invest in another type of energy, such as wind energy. This would surely be a possibility and it could, among other things, benefit from a transfer of funds.

As I explained earlier, the federal government is investing a lot of money in the development of oil and nuclear energy. But now it is time to invest in wind energy. So, my advice to bankers and friends of the Liberal Party is to invest in renewable energy. It is not fully developed, there is still potential, and there is money to be made.

To answer the hon. member's question, it is very important that we soon discuss Kyoto.

As for Quebec, it made a brilliant choice by opting for hydroelectricity even though, as the hon. member for Joliette explained, it was a very difficult choice to make. Electricity was nationalized and that was not an easy decision to make. There were dozens of companies in Quebec. We decided to turn this into a major operation and it was a true success.

Of course, Quebec made societal choices, and Quebeckers decided to get results and, among others, to ensure that our province is the closest to achieving the Kyoto goals. This is why the Quebec government was quick to announce that it was prepared to ratify Kyoto at the earliest opportunity. If Quebec were not part of Canada, it would have ratified the accord a long time ago.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, October 10th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-4. This is a simple bill. Its intent is, with just a few lines, to change the responsibility of those who finance and operate nuclear plants.

Our listeners may sometimes, too often, think—because they just read newspaper headlines or watch the major news stories on television—that the government is there to defend the citizens' interests and they should therefore trust it.

What we have before us is a bill that is far from defending the interests of our listeners. In fact, it is a bill that has been presented by the Liberal government to aid the nuclear industry. This bill has the support of the members of the Canadian Alliance and the Conservative Party. It is not a bill to help the public and defend its interests. It is a bill specifically to help one type of industry, the nuclear industry. This is a type of energy that is criticized all over the world. In most of the industrialized nations, the situation has gone beyond that, and it has been abandoned.

Perhaps this bill seems innocuous because of its lack of bulk, but it is all the more important because of its impact on the quality of life of our listeners.

I will try to give a brief legislative summary. This bill is, obviously, not very complex and not very thick. I will try to share my experience with the House. We all bring another profession to politics. I am a notary by profession. For the benefit our listeners in English speaking Canada, I will explain that this is a lawyer specialized in drawing up contracts. I will give my legal opinion, in a mild-mannered way, on the text we have before us. In connection with those responsible for site cleanup, the wording on responsibility was as follows:

--any other person with a right to or interest in, the affected land or place take the prescribed measures to reduce the level of contamination.

This was replaced with the following:

--any other person who has the management and control of--

Clearly, the terminology of “right to or interest in” has been replaced by the words “management and control of” in order to exempt banks, bankers and lending institutions from this responsibility. They would no longer have responsibility.

Actually, this would be the only industry where the liability of bankers would be limited. Business people who are listening know this: when they ask for money from a financial institution, they must comply with all of the environmental clauses. For the past ten years, this has been unavoidable. In larger businesses, there is the environmental stage that covers the preliminary impact study. Often, stage two is required, which is a complete impact study, and phase three, which is decontamination.

This means that bankers would no longer be responsible in the nuclear industry for requiring these three phases. This is how it can be interpreted. Given that they would no longer be liable, they do not have to worry about it. Why do people who run businesses have environmental clauses in their contracts that they have to abide by? Because the banks feel liable. Therefore, they require clauses in lending contracts that force the borrower to comply with those clauses. The banks also require stages one and two, the appropriate environmental studies, and even require the inclusion of relevant updates at predetermined deadlines in the contracts.

This simple provision is being amended. This is a simple paragraph being amended in a legal text, as the Liberal member said earlier. Some might ask why there should be a lengthy debate in the House, given that the act is only a few pages long. However, these few pages are very important, because now financiers will no longer be liable and will no longer require that borrowers meet environmental standards. This may allow the nuclear industry to survive.

I hope that all those listening to us understand, based on the comments made by my learned colleague, the member for Joliette, and by my colleague from Windsor—St. Clair, that nuclear energy is on its way out. It is losing steam and it is destined to be phased out.

Canada is alone in its decision to support nuclear energy. Why? Likely because the Prime Minister has travelled around offering Candu reactors all over the place and tried to promote the industry by selling nuclear reactors, when this is going in the opposite direction of evolution of global society. It is often the smallest bills that have the greatest impact on human health. That is what we are debating today.

