Mario Laframboise

[Energy Efficiency Act, April 1st, 2009]

Madam Speaker, as we know, our work in committee is constantly evolving. The problem with the NDP is that they always want to achieve their own objectives and present their own opinions, without looking at all possible situations, while the Bloc Québécois' goal is to hear all the witnesses and move forward on the issue. What our NDP colleague is suggesting is not out of the question, nor is it out of the question that we would make such an amendment or support the NDP, but I do not wish to make any assumptions before the debate.

As we all know, the Bloc Québécois has always been responsible. We do not vote against a budget without seeing it. That is just one way we conduct ourselves. We do not vote against a budget without making some proposals, which is what we have always done. When budget time comes, the Bloc Québécois makes its proposals three or four weeks in advance, in order to make its position clear to the government. We always act responsibly and many parties would do well to follow the Bloc Québécois' example in this House.

[Energy Efficiency Act, April 1st, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Bill S-3 and take part in this debate.

It is always instructive to see the Liberal member for Malpeque grilling the Conservatives for having plunged Canada into a deficit when the Liberal Party of Canada supported them no less than 62 times in this descent into hell with the creation of a Canadian deficit. I find it hard to understand, although that is not the only incongruity in this Parliament. This kind of thing is why politicians are always second last on the list of people Canadians trust. I will not say who is last. Members take positions in the House that are totally contrary to what they say in their speeches. That is the Liberal reality and it is why they have almost no credibility in Quebec.

Bill S-3 was introduced yesterday and is an act to amend the Energy Efficiency Act. I want to say right away that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the principle of this bill. Environmental groups and people who take some interest in the environment are not easily fooled, but when the Conservative government introduces a bill on energy efficiency, it is at least a step. We should study it therefore in committee, improve it, and see how open-minded the Conservatives are about analyzing it. This bill is not a panacea for all our energy problems, far from it, but my colleague from Trois-Rivières did a good job of presenting the Bloc’s position. When the government takes a little step, we should all go along, while remaining very realistic about the likely results.

There are eight clauses in Bill S-3. I will summarize them for the benefit of the men and women watching.

Clause 1 creates section 2.1 in the definitions in the Energy Efficiency Act. Its purpose is to specify the meaning of the word “class”. A class of energy-using products can be defined according to common energy-consuming characteristics of the products, their intended use, or the conditions under which the products are normally used.

Clause 2 is about interprovincial trade and importation. In the current act, paragraph 4.1(b) forbids dealers from shipping an energy-using product that does not comply with certain requirements from the province in which it was manufactured to another province for the purpose of sale or lease. Clause 2 changes this provision by replacing the last part with the following: “from one province to another province” for the purpose of sale or lease. In addition, paragraph 4.1(b) in the current English version requiring that a label be attached to the product or package is changed to require a label “in accordance with the regulations”. This is a welcome clarification because they are talking about appliances in this bill and all energy-using household equipment is included.

As we know, many of our citizens still have appliances that consume a lot of energy. In Quebec, Hydro-Québec is paying $60 to anyone who gets a new fridge. Hydro-Québec will even come and take away the old one. That is one way of getting rid of appliances that consume too much energy. If we want to use a bill to prohibit interprovincial transportation of equipment, we are talking about importers, retailers and suppliers. The equipment is not always new. There is business in second hand equipment. We do not want such equipment to be transported between the provinces, or even sold in any province.

Clause 3 adds a clarification to the information that a dealer must communicate to the minister.

From now on, prescribed information must include information about the shipping or importation of the material in question.

Clause 3 amends section 5 of the Energy Efficiency Act, which requires that dealers who ship or import energy-using products shall file a report with the prescribed information. Under the current subsection 5(1), the “dealer...shall file with the Minister...a report setting out prescribed information respecting the energy efficiency of those products.” The bill changes the wording to require the dealer to “provide the Minister...with” the prescribed information, so it is not a matter of merely filing a report, but rather being obliged to provide the information concerning those products, including their energy efficiency, their shipment or their importation.

This is important because, at the end of the day, this bill attacks the very foundation of the distribution chain. This affects dealers and importers. This is unfortunate because we have heard members, both Liberals and Conservatives, pointing out whose record was worst or best. But one thing is certain: we must target importers, because there is almost no more manufacturing of such products here, simply because these sectors have been abandoned and left to emerging countries.

