Mario Laframboise

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-9.

I have before me this bill, which is called a bill to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures. I have it in hand and I know that everyone is familiar with it.

It is a very large bill with 880 pages and more than 2,200 clauses. Those who are watching us might think that such a large bill is meant to improve things for Canadians in terms of taxes. It is called a budget implementation bill, but on the contrary, it is a Conservative scheme for pushing through a significant portion of their policies—their right-wing philosophy of which I will provide some examples—knowing full well that the official opposition, the Liberal Party, will back down. Thus, we already know that some members will be absent. They say they are against the bill when they take part in the debate, but when the time comes to vote, they will back down. The Conservatives know this very well. That is why they decided, after four years as a minority government, to seek passage of unpopular measures in bulk that they could not get passed in separate bills.

It is important that Quebeckers and Canadians watching us understand this: the Conservative Party has included unpopular measures in this bill, measures that would otherwise not get passed.

I will take as an example part 15 of the bill, on the Canada Post Corporation Act, on page 568. Clause 1885 has one paragraph:

1885. Section 15 of the Canada Post Corporation Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(3) The exclusive privilege referred to in subsection 14(1) does not apply to letters intended for delivery to an addressee outside Canada.

This change was part of Bill C-44, introduced by the Conservative government on June 17, 2009. That bill went to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, of which I am a member. The debates were so serious that, after prorogation, the Conservatives decided not to bring back this bill, which would have made changes to the Canada Post Corporation. The Conservatives decided not to bring it back, because changes in the exclusive privilege of Canada Post will reduce its revenues.

As a Quebec sovereignist, I believe that one day, we will have our own country. We will control our postal service, but until that happens, there is one agency, the Canada Post Corporation, that delivers mail in all regions of Canada. Not a single member in this House would dare say that postal services are not important. It is the only service that the Government of Canada provides to the public through a crown corporation, Canada Post. It affects every single citizen, and these services are provided every day. It is the only service left for the public, simply because the remaining public services are provided by other levels of government. Municipalities provide a significant number, as do the provinces. The only service that the Government of Canada provides to the public is the postal service.

When the revenues of Canada Post are cut, its services are also cut. That is what we heard in committee, even before the first version of the bill, when remailers came up with an idea, and lost their case in the courts. These remailers were, and still are, operating.

When they lost in court, they brought their request to us. The president of Canada Post came to tell us why the corporation was suing the remailing companies it had tolerated for 20 years. It was because Canada Post lost approximately $80 million in 2007, and the losses were not stopping.

It is important that Quebeckers and Canadians, and even members of the House, fully understand what remailing is. Companies offer to collect a large business's mail and send it to clients overseas, outside of Canada. Canada Post has tolerated remailing for a long time. Obviously, these companies have grown and are continuing to grow. They have found all sorts of ways to collect mail here and send it from elsewhere. They ship mail in containers and then mail it from overseas, in countries where the costs are significantly lower than in Canada, which leads to financial losses for Canada Post.

Remailing companies came to realize that as long as they were collecting international mail from businesses, they could suggest to these businesses that they collect and send all of their mail. When Canada Post realized that remailing companies were signing mail collection contracts with all of the large organizations—universities and all of the major health networks—it realized that it was losing significant revenue.

In order to stay afloat, Canada Post has to cut services. There is a reason why, in the past three or four years, Canada Post has been closing post offices, trying to reduce the number of rural routes and installing group mailboxes instead of offering home delivery.

I do not think that a single member of this House would dare debate this issue. The Conservatives have decided to hide this measure in their omnibus bill, Bill C-9. We must never forget that Canada Post was the first major Canadian corporation. The famous Royal Mail has always been delivered ever since there was mail. The largest union in Canada is the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. It makes sense because the corporation delivers mail to every home.

The Conservative Party is destroying this service. This bill will take away its exclusive privilege. Canada Post won in court because the onus was on the companies to prove that they were obeying the law. Bill C-9 will take away that exclusive privilege and remailers will be able to collect mail.