There is a reason why only the Bloc Quebecois and the New Democratic Party are opposed to this bill. These are parties that are there to defend the interests of citizens and not to defend the interests of big business. This is the game that the Liberal government is playing. It is proposing an amendment that would help the nuclear industry. It is supported by the official opposition, represented by the Canadian Alliance, and by the Progressive Conservative Party, which hopes to get back in power.

Finally, all these people have decided to get together and to help the nuclear industry, which goes against the whole evolution of energy throughout the world.

I will repeat this argument, because a Liberal member rose in the House this afternoon to tell us, “We do not have to have a debate on Kyoto with Bill C-4”.

On the contrary, everything is connected. If we allow the nuclear industry to develop even more in Canada, while this goes against everything that is being discussed throughout the world, we will once again delay reaching our objectives and signing the Kyoto protocol.

It is inconceivable that we should be discussing Bill C-4, as the Prime Minister told us that we would have a vote in the House, before Christmas, on ratification of the Kyoto protocol.

Once again, this bill is rammed through the House to help the nuclear industry before a real debate can be held in Canada. This bill is not in the best interests of our listeners, but rather in the best interests of the nuclear industry, which is slowly dying, as it should be. It is only appropriate for this kind of energy, which is outdated and a health hazard, to disappear. We should not let Bill C-4 be passed. It only has a few lines and a few pages. The Liberals, the Alliance and the Conservatives have decided not to debate this legislation, because it is a short bill. In fact, it helps their friends in the nuclear industry.

Why has the Bloc Quebecois decided today to fight Bill C-4? Because we have the best interests of all Quebeckers and of all Canadians at heart. We are glad to stand up for their interests, since their members of Parliament will not do it.

Members of the Bloc Quebecois have taken a stand on energy development. Our position is clear: wind energy is the way to go. The Bloc proposed to the House the creation of a federal program to invest $700 million in the wind industry. The program could have helped the Gaspé area, a region of Quebec that is going through some very tough times. It could have recovered much of the money invested in wind energy, which is a renewable energy source, the energy of the future. Some people found our proposal very funny. However, the figures mentioned today by my hon. colleague from Joliette and many others spoke for themselves.

The wind power capacity in Germany is of 8,753 megawatts, which accounts for 35.8% of all the energy the Germans use. Those are the facts. In the United States, 4,235 megawatts were wind-generated, which represents 17.3% of all their energy production, compared to 0.08% in Canada. Those are the facts.

Canada generates only 207 megawatts from wind energy. This debate today does not deal with renewable energies that are in tune with the Kyoto protocol. Those listening should know that we are talking now about nuclear energy. The government wants to relieve investors and bankers of their responsibilities for investments in nuclear energy. This is the Liberal government's proposal, and it is supported by the official opposition, the Canadian Alliance, and by the Progressive Conservative Party. This is typical of Canada.

It is not true that the Canadian government defends the public's interest. It defends the industry's interest. I could list many examples that show it does not look after our interests, but those of its friends. The two are not the same for the Liberal government. I am somewhat surprised that the Canadian Alliance is jumping on this bandwagon. If it were in power, it would probably do the same as the Liberal government. It is the only conclusion to be drawn here.

This is the tough reality, but the whole debate on Kyoto should not end. Despite what a Liberal member said this afternoon during the debate on this nuclear energy bill, we should not avoid discussing Kyoto.

This is what I will explain during my time remaining. In Canada, we should promote wind energy. The present government should take seriously the plan put forward by the Bloc Quebecois for an investment of $700 million over the next five years. The federal government does invest in the energy industry. Since 1970, it has invested more than $66 billion in oil energy, more than $6 billion in nuclear energy, and just $327 million in renewable energies, including wind energy. This is the tough reality of lobbies controlling this Parliament.

The oil and nuclear lobbies are controlling this Parliament. They control the governing Liberal Party, the Canadian Alliance, and the Progressive Conservative Party. None of these parties take the interest of ordinary citizens to heart. They care more for their own power than for those they represent, even though they were elected to defend the interests of their fellow citizens.