So now that we have virtually stopped manufacturing these products, we must ensure that the products we are sold respect the environment, and that is where the problem often lies.

During the holiday season, there is the issue of all the toys that contain lead and all the problems Canada has because it has not passed strict enough regulations and has allowed countries to produce goods that we would never dare produce here. We let them produce such goods, then we buy them. We also let these people distribute equipment produced in other countries that is no longer in keeping with how we see the environment and how we consume goods and services.

Similar technical changes—still with reference to clause 3—are proposed for subsections 5(2)(a) and 5(2)(b) and subsection 5(1). In addition, this clause allows in certain circumstances for an exemption from the requirement to provide information related to the energy efficiency of energy-using products, while leaving in place the requirement for shipment and importation information.

It is a bit complicated, and I would say that that is unintentional, at least I hope so. In any case, I have confidence in my colleague from Trois-Rivières, who, in committee, will be able to ask the witnesses the necessary questions to ensure that these requirements are really intended to facilitate information sharing.

So once we know that all or nearly all consumer products and equipment come from other countries and we realize that some products and equipment do not comply with our energy efficiency standards, we need to make sure with this bill that there are no loopholes. The Conservatives like to try to introduce a bill and allow, say, the oil industry to get off scot-free. It is a bit like when they talk about their carbon exchange and use 2010 as the reference year.

Members will recall that the Kyoto protocol sets 1992 as the reference year. This means that all the industries in Quebec—the aluminum smelters and paper plants—that reduced their greenhouse gas emissions in relation to 1992 levels and succeeded in meeting the Kyoto targets will have to do so all over again in relation to the Conservative government's proposed new reference year of 2010 or 2012, even though they had achieved what no company in Canada had managed to do.

That is why, day in and day out, week after week, we in the Bloc Québécois rise in this House to make it loud and clear to all the other parties that they must not forget that the effort has already been made in Quebec. In Quebec, the large manufacturing companies have made efforts and are prepared to comply with Kyoto, but it is a different story in the other Canadian provinces, especially with oil companies and tar sands. In a way, it is sad to always have to stand up for the people of Quebec.

We too would like all the members of this House to understand what manufacturing industries and other industries in Quebec—the logging, aluminum and paper manufacturing companies that have made efforts to achieve the Kyoto objectives—are going through. If an international carbon exchange was established, they would be ready to sell their credits because they have exceeded the objectives of the Kyoto protocol. They could be making money as we speak. The environment is no longer only costing money; it has become a source of income, an area of economic interest. Now, the environment is a money maker, provided one puts in the necessary effort.

After all the efforts that have been made in Quebec, the Conservatives are suggesting that the clock be reset, proposing a new reference date of 2010 or 2012. We will start over, and the industries with emissions lower than at the reference date will be allowed to issue emission credits. We can imagine what this means for the logging, aluminum and manufacturing companies which have already made the necessary efforts. They are being asked to make an additional effort. That is why we are saying that the government has to provide compensation to those who have done better than everyone else and are being penalized.

As I mentioned earlier, when the Conservatives introduce a bill, they once again cater to polluters. They are going to warn oil companies that the year 2010 or 2012 will be the starting point, and that they will have to reduce their emissions. If the companies do that, they will be eligible for those credits. They will not even have to buy them, because they will be in a position to sell them. For those who are following this issue, it just does not make any sense.

However, this is not funny for aluminum plants, for paper mills and for all the companies that anticipated this move. The companies that wanted to sell a product abroad told themselves that they would make an effort and be conscientious. They had decided to comply with the world target set in the Kyoto protocol, with 1992 as the reference date. However, because of a decision made by the Conservative government, these people will forever pay a price, this in an already difficult economic context. Once again, the Bloc Québécois has no choice but to rise day in and day out in this House to condemn the Conservatives' way of doing things.

