Serge Cardin

[Canada Elections Act, February 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act, especially since I have run in eight elections. These elections touched me personally, because I was a candidate. I have to say that I have seen just about everything since I first ran for election in 1982. At that time, attempts at electoral fraud had already declined, but not disappeared completely, and they are still a problem today.

We must therefore protect the integrity of the electoral system and make sure that all the information on our lists of electors is accurate. We also have to make sure that everyone who is entitled to vote does vote and that everyone who is not entitled to vote does not.

But something strange is happening, and it underscores how important it is that only those who have the right to vote actually do so. Curiously, election results in the various ridings are becoming closer and closer. It is therefore especially valuable to have an accurate list and a sound system, because that can make all the difference in the end. Ultimately, when the differences are added up, a minority government could become a majority government. We must therefore make sure our electoral system is above reproach.

Obviously, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill. The political parties worked together extremely well in committee. For once, the government apparently listened to the opposition parties, in contrast to what is happening on many other issues, such as law and order, the Kyoto protocol and even the gun registry. It has to be said that the party in power does not listen very well.

In this case, there was good cooperation and, as a result, the bill will reduce the opportunity for fraud or error, improve the accuracy of the register of electors, facilitate voting and improve communications between election officials, candidates, parties and the electorate.

Following the general election in June 2004, the Chief Electoral Officer released a report entitled “Completing the Cycle of Electoral Reforms”. It was tabled here in the House, but we did not have time to examine or approve the report before the election was called on November 29, 2005. It was presented, however, after the January 2006 election, in June. The committee then looked closely at this bill, analyzed it and made recommendations. We are now ready to move forward and we hope to see this piece of legislation enacted in time for the next election.

Given the timeframes that must be respected, the election will not be held too early this year, which means we can implement all the points presented in this bill.

Should we force an election anyway, considering the values placed on certain points that the opposition parties do not accept? Or should we wait for this bill to become law and come into force, to ensure that the next election is held under the provisions of the new legislation?

In any case, this bill clearly contains significant improvements. The Bloc is particularly proud to have made a number of gains with respect to this bill, such as the date of birth, the unique identification number, as well as the so-called “bingo cards” on election day, which serve to identify those individuals who have gone to vote and therefore encourage people to get out to vote. Getting people out to vote is an important part of it.

Lately, voter turnout has been declining with every election. In municipal, provincial, Quebec and federal elections, we have been seeing a downward trend in voter participation.

Some political parties have access to good lists of electors to ensure follow-up and encourage voters to cast their ballot. These tools are also critical on voting day to track voting and support better turnout. This is democracy in action, playing by the rules. I would like to review the proposed rules that will reduce the opportunity for fraud or error.

Voters must present government-issued identification. The best example of this is a driver's licence with the holder's photograph, signature, and other information that appears on the list of electors, such as an address.

We can be certain that the address is correct because if a person moves, he or she must inform the government so that his or her new address appears on the licence. This piece of identification is proof that the voter is legitimate.

Some people may not have photo identification. In such cases, they must provide two other pieces of acceptable identification. The Chief Electoral Officer is responsible for determining what constitutes acceptable identification.

There may also be some people who do not have two pieces of identification. Earlier, someone mentioned homeless people. Most of them are Canadian citizens, so they do have the right to vote. We must make it possible for them to vote. A person who has no identification can still vote if someone else can vouch for them in an affidavit. If that happens, that person can vote.

That said, the act provides that an elector who has been vouched for at an election may not vouch for another elector at that election. That could set off a major chain of events and could lead to electoral fraud if one of the individuals involved had dishonest intentions.

In addition to ensuring that people can be correctly identified, we must ensure the accuracy of the list of electors to verify that these people are eligible to vote. That is why clause 4 of the act states that:

The Register of Electors must also contain, for each elector, a unique, randomly generated identifier that is assigned by the Chief Electoral Officer.

There are a number of advantages to assigning unique permanent identification numbers.

Duplications do occur. We must be able to spot them and ensure that the eligible individuals are registered. Those who should not be registered should be deleted from the register of electors.

The identifying information required by the Act includes the date of birth, mailing address, civic address, as well as sex. Often, individuals may provide all this information in a particular order that may not necessarily be used in other circumstances. Linking lists may sometimes generate errors.

The use of a unique identifier would eliminate a fair share of potential errors.

