Robert Carrier

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague from Peace River's speech. Given the description of his artistic endeavours across Canada, I would have thought he would support today's motion.

I belong to Canada's francophone culture, which must be preserved. To accomplish this, I believe that we need our government's cooperation and support. I think that Canada's anglophone community, which far outnumbers the francophone one, also needs help to maintain its distinct identity vis-à-vis the United States, a huge country.

Why then not vote in favour of this proposal, which reiterates Canada's ratification of the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions?

[Marine Industry, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we are happy to welcome to Parliament Hill representatives of the marine industry, in particular officials from the St. Lawrence Economic Development Council. SODES offers a forum for discussion, cooperation and joint action to agencies whose activities are linked to the economy of the St. Lawrence. We pay tribute to their generous contribution to the defence and promotion of the St. Lawrence.

While American east coast ports are claiming a growing share of the market, the federal government is charging the marine industry significantly higher fees yet has cut services and withdrawn funding for maintenance of federal port infrastructures. This attitude has only weakened the competitive position of the St. Lawrence Seaway, which plays a vital role in Quebec's economy.

The Bloc Québécois urges the federal government to assume its responsibilities for maintaining the St. Lawrence Seaway and demands that the government put in place a program to support cabotage projects.

[Business of Supply, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. member for Québec on her presentation. She expressed the opinion of the majority of Quebeckers on the topic the NDP is putting forward today.

Quebec, through its health department, has already legislated the use of pesticides. I have a grassy area in front of my house and I have not used pesticides on it in at least two years. Since the regulation came into effect I have been using organic fertilizer. This is well respected in Quebec. I am certain that in the other provinces of Canada, the provincial health departments are addressing this. We are very much concerned by this issue.

The only problem is that we are opening up an additional discussion on the federal level. It is as though we wanted to supplant provincial activities that appear to be ineffective in matters of regulation. By doing this, the responsibilities are overlapped. We end up with tax levels that everyone in Canada finds overwhelming since we have municipal, provincial and, on top of it all, federal regulations.

I want to know whether my colleague agrees with what I am saying. This explains why the House uses a full day of session for a subject that is a matter of provincial jurisdiction.

Is it because there is a lack of imagination or a lack of subjects that concern the federal government that we could discuss in this House? We could talk about the workers assistance program or programs for improving employment insurance. That would be of greater relevant to the federal government. I will leave it up to my colleague from Québec to answer this question.

[The Budget, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to avail myself of this first opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment as the Acting Speaker of this House.

I listened attentively to the presentation by my colleague from Abbotsford. I would like to speak about the fiscal imbalance, as did my colleagues recently. It is very important for this matter to be resolved in Canada, given the difference between the revenues of the Government of Canada and those of provincial governments.

In addition, I would like to raise the issue of employment insurance. At present, the employment fund surplus totals about $48 billion. Perhaps this surplus will be considered when examining the issue of restoring fiscal balance. Could the government not have immediately retained the idea of establishing the independent employment insurance fund? Thus, the surplus would not continue to grow and to be seen as a hidden tax on a specific category of citizens only. Why did the government not immediately decide to create an independent employment insurance fund?

[International Dance Day, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on April 29, as honorary president of the Centre de création artistique de Laval, I had the privilege to attend a choreographed dance called Human in Terra, which was presented on International Dance Day.

Diane Major, dancer and choreographer from the r2k2 dance troupe, is behind this interactive creation where artists and the public come together to trigger the idea of expressing yourself the way nature does so well.

Blues music and painting came into play as fragments of inspiration and interaction. For this live creation, Diane Major was surrounded by the songwriter and arranger Lou Simon, painters Denys Arel, Mélissa Montagne and Jasna Corriveau and performer Josianne Delisle.

Through her choreography, Diane Major helps us focus on what is most important in us.

I want to congratulate her and these artists for sharing this delightful experience with us.

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise to speak to Bill C-3, An Act respecting international bridges and tunnels and making a consequential amendment to another Act. Since it incorporates part of Bill C-44, which the Bloc Québécois supported, we must support this bill, but with certain reservations, as I will explain later.

This is the first time the Government of Canada has put legislation in place to allow it to exercise its authority over international bridges and tunnels. The new government tells us it wants to ensure that the security, safety and efficient movement of people and goods are in accordance with national interests.

The events of September 2001, it must be noted, made clear the importance of protecting these vital infrastructures. The proposed amendments would give the Government of Canada new and broader legislative powers to oversee approvals of international bridges and tunnels. These amendments would give the government power to approve, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, the construction or alteration of international bridges and tunnels and to formulate regulations governing the management, maintenance, security, safety and operation of these structures.

The bill would also authorize the federal government to approve the sale or transfer of ownership of international bridges and tunnels. Note as well that it would strengthen federal government oversight of all new and existing international bridges and tunnels in order to better protect the public interest and ensure the flexible flow of international trade. There are currently 24 international vehicular bridges and tunnels and five international railway tunnels linking Canada and the United States. These bridges and tunnels carry the vast majority of international trade between Canada and the United States and play a vital role in Canada’s transportation system.

The provisions of this new bill are almost identical to those of the defunct Bill C-44, which was tabled by the former government and died on the order paper when the election was called. That bill,the Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act, to enact the VIA Rail Canada Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, was tabled in the House of Commons on March 24, 2005 by the former Minister of Transport. Bill C-44 was itself similar in many respects to the previous Bill C-26, which bore the same title and was tabled in the House of Commons on February 23, 2003. Those two bills each died on the order paper upon the prorogation of Parliament. As you can see, the Parliament of Canada needs a lot of time to get its bills passed.