So, this bill seeks to amend the Energy Efficiency Act, and it is meant to be an environmental act. The Conservative Party even claims that it is part of its green plan. The nice Tory green plan that will save the environment. Still, it is a first step and it means that the government is doing something. Indeed, there are problems with electric household appliances. We import a lot of those appliances. We buy them from countries that do not have the same environmental standards, and it is only normal to impose labelling provisions. Things must be clear when these appliances arrive in Canada. We must know about their energy consumption. If they do not comply with the standards, they should simply be sent back, or they should not be bought. This is more or less what this bill seeks to do. If it does not do so in its present form, we can trust the hon. member for Trois-Rivières that it will once the committee will have dealt with it. That is the objective. This legislation will help us make progress regarding the environment. Hon. members can trust the Bloc Québécois to achieve the objective set in this bill. We are going to make sure that the process is free of “Conservative” diversion or secrecy.

Clause 4 makes several technical wording changes dealing with the records and documents that dealers must keep. In the current section 7, the documents and records must enable the minister to verify the accuracy and completeness of the information. Under this bill, they must be sufficient for the Minister to do the verification.

I agree with my colleagues who spoke before me about this bill or asked questions. This bill ought to have been amended and there should be adjustments to the legislation every five years. Industrial changes happen very quickly. The government therefore needs to be sure it can monitor the situation in order to have the legislation tailored to technological developments in the industry.

This should be done automatically. The minister wants to change the definition through clause 4 by adding the term “sufficient” relating to the documents and records the industry needs to provide. He has noticed that he was not getting what he needed to support an informed decision. So, as I said earlier, clause 4 targets the dealers, all the importing dealers who purchase products or have them manufactured offshore, very often in developing countries not required to respect the environmental standards we have set for ourselves. So if we do not have all the details we need about the manufacturing process, content or energy efficiency, it becomes rather difficult to know if the product complies with our standards and conditions.

It is therefore normal to want to cast some light on this clause. It is a matter of semantics, but does add a bit more rigour to this legislation, which probably ought to have been amended very promptly five years ago and so is likely to be totally out of date. Once again, I rely on my colleague from Trois-Rivières and my fellow members of the Bloc Québécois who will sit on the committee to ensure that this bill develops along the right lines and is adjusted as developments in the industry take place.

Clause 5 broadens regulatory powers, one of the main amendments that Bill S-3 would make to the Energy Efficiency Act. This clause amends the Governor in Council's regulatory power. The Governor in Council will now be able to implement regulations that target categories of products, not just individual products; products that control energy consumption; and products that affect energy consumption. It also amends the English version of the Act.

With respect to labelling, Part III will give the Governor in Council broader, stronger regulatory powers over all of the information included with energy-using products. Previously, the Governor in Council could regulate only information about energy efficiency. Once again, the definition has to be broadened to make it stronger. Labels will now include all of the details.

These measures were deemed necessary because it is clear that the industry, importers and dealers have done everything in their power to not reveal true energy consumption numbers so that they can sell products that cost less to produce. They did everything they could to claim that their products complied with the law even though they did not. That is one of the advantages of this bill.

However, the Conservative government must not try to use distractions to pull a fast one on us. Once again, I am counting on my colleague from Trois-Rivières and other Bloc Québécois members who will ensure that the right questions get asked in committee. Clause 5 will also make some changes.

Clause 6 is about the report to Parliament. The second major amendment relates to the minister's responsibility to report to the House of Commons. Usually, the minister has to report on the implementation and enforcement of the bill once a year. Clause 6 adds a provision requiring the minister to compare Canada's energy efficiency standards to those of the United States and Mexico every three years. The purpose of the comparison is to demonstrate the extent to which the stringency of Canadian standards matches that of the other jurisdictions. I think that is a good idea. As I said earlier, things are changing quickly in the industry.

Since I see that I have only a minute left, I will close by saying that people can count on the Bloc Québécois members, who will work hard in committee to promote the idea of a potential obligation to review the legislation every five years. This situation is very important, and it is being submitted to our colleagues so that we can guarantee our citizens that what happened in the past will never happen again. People are trying once again to conceal information and use labels that do not meet standards, in order to achieve their own goals. I can assure you, Madam Speaker, of our full support for Bill S-3, but with the improvements that the Bloc Québécois will propose in committee.

[Montreal Airport Authority, April 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Montreal airport authority has made the unilateral decision to alter the way taxi services to and from the Montreal Dorval airport are being managed. The Montreal taxi industry is unanimously opposed to the approach taken by the airport authority.