In terms of the register of electors, when we complete our income tax returns, there is a small box to be checked if we want the information to be forwarded to the Chief Electoral Officer so that it is available. It is a fairly reliable data base because the taxpayer has contributed the information. It does happen that an individual who is not a Canadian citizen—and thus does not have the right to vote—prepares a tax return and checks off this small box. Their name is added to the register of electors. Thus, it was also suggested that a declaration of citizenship be included on the annual tax return as well. This would solve several problems and ensure that only the personal information of voters eligible to vote is used to update the register.

Tax returns are also filed for deceased persons. Unfortunately there are a fair number every year. We could also use the information included in the return filed for the deceased individual to ensure that their names are removed from the voters list.

For federal elections, the Quebec electoral list is used in Quebec, because of the completeness and accuracy of the information, which is updated regularly. The list also contains the new voters who have just turned 18, who are added regularly.

Once the eligible voters have been identified, and the ineligible ones eliminated, the voting process must be facilitated, to ensure that the highest possible number of people can easily access the polling station. For example, persons with reduced mobility who report to a polling station that is impossible to access can ask for a transfer. This transfer can now take place almost immediately and that individual can go to vote at another location.

In any case, we must ensure that returning officers in the various ridings do not overlook accessibility issues at the polling stations, which must be as large and fully equipped as possible, even though transfers are a possibility. After all, it is the responsibility of the returning officer to ensure that all sites can handle situations involving reduced accessibility.

Another purpose of the bill is to improve communications between electoral officials, candidates, parties and the electors. There are various aspects that enhance communication and facilitate access to the lists of electors. As I was saying earlier, the purpose of this is to “get out the vote” as much as possible and as honestly as possible. The bill also provides for additional operational improvements that will make the system increasingly effective and ensure its integrity and accuracy.

The Bloc Québécois is very proud of other aspects that are not included in Bill C-31. I am talking about the appointment by the Chief Electoral Officer of returning officers. History and experience show the truly different situations that have come up at times and that have been quite odd, not to say crooked. From now on, people will no longer necessarily be selected based on their political stripe, but will be appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer. Thus, those who seem best qualified will be appointed to the position.

Furthermore, there will of course be fixed date elections. Unfortunately, this will not be the case the next time around; I am sure the next election will not be held in October 2009, since the current government is a minority government. Nonetheless, we will now be prepared for it, especially with the tools available in Bill C-31. Future elections will be held with as much integrity and accuracy as possible.

In closing, seconded by the hon. member for Drummond, I move:

That this question be now put.

[The Environment, February 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to bring to your attention an initiative undertaken by thirty or so young people from the Sherbrooke region who decided to brave the winter cold and ride their bikes 400 km from Sherbrooke to Ottawa in support of Kyoto.

These young people are students at Du Phare high school, the Sherbrooke CEGEP and the Université de Sherbrooke. The ride took them six days.

When they arrived in Ottawa this morning, the young cyclists asked to meet with the Minister of the Environment to give him some recommendations for greenhouse gas reduction. No dice. Yet the Minister of the Environment would surely have benefited from meeting these young environmentalists.

The Bloc Québécois is very proud to highlight this initiative. Once again, young people from Sherbrooke are showing us that they do not intend to sit still when it comes to the environment. Let us hope that their heroic journey will make an impression on many people.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, December 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, if I understood properly, my hon. colleague wants the Bloc Québécois to support his position and vote against Bill C-24, therefore change our minds in mid-stream because we saw the light all of a sudden.

We have been studying the agreement since the very beginning, as well as the bill of course. If I continue my hon. colleague’s line of thought, he wants us to withdraw our support and the industry to keep the money it has already received. Of course there have been judicial rulings to the effect that Canada was right and the United States was wrong. But there is more to it than that. We had an agreement that the United States would reimburse our money if we signed. The Conservative Party did say, of course, that they were leaving a billion dollars in the pockets of the Americans. We should certainly ask why. What were the Conservative Party’s reasons for leaving a billion dollars in the pockets of the Americans? It was probably for future considerations. What are these considerations? We will one day find out.

I do not think, though, that we can simply withdraw at the last minute when money has already been returned. Things have to be done properly and with a certain amount—and I do mean just a certain amount—of mutual trust. The situation has progressed to the point of no return. The companies have received most of their money. They are already getting ready to carry on with their development and, in contrast to what my hon. colleague seems to think, not to lose jobs but to improve them and also improve the industry.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, December 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer my colleague through you. I believe I mentioned earlier why we are doing this unenthusiastically and why we are accepting this despite everything.

The Quebec Forest Industry Council represents a fair amount of people in the industry. An experienced person, Guy Chevrette, also found that the agreement was not necessarily the discovery of the century. However, given the state they were in, there was no doubt that they had to accept this agreement.