What the government and the minister are telling us is that remailers will only be able to collect mail destined for foreign countries. If they collect mail distributed in Canada, it will be up to Canada Post to prove it. We can imagine the money Canada Post will have to spend to prove that private businesses are not collecting only international mail.

The companies knew what they were doing when they asked for the end of the exclusive privilege. Their problem was that they had to prove in court that they were not collecting mail. Now, Canada Post will have to prove it. What does that mean? I can say right now that Canada Post plans on cutting its spending by $250 million over the next two years. That means that services will be cut in rural areas in Quebec and the rest of Canada.

With the Bloc Québécois, I will be voting against Bill C-9 because I do not want to be responsible for ending the provision of service to the entire population. Every citizen pays taxes, whether they live in a rural or urban area. Everyone has the right to postal service in all parts of Quebec and Canada. I do not want to be the one to vote to eliminate postal service in rural areas.

[Municipality Week, June 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this week is Municipality Week in Quebec. This year, the theme is sustainable development. The Government of Quebec launched this event in 1988 to showcase the actions and values that characterize Quebec communities.

Throughout the week, municipalities are invited to organize earth-friendly activities highlighting simple actions, such as recycling and composting, encouraging local providers to donate surplus goods to schools and organizations in their region, encouraging the use of renewable energy, reducing paper consumption, taking advantage of natural light, encouraging people to get to know their local government and highlighting social commitment.

I would like to take this opportunity to invite all Quebeckers to participate in various events in their communities. Municipal governments hope that these activities will help them get in touch with the people and recognize citizens' contributions to improving community standards of living.

[Canada Post Corporation Act, May 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-509, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (library materials), introduced by my colleague from Brandon—Souris, particularly since this is an emergency.

There is a persistent rumour going around inter-library loan networks, including the network in Quebec, that Canada Post is planning to increase its rates. Canada Post operates as a business and has problems of its own. Bill C-9 would take away its exclusive international remailing privilege, so Canada Post will likely face revenue losses. The Conservative government chose to adopt this strategy. It chose to take away Canada Post's exclusive remailing privilege. It was a political choice, but public libraries should not have to pay the price.

I believe my Conservative colleague from Brandon—Souris has a good grasp of the situation. He is very keen on this bill. Earlier, I suggested that he try to have it passed at report stage. I know he wants the committee to look at the bill, discuss it and have Canada Post come and explain where it will get the money. That is why I suggested we pass the bill quickly.

If Canada Post has revenue problems, it should discuss them directly with the government. It is not this service that is depriving Canada Post of revenue, because the corporation already offers reduced rates for inter-library loans and for individuals who also want to provide this service. This service is already in place, so it cannot cause a loss of revenue. The reduced rate has been in place for decades. The cause of Canada Post's revenue losses lies elsewhere. I do not want the committee to focus on Canada Post's lost revenue and kill a bill that is urgently needed.

Sometimes, we discuss things that can divide us. Some governments choose to govern that way. But a bill like the one before us is not divisive. I have not heard the NDP critics, but I am sure they will support this measure. It needs to be passed very quickly.

As our Conservative colleague from Brandon—Souris said, he has been working on this for over four years. He is introducing his bill for the third time. I hope the third time is the charm. I can offer him the Bloc Québécois' support to pass the bill at all stages. He can talk about this with his House leader in order to avoid a debate with Canada Post Corporation, which currently has problems with some of the government's other policies. I would not want this measure to be jeopardized.

I know the president of Quebec's library network quite well because she is also president of the Outaouais library network. She is the mayor of Plaisance in my riding. She is the reeve of the RCM of Papineau. I had the opportunity to talk to her about this possibility of increased transportation costs. These organizations are often run by volunteers. This is a highly important issue. They prepare an annual budget and every year she talks to me to find out what is going on with Canada Post. It is hard to give her an answer because Canada Post is a crown corporation that manages its operations independently. This corporation is governed by federal legislation. If we order it, through this bill, to maintain the current rate, it would be required to do so. I believe this is the right approach.