Will the minister impose a moratorium on the bidding process and bring to the table his departmental officials, the airport authority and representatives of the Montreal taxi industry, in order to break this impasse?

[Transportation, March 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this week, Quebec City's mayor, Régis Labeaume, criticized the federal government's reluctance to get on board with high-speed trains, saying, “We are way behind. That kind of attitude belongs in the stone age”. Those in the know politically and economically recognize the advantages of this mode of transportation, but the government is way behind the times.

Will the Prime Minister move beyond studies, demonstrate some political will and support a Quebec City-based high-speed train?

[Liberal Party of Canada, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, last weekend the Liberal leader waffled on at great length before his party workers but had nothing specific to offer Quebeckers.

He says he wants to improve the employment insurance system, which was butchered by the Liberals, but does not have anything in particular to propose. He says too that he was the first federalist politician to recognize the Quebec nation, but he refuses to say what he intends to make of it. Even worse, he describes the fiscal imbalance as ancient history when the Quebec National Assembly agrees unanimously that it should be dealt with.

While the Bloc Québécois was making clear, detailed proposals for jump-starting the economy, the Liberals were content to sit back and support the Conservative budget without even deigning to propose any amendments to meet Quebec’s particular needs.

Is this the kind of leadership that the Liberal Party of Canada is offering Quebeckers? It is nothing but empty words. A lot of talk but little action.

[Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, March 23rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992. We will be looking at this bill together. However, we should look at its history and remember how, in this Parliament, it takes time to adopt a bill that has unanimous support across Canada and, above all, which has had the full support of Quebec since 2002.

My Liberal colleague was quite right: the Liberals introduced the bill in 2002, there were consultations in 2004 and, since then, a series of elections have prevented passage of the bill. The Liberal government elected in 2004 lasted about 18 months. Although they introduced the bill, it was not a national emergency. The Liberal government did not do everything it could to move this bill forward.

An election was called and the Conservative government came to power. It was not a national priority for it either. In the Conservatives' first term, from 2006 to 2008, it was not urgent. Thus, the bill did not go through all the stages.

The Conservative government was re-elected and it seemed that it wanted to move the bill forward because, as some colleagues pointed out, it had the support of all provinces and territories. The transportation of dangerous goods is an urgent matter that we must deal with.

I will take this opportunity to read Bill C-9's summary, which states:

The main amendments fall into two categories: new security requirements and safety amendments. These amendments include the following:

(a) requirements for security plans and security training;

(b) a requirement that prescribed persons must hold transportation security clearances to transport dangerous goods, and the establishment of regulatory authority in relation to appeals and reviews of any decision in respect of those clearances;

(c) the creation of a choice of instruments — regulations, security measures and interim orders — to govern security in relation to dangerous goods;

(d) the use of industry emergency response assistance plans approved by Transport Canada to respond to an actual or apprehended release of dangerous goods during their transportation;

(e) the establishment of regulatory authority to require that dangerous goods be tracked during transport or reported if lost or stolen;

(f) clarification of the Act to ensure that it is applicable uniformly throughout Canada, including to local works and undertakings;

(g) reinforcement and strengthening of the Emergency Response Assistance Plan Program; and

(h) authority for inspectors to inspect any place in which standardized means of containment are being manufactured, repaired or tested.

When we read that summary, we realize that this bill should have been passed long ago. I find it amusing that, throughout the committee stage, the Conservatives have insisted that it was urgent that the bill be passed because of the Vancouver Olympics. This bill has been on the shelf since 2002, and consultations were conducted in 2004. At that time, it was urgent that the bill be passed.

Some of the bill's clauses will not apply to the 2010 Olympic Games. That is a cold hard fact. I do not know whether there is a problem within the Conservative Party with the implementation or passage of this bill respecting the transportation of dangerous goods. I do not know if the party is trying to sell to its rank and file the idea of passing a bill because of the 2010 Olympic Games, but this particular bill ought to have been passed long before now. It should have been a priority of this government but was not, when it was elected in 2006.

I indicated that it would not be possible to pass a number of provisions contained in the bill. One reason for this is the serious implications with respect to transportation security clearances.