What affects us in Quebec most closely in this bill is a provision concerning the international bridges and tunnels that cross the St. Lawrence River. This provision corrects a legislative anomaly in the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which requires that a permit be issued for all work that has repercussions on navigable waters but which does not authorize the issuing of permits with regard to the St. Lawrence River. That anomaly had become evident during review of the proposed highway 30 bridges crossing the St. Lawrence Seaway. Those bridges have yet to be built, as you know, and these projects have been making very slow progress for many years.

In his speech last Friday, the minister said that any new crossing over the St. Lawrence would be subject to federal approval. I would like to know to what extent that sort of approach has the approval of the Quebec government, as it is likely to infringe upon its fields of jurisdiction.

Although the bill fills a legal void in the area of international bridges and tunnels, is designed to improve the safety of the infrastructures in that area, and has the consent of local stakeholders, we still have certain reservations. In the context of the regulation of international bridges and tunnels, the bill gives us the impression that the government is being conferred some very extensive, quasi-police powers, for example, a power to investigate without a warrant and a very authoritarian power of seizure.

The government has the power to legislate, but the financial responsibility rests on other shoulders. The Bloc Québécois believes this situation can lead to conflicts. What disappoints us the most is that a number of important measures that were in Bill C-44 were dropped from the current bill. It is important to point that out because we were told that this bill included the measures already outlined in Bill C-44, but only a small number of them are left.

Some parts of Bill C-44 were very important for the Bloc Québécois and for now they are being dropped. I am talking about the requirement that airline advertising be more transparent. The former bill would have required airlines to change their advertising methods. They would have been required to list the total price of the flight including related fees. This measure was much demanded by the consumer associations.

The bill would have improved the conflict resolution process for sharing the rail lines between passenger transportation companies and freight companies.

Bill C-44 included a section under which a railway company wishing to sell a rail line would first offer it to any interested urban transit authorities before offering it to municipal governments. A number of residents in my riding and in other regions of Quebec are concerned about this issue. Bill C-44 promoted setting up commuter trains across the country.

Our constituents are increasingly aware of the importance of developing public transit as a solution to traffic congestion problems and greenhouse gas emissions.

The bill also included a provision on Via Rail. It gave Via Rail more power to make its own decisions with a view to improving the rail service. Rail transit is a good alternative to road transportation, which currently is about the only option.

Clause 32 of Bill C-44 gave the Canadian Transportation Agency the power to investigate complaints concerning noise caused by trains. It required railways to implement certain measures to prevent unnecessary noise, particularly at rail yards. The noise issue is causing a lot of controversy in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.

According to the British North America Act of 1867, the responsibility for international bridges and tunnels falls exclusively within federal jurisdiction. But in most cases, the Canadian portion of these structures is owned by the provinces. We must ensure that the regulatory and financial application of this act is negotiated and occurs in collaboration with the provinces.

In his speech last Friday, the minister stated that the federal government will be able to ensure that environmental assessments of international bridges and tunnels are conducted in accordance with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, when appropriate.

What did the minister mean by adding the word “appropriate”? I believe the minister was implying that jurisdiction over the environment is shared between federal and provincial governments, and that he does not necessarily have the final say in the matter.

I again ask the minister if he held negotiations with the Government of Quebec concerning sharing jurisdictions. Given its declaration of good will toward Quebec, it would be desirable for the new government to demonstrate its good intentions with respect to Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois will support the second reading of the bill, despite the fact that it only partially resolves the many transportation problems that still exist in Quebec and Canada.

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. I would like to ask him a question regarding a particular provision in the bill regarding crossing the St. Lawrence River. The provision is no doubt included because of the existence of the St. Lawrence Seaway.

In view of the joint jurisdiction over environment, among other things, did my colleague cooperate and negotiate with the Government of Quebec before including this provision in the bill?

[Federal Accountability Act, April 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Avalon for his presentation.

I note that the government wishes to uphold transparency in the workings of government , which is greatly needed. However, I wonder why only three of the nine foundations will be subject to the Access to Information Act? The result is that responsibility for hundreds of millions of dollars will continue to remain nebulous and beyond the control of Parliament.

I would like to hear the position of the member on this matter.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the presentation by my colleague from Calgary—Nose Hill. The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of the bill, which should improve the credibility that is ascribed to politicians. They are in great need of it these days.

I am one of those members who have suffered greatly from the method of appointing returning officers. The bill would correct this problem in part. At the moment it is the Privy Council Office that appoints returning officers. My riding was notorious for having a political organizer as its returning officer. In letting such situations happen, we greatly damage the credibility of the entire democratic process and the trust placed in it.

I note, however, that under this bill, returning officers would be appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer, who would examine the qualifications. That approach is always one possible response. All the same, the best way of enhancing credibility is to hold a riding-wide competition for the purpose of staffing this position that is open to the general public. I would like to know my colleague’s opinion on this subject.

[Montée Saint-François Institution, November 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Montée Saint-François Institution, which is located in my riding, recently invited me and a number of executives from new companies in the area, to an information session on its mission of reintegration.

We heard presentations on a variety of themes: the penitentiary process, its programs, work releases, community supervision, supervising kitchen work by inmates, Life-Line and a glimpse into the life of an inmate.

The business people were impressed by how well this was all organized and found that the presentations took some of the mystery out of life in prison. Several of them indicated a readiness to enter into a partnership with the institution.

My congratulations to Montée Saint-François on this initiative. Our community cannot help but be enriched by the opportunity to work together on a smooth reintegration by former inmates into society.