Mario Laframboise

[G8 and G20 Summits, June 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, that is not the impression we have been getting from Quebeckers in one election after the other.

On top of buying his industry minister's re-election with an arena, the government has lost control of its spending on the G8 and G20 summits. The list of ridiculous expenses keeps growing: $2 million for a fake lake and its scenery; $400,000 for a steamboat; $300,000 for a washroom located 20 kilometres away from the summit site; $1 million for a backdrop and bear-proof garbage cans.

How can the government display so much arrogance when taxpayers are fuming over its patronage and wasteful spending?

[G8 and G20 Summits, June 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc has been rising in this House for 20 years to stand up for Quebeckers.

Clearly, the Conservative government has used the G8 and G20 summits to reward its friends. For instance, a $20 million arena was built in the industry minister's riding. To justify this expense, the government is telling us that it is to accommodate the members of the press at the summit. However, with the events about to start in just a few days, organizers are now saying that the arena will be used for neither the G8 nor the G20 summit.

These summits have essentially become open bars for the friends of the Conservatives, have they not?

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak about the Bloc Québécois opposition motion. First, I want to congratulate my colleague from Hochelaga who has done an excellent job all day trying to defend the interests of Quebeckers and to make the rest of Parliament understand that it is not true that Canada is always number one.

I have been pressured since my arrival at the House of Commons in 2000. The first lobbyists I met as a member were from the banks. They tried to make us understand that the banks in Canada needed to merge and grow in order to acquire other banks. They had the support of the Conservatives and some of the Liberals. The Liberals have always been divided on this issue. There was the pro-Martin camp and the pro-Chrétien camp. The pro-Martin camp was in favour of merging the banks, but the pro-Chrétien camp was not. The Bloc Québécois fought hard and managed to put off those decisions until an election was called. Since then, it has not been brought up again, which saved Canadian banks.

Moreover, as recently as last week, the new president of Power Corporation said he had made a mistake in 2000 when he supported bank mergers. He stated that the government was right not to allow the banks to merge, because they obviously would have bought a lot of bad debt. They would have bought American banks, which would have made Canada much weaker.

At the time, the Conservatives were in favour of mergers. I remember that the current Prime Minister, who was on the opposition side back then, fought for bank mergers. Today, I did not hear him say anything. He should have done the right thing, like the new president of Power Corporation, and apologized for the mistake he made back then.

The Conservatives are making a second mistake by trying once again to centralize. That is what the banks wanted to do in 2000: expand, centralize and be able to make acquisitions. Now the government wants to do the same thing, even though we have a passport system managed by the provinces that works quite well.

That is the reality and that is what our colleague from Hochelaga—a renowned economist and former minister in the Quebec government—has been trying to convey all day. Furthermore, he tried to make them understand that not only is this a mistake, but it will deprive Quebec of some of its powers. The Conservatives are trying to expand the system's administration in Toronto, while weakening Quebec, but more importantly, weakening the entire system that was created in Canada.

I thank my colleague for trying to make them understand the situation and I hope all hon. members will realize that when we defend Quebec, often we are also defending Canada, and we are trying to get them out of an impasse that will only lead to more mistakes.

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development knows that a developer is planning to build an apartment building on land claimed by the Mohawk community of Kanesatake. No one wants the current situation to deteriorate due to government complacency, as was the case in the 1990 Oka crisis.

Will the Prime Minister and the minister promise to restore the non-aboriginal property acquisition program to protect the lands claimed by first nations?

[Committees of the House, June 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives say that political staff should not appear before committees because of ministerial responsibility, as though ministerial responsibility were incompatible with staff testifying in committee.

Is the government aware that such logic would also mean that public servants could no longer testify in committee about a bill, a program or an expenditure?

[Committees of the House, June 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's director of communications, Dimitri Soudas, is playing hide and seek with a bailiff who is trying to serve him a summons to appear before a House committee.

The question is, where is Dimitri? His attitude is not only ridiculous, it demonstrates his disrespect and that of his boss for Parliament and the Speaker of the House's rulings.

Instead of undermining the committee's work, would it not be better for the Prime Minister's director of communications to appear before the committee?

[Proactive Enforcement and Defect Accountability Legislation (PEDAL) Act, June 3rd, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-511, which I have read.

We have an interest in this bill introduced by our Liberal colleague. We will have to work hard on this bill in committee. The current situation in the automobile industry is very complex. There are laws that apply, which the parliamentary secretary mentioned. Transport Canada reviews the complaints it receives from the public. Under current legislation, when a manufacturer finds a defect that could put the safety of the driver or the passengers at risk, the manufacturer is required to report that to Transport Canada. That is where delays can occur.

The Toyota example has been mentioned, but it could apply to any other company. Toyota still has an excellent reputation. Polls show that people who own a Toyota are very satisfied. Some of them are probably watching us. I do not think the future of Toyota is in danger.

Toyota knew about the defect in October and Transport Canada became aware of it in January. There was a delay there. Toyota says it was three months, but it is closer to four months. Whatever the number, there was still a significant delay from the time that Toyota received complaints from owners and the time that Transport Canada became aware of the defect. The majority of the owners' complaints were not sent to Transport Canada but to the dealerships that sold the vehicle.

The parliamentary secretary said that it was a case of self-regulation. Self-regulation means that the dealership must check for defects. If that is the case, it must be reported to Transport Canada. If there is no defect, the dealership can deal with any issues without informing Transport Canada and without a recall.

Toyota is based in Japan, where it has a research centre. Toyota Canada, which is an independent company, makes recommendations, receives a complaint, forwards it to senior management in North America and then passes it on to Japan. The company told us that it waits to see whether or not there are any similar complaints, which takes a few weeks.