I will read the new subsection 5.2(1) because it is worth reading:

No prescribed person shall import, offer for transport, handle or transport dangerous goods in a quantity or concentration that is specified by regulation—or that is within a range of quantities or concentrations ... --unless the person has a transportation security clearance granted under subsection (2).

Truckers wishing to transport dangerous goods must have a security clearance. This measure is in force in the United States, with all of its attendant advantages and disadvantages. I am sure that some of my colleagues will talk about the impact of that measure.

The text states very clearly: “No prescribed person shall...”. The problem is that there is not enough time between now and the start of the Olympic Games to implement the transportation security clearance domestically. It can be implemented for international transportation, but the Conservatives and their band of supporters are trying to sell us on this idea and to convince us that we need transportation security clearances for cross-border transportation of goods because, they claim, if some disaster were to occur, it would originate in the United States.

Forget that. The Americans already have their own security clearances, and there is no way a catastrophe originating in the United States could strike the games in Vancouver. If something were to happen, it would originate in Canada. Many other countries have already called our borders porous because of our huge navigable waterways and our extensive borders. Even individuals can move freely between the United States and Canada.

In terms of security, RCMP officers have been replaced at the Conservatives' instigation. They are the ones who removed RCMP officers from airports, ports, and so on. Those officers were replaced by security guards. That is a fact.

In theory, if the government really wanted security clearances to protect the Vancouver games, such clearances should also apply to interprovincial transportation and the transportation of goods within Canada. Transport Canada officials have told us that there is not enough time between now and 2010 to implement the new rules and to have all truckers take the tests.

The company that the Americans asked to give tests to all the truckers carrying dangerous goods to the United States was questioned and it was discovered that between 10% and 15% of the truckers had not obtained their security clearances for the reasons decided on by the countries. We will also have to pay attention, therefore, and the industry will have to ask itself some questions. Everyone seems to agree on that and I do too because what matters to us in the Bloc Québécois is what Quebeckers think.

Transports Québec has been involved in this entire discussion since 2004 and agrees completely that it is taking too long to pass this legislation. As I said, though, the objective cannot be 2010 because it would take three to five years to implement a measure like this on interprovincial transportation within Canada. It was the public servants who came and told us that.

When it says here, “No prescribed person—” the first people involved will be those who transport goods back and forth to the United States and have easier access to it because of their accreditations. Once Canada issues these security clearances, the American will accept them and it will be easier to transport dangerous goods between Canada and the United States.

Once the security clearances and accreditations have been issued, the Americans will recognize Canada’s and vice versa. It will be easier therefore. I have a lot of problems, though, with the fact the government is trying to sell this by saying it is for the 2010 Olympic Games. I had a lot of problems with it as soon as I saw it and I still do today. Regardless, though, this bill should be passed and the Bloc Québécois will be responsible and do all it can to ensure it goes as quickly as possible.

That brings us to the fact that if this passes, we know very well that regulations will be produced along the way. It is true. Some of our colleagues have asked questions, amendments have been proposed, and some questions still need to be asked about the regulations. Insofar as the security clearances are concerned, these questions include the fact that it says they are for prescribed persons.

This means that after the bill is passed, regulations will be adopted by the Department of Transport. They do not have to go through the House of Commons. That is where abuses could arise. Since the Conservatives came to power, many members have felt that their right-wing ideology is very dangerous when legislation is left in their hands. By dangerous, I mean that respect for human rights and freedoms is not always their cup of tea.

So in some respects, it is true that it is not easy, because the department still has to have some leeway. In fact, the types of dangerous goods will also be determined by regulation. There is a whole slew of new products, and it is not easy to create enabling legislation that covers everything that might happen in the industry. It is only natural to leave it up to the government or the minister, regardless of who that may be at the time, to pass regulations to protect people.

In committee, the Liberals introduced an amendment that everyone supported. We supported it, and so did the party in power. I want to read the proposed subsection 30(3). This is on page 26 of the English text:

Section 30 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(3) The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities of the House of Commons or, if there is not a Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the appropriate committee of that House may review any regulations made under this Act, either on its own initiative or on receiving a written complaint regarding a specific safety concern. The Committee may hold public hearings and may table its report on its review in the House of Commons.