As I was saying earlier, some aspects of the bill definitely need to be improved, adjusted and refined to allow the forestry industry to develop even more in the years to come.

If we ended this agreement, as the hon. member from the NDP is suggesting, we would not be ending the agreement directly. We would be voting against a bill to create legislation and regulations to allow the application of the agreement regarding Canada's management and internal affairs. Thus, Canada will collect duties on behalf of the industry, and they will, of course, be redistributed.

A number of committees are working on Bill C-24. They will discuss the application of the agreement and identify any problems in order to iron them out and even make them disappear altogether.

In this context, the forestry industry will get a second wind after the loss of so many jobs. Once the money is reimbursed, I do not think the industry will decline, given the relations with the United States. If there is any difficulty, economically speaking, it will be because of an economic slowdown and less demand for softwood lumber.

I want to reiterate to my colleague that consultations were held in Quebec. I would hope that there were some in British Columbia. This is another slight difference between us and the West. My colleague claims that the entire industry was against the agreement and asked him to vote accordingly. As far as we are concerned, we are not just claiming, but confirming that the people of Quebec asked us to support the agreement.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, December 5th, 2006]

As my dear colleague says, clearly, it was necessary to save what was left because there was not necessarily very much left.

For that reason people were obliged to accept the agreement almost by force. Today, for several hours in the Standing Committee on International Trade, we saw my colleague from the NDP arguing like a Liberal in holy water to uphold the interests of his region. During that time the committee was full of controversy. Nevertheless, I obviously respected my colleague’s enthusiasm in wanting to move the matter forward.

The bill in its present form leaves many gaps that will probably cause problems in the implementation of the agreement. Those aspects could have been anticipated and corrected in order to allow the Canadian forest industry to develop adequately, or even better than that, because we have to make up for what has been lost.

Of course, there are still potential irritants in the bill. However, we must accept it because people have told us to do so and are asking us what we are waiting for.

I repeat also, for the benefit of my colleague from the NDP, that we give our support to Bill C-24 without enthusiasm and with some reluctance.

The downward negotiations by the minority Conservative government have clearly served to place the forest industry in danger, especially in Quebec. In addition, refunding the illegally collected money, contrary to what the Minister of Industry actually seemed to believe at one time, is neither a miraculous injection of cash nor a gift from the government. In fact, the industry’s own money is being returned to the industry, and we must never forget that, because the communities will not forget it.

It is forgivable, I think, to talk politics a little in this House, and in my opinion the Conservative Party will have to answer for this bill, this act and this agreement all across Canada in the next election. And that election is not far off. That is why we must settle this matter. It will always be possible to make improvements later.

As we all know, several committees will have to work on enacting this legislation and promoting the industry. Moreover, the modest sum of $50 million will come out of the $1 billion and be allocated for promotion. That is not much, except that the United States will have the benefit of a larger sum to develop their industry.

Once again, we would have preferred that the softwood lumber industry be part of a real free trade agreement with the United States.

Certain individuals claim that the softwood lumber issue is now settled for the next nine years. Can we really count on any promises made by the Americans? After all, they are the ones who came along and imposed antidumping and countervailing duties on Canada. Can we really hope that when it no longer suits them, they will sit down and negotiate to improve the situation and conditions for both sides? I doubt it. Anytime the Americans change their tune about the softwood lumber file, Canada and Quebec ate the ones that automatically suffer the consequences.

Thus, I do not belive that the softwood lumber sector will be left undisturbed for as long as seven or nine years. I think the next issue will arise much sooner than that. We must therefore negotiate an agreement within NAFTA, calling on the Americans to stop their protectionist activities in whichever areas and industries they like.

Once again, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-24, in the hope that the forest industry and softwood lumber industry can use the money illegally taken from them and now returned to them to get back on track, become more modern, more competitive and more innovative in secondary and tertiary processing. The resulting value added, the surplus value, must be profitable to those industries once and for all, and must be paid back to the people who worked in the industry and the businesses themselves.

In closing, I hope we can improve the forest industry as quickly as possible for the benefit of the people who have dedicated their efforts, their energy and, in some cases even their lives, to the industry.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, December 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we have reached the last step: we are beginning debate on third reading of the bill.

Today we are discussing Bill C-24 regarding the softwood lumber agreement settling the dispute between Canada and the United States. In practice, this bill leads us straight to the agreement between the United States and Canada.