The hon. members will have gathered that we will be supporting wholeheartedly Bill C-509 which is before us, first because it maintains the current reduced-rate service, and second because this rate would apply to all audiovisual materials in the future.

My colleague from Brandon—Souris is a visionary. New technologies have been developed, and the public should have more and more opportunities to use them. Having the reduced rate apply to audiovisual materials would be a good way to encourage communities.

The member for Brandon—Souris talked about the significant savings that could be made by the Ottawa Library. That is right, and that goes to show the magnitude of the problem. I have heard a $75,000 figure mentioned; that is a lot of money.

Just think of the thousands of dollars that small communities could save. Public libraries in our communities in Quebec and Canada are often run by volunteers who manage funds received from generous donors.

Municipalities contribute to the network as best they can within their means. Money does not grow on trees. I believe that this bill will have an impact on all regions of Quebec and Canada. It does not matter how thick the bill is. A bill can be quite modest in length, but that does not mean that it will have a modest impact on communities.

Bill C-509 provides for a reduced postage rate for all library materials from books to audio-visual material. This is critical to the development—perhaps even to the survival—of all communities.

At the very least, libraries have to be able to offer a borrowing service for people who often do not have the means to buy these materials themselves. This is a good way to encourage parents, children and seniors to read.

This is an excellent social measure, and I would like to congratulate my Conservative colleague once again for having introduced it. I can assure him of the Bloc Québécois' support because all Quebec communities need this kind of justifiable measure.

I give him our support so that this bill will pass at all report stages because we do not want it to disappear should an election, prorogation or something else happen. Once again, we will support Bill C-509.

[Canada Post Corporation Act, May 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, first, I wish to congratulate the Conservative member for Brandon—Souris for this initiative. Naturally, I hope he will take into consideration the recommendations or the advice that I may give him. I know he is the chair of a committee, because I belong to that committee. He is very knowledgeable about procedure and I would suggest that he move that the motion be unanimously adopted by all parties at all stages. As he mentioned in his presentation, he introduced his bill a number of years ago and I believe that it is time for Parliament to adopt it quickly so that it can become law as soon as possible.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, while my colleague was giving his speech, the member for Pontiac and foreign affairs minister talked about Quebec's interests and the fact that the Bloc Québécois was still defending them. I would like to hear my colleague on how Quebec's interests are being jeopardized by the Conservatives' policy.

[Instruction to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion moved by the hon. Conservative member. Earlier I asked a question of the member, who did appear open, but we must nevertheless have a closer look at the situation. Why is it that we are discussing question period here today? Recent history tells us why.

We have had a minority government since 2006. Inevitably, this government is feeling a little oppressed by opposition questions. Prior to that, we had the sponsorship scandal, and question period in the House had a significant impact on what happened in Canadian politics. If we want to change how things are done, it is very important that the opposition not lose any of its power to put questions to those who deserve them. At the time of the sponsorship scandal, Alfonso Gagliano was bombarded with questions every day. So we have to look at how the Conservative member's motion will affect this way of doing things.

The Bloc Québécois agrees with the first paragraph of the motion:

(i) elevating decorum and fortifying the use of discipline by the Speaker, to strengthen the dignity and authority of the House,

We have already mentioned this many times in the House. Of course, we believe the Speaker has the power to elevate decorum. That is his responsibility, and he must exercise it.

The motion contains other paragraphs:

(ii) lengthening the amount of time given for each question and each answer,

I listened to the speech given by the hon. Liberal member just before me. She mentioned the Quebec National Assembly. We must not forget that at this time, the House has two and a half times more members than the National Assembly. If the Conservatives' reforms for the House of Commons go ahead, this would add about another 30 members and the House of Commons would have three times more members than the National Assembly. So it is only natural that, during question period, the questions and answers are longer because there are fewer members.