We wanted this amendment to be added to the bill so that if a complaint were ever filed with Transport Canada, it would be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, which could conduct an investigation. We have to be careful, because the transportation of dangerous goods poses a problem not only for people who have to deal with highways or major railways in their areas, but also for people who see the St. Lawrence River and the St. Lawrence Seaway being used to transport dangerous goods.

The purpose of the bill is simple: to force companies to have an emergency response plan, in order to ensure that everyone who handles these materials is authorized to do so and has the proper security clearance. It is not enough that they have the skills. It is important to ensure that they do not have any history of evil plans that they could act on.

Clearly, the interest is there, but there is no real transparency, and that is for two reasons. People do not want the information to be made public: for instance, on a given date, a certain quantity of a given substance is going to be transported by road, by rail or by ship. We must not give any ideas to people who may have evil plans. So this information remains secret. The reverse situation is also true: it prevents people from worrying about the transportation of hazardous materials and prevents protests and public outcries about the fact that hazardous material is being transported within our borders.

It was time, however. As I was saying—it is not because of Vancouver 2010—passing such bill was a matter of a national urgency. Indeed, we live in a chemical and technological era, and companies whose business involves selling, transporting and delivering hazardous materials must be obliged to have an emergency response plan, that is, a method for taking action.

This means that, should extremely dangerous goods ever be transported within our borders, Transport Canada would automatically receive the company's plan. The company is responsible for ensuring safety in the event of a spill or explosion when it is transporting explosives or something of the sort. It is therefore up to the company to arrange for all fire brigades along the way to be contacted. It is required to demonstrate to Transport Canada that it is able to respond to an emergency.

My earlier remarks were to the effect that passing this bill is a matter of national safety. This should have been done years ago. I will not get into the details of why, after dragging their feet for four years, the Conservatives have now decided to use the Olympics as an excuse to get their rank and file to support it. The fact is that, when dangerous goods are transported on our roads, railways or seaways, it is imperative to have an emergency plan. Other countries around the world have emergency plans. The United States and Europe already have theirs. Canada is always lagging behind when it comes to that sort of thing. It is time that we have a plan.

This bill deserves to move forward. That is why I read clause 30, which says that the committee must receive complaints and intervene accordingly at all times. All of the provinces and territories have approved the application of these regulations. The text, particularly paragraph (f) of the summary, reads as follows: “clarification of the Act to ensure that it is applicable uniformly throughout Canada, including to local works and undertakings”. That is not as easy as it sounds.

Quebec has its own inspection and verification procedure. We have our own network of surface transportation inspectors, known as “les Verts”, for those familiar with the term. We have our police force, the Sûreté du Québec, and we have ministry of transportation inspectors who are regulated by Quebec and intervene as required. In Quebec, public safety is the Government of Quebec's responsibility. The bill could simply not be enforced or supported without the Government of Quebec's support, which has been granted.

We must also ensure that the government can provide compensation if the bill gives rise to additional expenses for the territories and provinces. I am also the infrastructure critic and I have had discussions with municipal representatives while touring Quebec. Bills and changes to the Criminal Code have been adopted that have resulted in additional expenses for big cities dealing with crime. The money never arrives at its destination. Bills are adopted and when the laws are implemented it is the communities, towns and provinces that have to foot the bill. Money was provided to help fight street gangs but it was not enough, given how the problem has grown. That is an example of additional expenses.

All too often the federal government passes laws. This type of bill does not provide for any assistance to the provinces and the territories. I hope that the government realizes that it is making more work for inspectors working in Quebec. I hope that it will not create an inspection service that, once again, will duplicate Quebec's inspection services or will create a new federal inspection service when one already exists in Quebec. If it does, it must provide compensation for the work done by the province in order to comply with the legislation.

The Bloc Québécois will support this bill, which should have been adopted in 2004. The government can count on our full support to move this bill forward.

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 13th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, one thing is certain, and that is that the Bloc Québécois wants to protect the values and interests of Quebeckers. The government says it is open to discussions with the world. At a time of crisis, the Premier of Quebec took the trouble to spend a few weeks discussing a possible free trade agreement between Quebec and the rest of the European Union with EU representatives. We have to keep in mind that Quebec has a population of 7 million, while Canada has a population of 33 million. If we want to lead the world in aluminum, nickel, aerospace and many other industries, we have to be able to open up to world markets.