I hope that the citizens who are listening will have a chance in the weeks to come to ask their MPs why they did not stand up in the House to say how much more important it was to discuss the Kyoto protocol rather than reducing the liability of those who operate the nuclear energy industry. This is an industry which is losing steam and which in any event is doomed to disappear—or so I hope—for the simple reason that the health of the men and women we represent is at stake.

It was a pleasure to debate Bill C-4 and to reiterate that the proposed legislation is a real legal setback. I will, if I may, read it again so that those who are watching understand clearly. Under the existing legislation, the Commission may order that, and I quote:

—any other person with a right to or interest in, the affected land or place take the prescribed measures to reduce the level of contamination.

Therefore, under the existing legislation, all other persons with a right to or interest in had to participate in the decontamination of the land or place or to resolve any nuclear energy problem.

The government is replacing this simple phrase with this:

—any other person who has the management and control of, the affected land or place take the prescribed measures—

Only the administrators and those who have a management responsibility, that is those who have something to do with the operation of the plant, will be responsible for the decontamination of the site. The financial sector is completely excluded.

I have heard colleagues tell us that there were problems with this nuclear energy industry and that there were lending difficulties. My colleague from Windsor—St. Clair is right. This will speed up the privatization process. The nuclear plants are often owned by public corporations because the private sector has no financial interest in them and because these plants would be too risky for them. This will help the privatization process. However, when we talk about privatization, we are not necessarily talking about corporations rich enough to decontaminate a site. Once again, things are not getting any better. They are even getting worse when we think that this regulatory change could allow the privatization of those nuclear plants by taking all responsibilities away from the bankers. We are certainly going backward rather than forward.

It is completely unthinkable that we could go in that direction. We are taking all responsibilities away not only from those who will grant new loans, but also from those who have already granted them or provided financial support. This bill will take all responsibility away from those who have financed nuclear energy in Canada.

It is not enough to say that it could encourage investments in the nuclear industry. On the contrary. This will once again help the friends of the Liberal Party, including the bank lobby, which has financed a part of the nuclear energy industry. These people are no doubt anxiously looking forward to the passing of Bill C-4 that will rid them of the risk that they are now facing.

I hope that my brief submission will have helped to convince the people who are listening, and you, Madam Speaker, that Bill C-4 should never, never be passed in the House. The Liberal Party of Canada, the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative Party would do well to protect the interests of the men and women who elected them rather than the interests of the multinationals or other companies controlling their party coffers.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, October 10th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague for his eloquent speech. I only want to ask him a question about a statement made by a Liberal member this afternoon. The member stated that debate on Bill C-4 should make any reference to the Kyoto protocol.

I would like to ask the following question to my colleague from Windsor—St. Clair. Would it not have been wiser to have a debate on the Kyoto protocol before introducing Bill C-4 to the House?

[Securities, October 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois has already introduced a series of measures relating to corporate ethics aimed primarily at protecting small investors.

Why does the government not come on side with our proposals instead of insisting at any price on once again invading Quebec's areas of jurisdiction and setting off another federal-provincial battle?

[Securities, October 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, with the appointment of Harold MacKay yesterday, the federal government is stubbornly persisting in striking a Canadian Securities Commission, using as a pretext the latest financial scandals. Yet Quebec has already taken action by introducing a series of amendments to its legislation with investor protection as the first concern.

Can the Minister of Finance explain to us why he insists on wanting to intervene in an area that comes under Quebec jurisdiction, rather than acting within the government's own areas of jurisdiction and its own legislation, where there is plenty of room for improvement?

[Highway Infrastructure, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Transport said that he had no doubt that highway 30 would be extended shortly. On January 29, 2001, he considered this same highway a priority. In the spring of 2001, work would be starting as soon as possible. In a letter dated August 20, 2001, it was again a priority, and on August 6, 2002, it was a question of weeks, if not days.

Rather than spouting one empty statement after another, will the Minister of Transport give a formal commitment today that he will sign the memorandum of understanding the Government of Quebec sent him almost ten months ago, in order to extend highway 30 between Candiac and Vaudreuil?