As I mentioned earlier to the Conservative member who moved the motion, the problem is that we do not want to see the number of opposition questions decreased as the amount of time for questions and answers is lengthened. Obviously, it was not clear. What he said was that we would have to ask shorter questions. Why would the Bloc Québécois ask 30-second or 20-second questions? Because it wants to keep the same number of questions it has now. Otherwise, question period would have to be extended. But extending question period would affect committees and all kinds other things. Things are this way for a reason.

The third paragraph states:

(iii) examining the convention that the Minister questioned need not respond,

We have always said that this is question period, not answer period. The ministers could always claim that they answered us, and then provide unsatisfactory answers. I have to wonder about that paragraph.

(iv) allocating half the questions each day for Members, whose names and order of recognition would be randomly selected,

Once again, if the point is to allow every member in the House to be eligible for the random selection, so just as many government members as opposition members, that means that government members would get more questions, and the opposition would get fewer. That means that we would not have been able to ask the 440 questions that were asked during the sponsorship scandal, and that the Bloc Québécois would have fewer opportunities to clean up Parliament.

(v) dedicating Wednesday exclusively for questions to the Prime Minister,

It is similar to the paragraph that follows it:

(vi) dedicating Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday for questions to Ministers other than the Prime Minister in a way that would require Ministers...

That would mean that if a current affair involves a minister and his day is Thursday or Tuesday of the following week, we would have to wait a week before being able to question that minister. That makes no sense. We would have to wait a week before we could ask the Prime Minister a question on Wednesday. That makes no sense. Take, for example, the effect that question period had on the sponsorship scandal. Every day it helped reveal the scope of the largest scandal involving the Canadian government in our country's history.

Obviously, at first glance it would be understandable to agree with the principle of this motion. We agree that decorum in the House needs to be improved and we will support any measure to that effect. But, the motion moved by the Conservative member seems to want to muzzle the opposition and we will never agree to that. I can understand that the Liberal Party, which was hit hard by the sponsorship scandal, will support the motion. However, they will understand that the Bloc Québécois, which wants increased transparency in this House, will oppose any measure that would limit the opposition's time to ask questions. Obviously, our discussions and positions will always be aimed at increasing transparency.

I realize that our Conservative colleague has reached out to us, but we have to say that it was the Conservative Party that prorogued Parliament when under a great deal of pressure about the treatment of Afghan detainees. It was this government that refused to turn over the documents, and the Speaker had to make a historic ruling to force the government to turn over those documents. And it is this government that is refusing to allow political staff to appear before committees, so we have to watch out. When I read the motion as written, I feel that the intent is to shut down and muzzle the opposition, but we will always oppose any attempt by the Conservative Party to muzzle us.

I would warn the Conservatives about minority governments. Great Britain, the mother country of many members, just elected a minority government. They will see what happens, but I feel we cannot change the way we do things just because we have a minority government and the Conservatives do not like how question period goes. We will always be in favour of greater decorum in this House. Having civilized debates is no problem.

But this would limit the number of questions the opposition can ask and the ministers of whom they can ask questions. If we have questions for the Prime Minister, we should be able to ask him questions every day. If he is at the root of all of the problems we are having now, he should have to answer questions during question period every day, just like Gagliano had to answer questions every day because he caused a problem. We would not want this motion to exempt ministers from answering any of the questions that come their way just because their turn only comes around once a week.

When ministers decide not to rise and delegate colleagues to rise in their stead, that sends a message. The Conservatives are very good at it. They decide that ministers involved in or targeted by media attacks will not rise to defend themselves. They need to know that the people and the media see what is going on. People see what they are up to.

This Parliament has always worked a certain way, and I think the results have been good. Among other things, our approach exposed the sponsorship scandal. I have a problem with the Conservatives trying once again to amend the act to prevent people from exposing scandals involving governments in power. We support the first paragraph of the motion, which says that we must elevate decorum and fortify the use of discipline by the Speaker, but we do not support any of the other paragraphs.