In committee, I wondered why the company did not send all the complaints it received to Transport Canada. When we asked Transport Canada, we were told that there were 5,000 vehicle manufacturers, importers and distributors. We tend to think there are only a few companies that sell vehicles, but that is not true. There are all sorts of vehicles. Some have right-hand drive, others, left-hand drive, and so on. Transport Canada is responsible for all these vehicles. Self-regulation means that when these companies know that there is a problem, a defect, they are required to notify Transport Canada.

With new technologies, this takes time. Toyota's problem had to do with its electronic braking technology. It took several months for Toyota to discover the defect and make the famous recalls.

If I were logical and I asked every distributor and dealer to send Transport Canada a copy of the complaints it received, Transport Canada would need to have enough staff to analyze those complaints. Knowing that Toyota's research centres in Canada and the United States are not up to snuff and that the company has to refer the problem to its high-tech research centre in Japan, we can understand the time lag.

I do not mean to blame Toyota. There are also companies in Korea and other countries; the automotive industry is a global one. American companies that sell cars in other countries are going to go through the same thing.

How can we create a bill guaranteeing owners that the problem will be detected quickly and recalls issued accordingly?

Toyota said that it undertook a corporate reorganization. The process will be easier and faster as a result, but as the company president said, Toyota cannot guarantee that we will get an answer in a week. These analyses have to be done. Section 10 reads as follows:

A company that manufactures, sells or imports...shall, on becoming aware of a defect...that affects or is likely to affect...safety...cause notice of the defect to be given in the prescribed manner to...the Minister—

The company has to notify Transport Canada. The bill retains “safety-related defect” and provides a definition of “safety-related defect” in clause 3. This is the defect principle. There has to be a defect before the company notifies Transport Canada and issues recalls.

Transport Canada told us that the United States has another way of doing things. The company is required to report all defects, not just defects found in the United States. They have to report all defects in all of their models around the world. That is a requirement. We do not have that in Canada. I do not see any such measure in this bill. If all defects found in a particular make of car in other countries were reported to Transport Canada, we would be more aware of what is going on in Canada and could launch investigations. Such measures are not in this bill.

That is why we agree with the bill in principle. However, the committee needs to study it. We have to bring in experts and figure out our own way to protect Quebeckers and Canadians, who trust their automakers. They love their cars. Many have bought the same make for years. They do not switch to another make just because an issue pops up once.

However, it is important to point out that we have been lucky that nobody has died. People in the United States were not so lucky; some people there died. We cannot let this kind of situation go on knowing that it can take over 90 days to report a defect. Transport Canada has to intervene more quickly.

Naturally, I would like all defects in a given company's products or in a particular make of car to be reported to Transport Canada. I would like that to be a requirement, as it is in the United States. Transport Canada will definitely receive more reports. We have to ensure that Transport Canada has the tools and human resources it needs.

Transport Canada openly stated that it is the expert when it comes to analyzing driving systems in winter conditions. That is great. We are good at that, but I think the department should also be an expert when it comes to summer driving, when the temperature rises. The same applies to spring and fall, when it rains. That is what makes this so complex.

Sometimes we try to solve problems by using good measures, but passing legislation is not always enough. Laws were in place, and yet this still happened. We must ensure that Transport Canada has all the necessary personnel and equipment. I can understand why self-regulation began in 1971. It is the companies themselves that have the technology and the know-how to discover defects. If a government had to have the same technology as every automotive manufacturer, just imagine the research centre that the Canadian government would need. It could build its own cars and start a new line. A balance must be struck.

I thank my hon. colleague from Eglinton—Lawrence for introducing this bill. We would like to see it improved in committee, as usual, although I hope it will not be like today, because that was awful.

[Proactive Enforcement and Defect Accountability Legislation (PEDAL) Act, June 3rd, 2010]

Madam Speaker, in his bill, my colleague talks about brake override systems and wanting to add new measures. Brakes were a problem for Toyota. How did Toyota's problems influence my colleague's decision to introduce this bill?

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, June 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I was quite surprised to see the NDP member from Outremont try to add a new measure on oil or oil drilling to the bill in an attempt to entice the Liberals to vote in favour of the bill. This quite simply means that with such a measure, the NDP would also be prepared to support Bill C-9, knowing full well that some of the measures are unacceptable.

I did not understand what the deputy leader of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Outremont, was trying to do. He wanted to add a measure, apparently to try to mollify the Liberals to get Bill C-9 passed. I am trying to understand, but I still do not get it.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, June 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this gives me the opportunity to tell my hon. colleague that it goes much further, since it affects all urban environments. My colleague does not understand what Canada Post is doing at this time. There is a moratorium on post office closures in rural areas, but not in urban areas.

So in urban environments, they are trying to give contracts to private enterprise. Of course, when the time comes to renegotiate the contracts, since Canada Post has lower revenues, fees are not increased, nor what is paid to dealers for providing the service. More and more dealers in urban areas are not interested in the service.

Now Canada Post is forced to centralize in post offices that are further away because there are no more dealers, all because Canada Post is broke, and all urban areas are going to be affected.

The members of this House believe that the measure they are taking is a minor, short-term measure and that Canada Post will recover, but Canada Post will not recover. In order to provide the service, Canada Post will have to rely more and more on dealers in urban areas, for instance, and yet will have a much harder time paying the dealers. So dealers—obliged to provide a certain amount of space, but not paid for the space they are providing even though dealers have rent to pay to the owners of locations—will no longer be able to sign contracts with Canada Post. Worse still, in Montreal, at this very moment, fewer contracts are being signed.

Dealers even say they no longer want to provide the service because it is not worth it. Once again, this does affect rural areas, but hold on to your hats, because it is also going to affect urban areas pretty soon.