Obviously, when we enter into agreements and analyze them on a macroeconomic level, we see that they have advantages and disadvantages. One of the disadvantages of this agreement has to do with the shipbuilding sector. However, because of the political divide in this House, which is supported by the NDP, we are unable to tackle the issue of a real shipbuilding policy.

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 13th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the member knows very well that the very text of the agreement indicates special concern for shipbuilding: there is a 15-year period, a moratorium. Therefore the entire text is up for discussion. Naturally it is an important issue.

When looking at a free trade agreement from a macroeconomic perspective, there are positives and there are negatives. One of the negatives pertains to shipbuilding. Therefore, Canada must decide to tackle the problem. Of course, if the NDP decides to pout in its corner and not put any effort into making progress on a Canadian marine policy, there will be problems. That is why I stated in my speech that I was disappointed today that there was not unanimous support for Bill C-2and for tackling a real Canadian marine policy.

Once again, it shows divisiveness. We are trying to make our colleagues understand that we have to put our partisanship aside and try to work on the real needs of the industry by developing a Canadian marine policy. When Bill C-2 is adopted, the Bloc Québécois will be available. We have 15 years to adopt a policy and to ensure that our shipbuilders will be competitive.

If they are able to compete with Norway, they will be able to compete with every other country. It is a good opportunity.

If the NDP decides to stay in its corner and to do everything it can to prevent a discussion of this issue and if the Conservatives are no longer keen on it, they will have the backing of the NDP for not having a Canadian marine policy. That is the situation we find ourselves in.

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 13th, 2009]

Of course, the Bloc Québécois does not practice the same politics as the NDP. That party practices the politics of 30 years ago. Its political ideas date from 30 years ago. And the New Democrats will be practising the same politics for the next 30 years. That is their legacy.

I have a copy of the letter from the Lauzon shipyard workers' union and I will finish reading the paragraph. It says:

We are convinced that the creation of a Canadian marine policy would be much more profitable and beneficial for the shipbuilding industry than this kind of free trade agreement.

This is where the Bloc Québécois will help. The Bloc Québécois will ask the NDP to work towards creating a real Canadian marine policy. One thing I regret about this House is that the NDP does not attack the Conservatives' laissez-faire ideology. The NDP has decided to attack this agreement. However, as I said earlier, when looking at a free trade agreement, one must do so with macroeconomics in mind. I will not grandstand, as they tend to do, nor will I say that the NDP is attacking the aluminum industry, the nickel industry and the pharmaceutical industry. I will not say that about them. But the fact remains, when you practice the politics of 30 years ago, it is easy to return to old habits.

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 13th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue the debate on Bill C-2, Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, which we have been discussing today.

I would like to remind everyone that when it comes time to discuss a bill to implement a free trade agreement, it is important that we weigh the pros and cons in a responsible fashion. It is important because every sector is affected by trade between the countries. In this agreement, there are some significant sectors, some of which are of considerable influence in our economy.

For example, Quebec has aluminum, which is our leading export to Iceland, one of the signatories to this agreement. Nickel accounts for 80% of our exports to Norway, and that nickel comes from a mine in Ungava operated by Xstrata, a Swiss company. There is also the pharmaceutical sector. Switzerland is one of the world's leading producers of pharmaceuticals. Quebec has an industry that engages in the research, development and sale of generic and prescription drugs. This industry is very strong, because when the Parti Québécois was in power, the Government of Quebec decided to provide it with substantial assistance, with the result that an important structure was put in place. We also have to think about agriculture, because we sell and trade agricultural products with these countries. It was important to us that supply management not be on the table. Milk, poultry, eggs and so on are supply-managed products, and supply management makes the industry profitable. There has been no government assistance for this type of industry since supply management was introduced.

This type of free trade agreement therefore must be analyzed responsibly. There is also a whole other sector, and that is shipbuilding. This is an important part of this agreement, because Norway, for example, is a major shipbuilding nation and its shipyards have been subsidized in the past.

When we do such an analysis, it is important to get to the bottom of things. This free trade agreement is good for many industry sectors, but there is a problem when it comes to shipbuilding. That is why there are specific clauses on shipbuilding. The customs tariffs in effect will be phased out over 15 years, and there will also be a moratorium for a number of years. These clauses were included in the treaty because people knew there was a problem. This is important because it is a crucial part of the discussions in this House. I am willing to debate it, but I have a concern. The shipbuilding industry is calling on Canada to develop a real Canadian marine policy that could solve the problems and keep this industry going.