In the end, given that there is more disagreement than agreement, we will oppose the motion. Nevertheless, if the member's motion does not pass, we strongly encourage him to move another in which he respects the fact that the opposition has the right to ask any question. The opposition represents all those who want to know what the government is up to.

In my opinion, anything that appears to muzzle the opposition is antidemocratic, so before we proceed with any changes to parliamentary process here in Canada, I would suggest we wait and see what will happen with Great Britain's minority government.

[Instruction to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my question is simple. It is obvious that our colleague has good intentions and is open to having discussions.

Since the arrival of minority governments, the atmosphere in the House during question period has been rather tense.

We must be careful when it comes time to change it all. The text of the motion proposes lengthening the amount of time for questions and answers, which means decreasing the number of opposition questions. I hope that our colleague's intention is not to muzzle the opposition. That is what we must look at.

He wants the members who will take part in question period to be randomly selected. That means that the Conservatives will be included in the selection and that there will be more questions from the government and less from the opposition. I hope our colleague's intention is not to muzzle the opposition. That is my question.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, who is doing an excellent job. Bill C-9 has a full chapter on Canada Post and the removal of its exclusive privilege over letters for delivery outside Canada.

The president of Canada Post, who I just heard is leaving her job, told the committee that, in 2007, Canada Post lost $80 million because of these businesses. They were freely dipping into and encroaching on the exclusive privilege of Canada Post, even though they did not have the right. We can only imagine the massive amounts of money that Canada Post will lose if this bill passes.

I know that my colleague is very sensitive to the loss in revenues for Canada Post, because lost revenues lead to lost services. In rural regions, like my riding and the communities my colleague serves, there are concerns. Is my colleague worried about this bill that puts an end to Canada Post's exclusive privilege over international mail?

[An Action Plan for the National Capital Commission, May 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. He understands the situation. I did not have enough time in my speech to mention that once Quebec and Ontario authorize changes, further authorization from the House of Commons would be required to confirm the changes. I know that in committee, Liberal members gave some very good examples of decisions that are made in the rest of Canada and then have to be dealt with here in the House of Commons.

The Bloc Québécois will support all of the amendments once consultation with Quebec and Ontario about changes to boundaries in the master plan has taken place and their authorization has been obtained. A decision will then be made in the House of Commons. We always support Quebec's decisions, regardless of whether the government in power is federalist or sovereignist. We are always consistent.

[An Action Plan for the National Capital Commission, May 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He is right, especially because this bill has not been improved or changed a single bit. Bill C-20 is the same bill that was introduced before prorogation, despite all the comments made and amendments proposed by the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois.

This means that the lobbyists did their job and convinced the member for Pontiac, the Minister of Transport at the time, that he needed to amend this bill by taking powers away from the House of Commons and the governments of Quebec and Ontario, if they had any, and to give all that power to a group of friends. I should point out that people who are appointed to the National Capital Commission are usually friends of the existing government. This group of friends is therefore making important decisions regarding the greenbelt in Ontario or even Gatineau Park.

These subjects are of great interest to people in the Outaouais and to people across Quebec, because they have to do with land we can use. I think that the lobbyists have done their job. My colleague is right. Anyone who is remotely intelligent would realize that a good parent would not have made that decision. They should have consulted and gotten permission from Quebec and Ontario for any land changes, considering the area that is involved here.

You can find private property within Quebec parks. Every time a decision is made regarding parks in Quebec, there are consultations. The provincial government and the owners are present, and that is how it should be done. The same thing could have been done with the Government of Canada, which owns the land. The federal government must sit down with the governments of Quebec and Ontario to talk about the land in question, to tell them how it plans to expand or cut back and to ask their advice. That is not what was decided. The government decided to give all that responsibility to non-elected officials who are friends of the governing party and who will decide whether to acquire or sell portions of land. What will happen in the future? It is disturbing.