Despite the fact that the industry, the Bloc Québécois and other parties in this House have been calling for it, the government will not listen. When the Minister of International Trade rose earlier to give his speech, he said nothing to reassure us.

He thinks that everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. Even though the industry believes that Canada needs a real marine policy, that is not important to him. This is worrisome. Instead of debating this bill, we should have reached a consensus in this House to pass it, because this agreement is good for the Quebec economy and the Canadian economy. Instead, we should at this very moment be debating a real marine policy for Canada, to reassure the entire shipbuilding sector and all other businesses, and to show them we are tackling the problems they have brought to our attention.

Thus, we will have to work very hard to convince this government of the need for a real marine policy for Canada. Once this bill passes, I hope the industry and all the parties, including the Conservatives, will understand that it is high time to do so. Now is the time. The tariffs will be gradually phased out over the next 15 years. That time period will also allow us to ensure that our industry can compete with Norway. That is the issue that we should have been addressing.

When conducting a thorough analysis of an issue as important as a free trade agreement, one must always weigh the pros and the cons. There are the pros I mentioned earlier, such as aluminum, nickel, the pharmaceutical industry, agriculture, and so on for Quebec. The agreement might even be good for pulp and paper mills. Once again, supply management has successfully been excluded, which is not the case with other agreements the government signed that jeopardized supply management. This time, the government listened to the Bloc Québécois and excluded supply management from the agreement.

For those who suggest that it would have been easier just to exclude shipbuilding from the treaty, I would point out that shipbuilding is one of Norway's economic strengths. Had we excluded shipbuilding, there would be no agreement, and we would not be talking about it today.

We have to adopt a conciliatory approach to these issues. We have to be open in our approach to these agreements, and we have to do a macroeconomic analysis of the advantages and disadvantages. When there is one sector in particular that could be disadvantaged, such as shipbuilding, we have to address the problem.

I was hoping the minister would talk about that today. Since the witnesses who appeared before the committee—and, indeed the entire shipbuilding industry—are uncomfortable about this, the Minister of International Trade could have told us that the government planned to deal with the problem, support the industry, and ensure that, once the 15 years are up, our industry will be competitive. If it can compete with Norway, it will be able to compete with every other shipbuilding concern in the world.

However, that is not the sense we are getting from the Conservative government. Time and again, it is all about their Conservative laissez-faire ideology. As it turns out, apply that approach to some sectors, and those sectors disappear. The opposition should attack that ideology and try to convince the Conservatives that, when it comes to shipbuilding, they must set their ideology aside and talk about a real Canadian marine policy. The industry would have found that reassuring.

At the same time, we have to act responsibly. The Bloc Québécois studied this free-trade agreement and weighed the advantages and disadvantages for all industries that will be affected. This is a first because the Canada-EFTA agreement covers Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland. The real objective, for Quebeckers, is to have a true free-trade agreement with the European Union. That is the objective.

Even the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Charest, who does not share my political views, is defending it. He recently travelled abroad in the middle of the economic crisis in Quebec. That is up to him. Nevertheless, he has taken a clear position on a free-trade agreement with the European Union, which reflects the unanimous position of the National Assembly of Quebec. Therefore, agreements with European countries are welcome. Naturally, given our population and the relative strength of our industries in Quebec or Canada, we have to be open to the world in order to develop. By not looking beyond our borders we will never be able to develop and reach our full potential. Just think of the aerospace sector and many others.

Therefore, we must be able to create a greater vision for the economy of the future, but also for the future of our economy. We believe this Canada-EFTA free-trade agreement is the way of the future with its advantages and disadvantages. Obviously, it puts shipbuilding at a disadvantage. Therefore, I hope that the government has heard everyone's position in this House, especially that of the Bloc Québécois, which has said that it is time for the government to sit down and adopt a real Canadian marine policy. The industry has been calling for it for many years. Naturally, starting today, we will support everything that can lead to a real Canadian marine policy so that, once the 15 years have passed, our shipbuilding industry will be able to compete with Norway and all other countries.