We cannot talk about Bill C-24, particularly at this last stage, without referring to the agreement and the situation that has almost always characterized the softwood lumber sector. The softwood lumber trade with the United States can be traced back 150 years. There have been problems and disputes with the United States for a very long time. We opted for free trade even before that. Free trade would normally have covered all goods and services between the two countries so that they could trade freely with one another. However, once again, the United States complained five years ago. They began legal proceedings and imposed huge tariffs on Canadian and Quebec lumber crossing the border, claiming that it was subsidized and that dumping was occurring. They demanded countervailing and anti-dumping duties.

During that period, $5.4 billion in duties was paid to the United States. Imagine what that money could have done had it been invested in bringing procedures and processes up to date and modernizing equipment. Imagine how innovative a healthy forest industry would have enabled us to be in terms of remanufacturing. We know that Quebeckers and Canadians have great imaginations and can act fast to produce just about the best product at the best possible price for export to the United States. But the United States decided to collect crippling duties from the forest industry: $5.4 billion.

The Bloc Québécois recognized the problem years ago. It even tabled proposals and recommendations for programs in this House and in committee.

It made sense for us to ask the Liberal Party, which was in power at the time, to offer the industry loan guarantees. The United States was siphoning money away from companies, and their litigation did not hold water; it made no sense and was not logical. We knew that we were headed for a court victory. It was only a matter of time.

However, being robbed of $5.4 billion makes time move very slowly. There were tangible losses—job losses almost all over Canada. Some regions and provinces were hit harder than others—even Quebec, in some sectors. The situation demanded the effective application of loan guarantees so that companies could continue to survive in the first place, and maybe even grow despite this setback.

In fact we knew very well that they would win in court and that, one way or another, the United States would have to reimburse Quebeckers and Canadians, and the entire forestry industry.

When they were in power, the Liberals refused to assist the forestry industry and grant loan guarantees. During the election campaign—nearly a year ago, when it was in full flight—the Conservatives promised to help the forestry industry and were prepared to give loan guarantees in the event that they were elected. Some Canadians—a minority overall, if we consider the absolute number of people who voted—decided to place their trust in the Conservatives. They were soon disappointed, given the fact that the Conservatives have not kept their campaign promises, their campaign commitments.

There followed negotiations about which the House was not necessarily informed. The outcome of those negotiations was an agreement that they tried to present to us as the deal of the century, but it was the deal of the century only for one of the two parties, which is going to save a billion dollars. I am under the impression that the ideal outcome of an economic transaction is in fact that both parties be completely satisfied. We have to remember one important factor here. When we are talking about parties, we are talking about people, people who work in the industry. We are talking about the industry itself, companies, company owners, workers, everyone who works in the forestry industry. That is who the party was here in Canada and Quebec.

The same thing was true in the United States, but the people who were representing the entire forestry industry in Canada claimed that this was a huge win. Well the real winner is the United States, which bagged the billion dollars that stayed in the United States. That is big money. That is in fact a sweet deal for them, after illegally collecting $5.4 billion. They come out of it with a billion dollars. Mr. Speaker, if you were 100% in the right and I owed you $5.4 billion, you would not be content with $4.4 billion. You would ask me for all of the money owing.

That is what the forestry industry would have wanted. But given the time that had passed, given that the Conservatives did not want to offer loan guarantees and the Liberals had also not wanted to offer loan guarantees, those people were being strangled in their day-to-day lives, and they were not able to make any progress at all at that point. It was all they could do to keep their operations going, and especially to keep their businesses afloat. That could have meant that thousands, tens of thousands of people could have lived with their families, in their communities, in their regions, and that the economy would have functioned.

We were presented with this agreement, Certainly, to start with, everyone was unanimous in saying that it made no sense at all. What were we going to have to do? We knew very well that the government had the prerogative of signing and implementing the agreement. It did so. And then, we can be sure that discussions took place and a number of companies that were still denouncing that agreement felt obliged to accept it at a certain point.

I know that conditions are not the same in all regions. My colleague from the NDP, who is a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, has described quite a different situation in the region he represents, British Columbia. Clearly the situation there is in no way similar to the conditions facing the people of Quebec.

I respect him, of course, when he says that the Bloc Québécois is going against nature. The Bloc Québécois feels no great enthusiasm in supporting Bill C-24. Everyone knows that because we have said so. All of my colleagues who have spoken since the start of debate on Bill C-24 have said and repeated that they are not eager to support Bill C-24. Indeed, the bill is a carbon copy of an agreement that no one really accepts. We have been forced to accept it.

Consultations and representations took place and Quebeckers, like people in other parts of Canada, recognized that it was necessary to move forward in order to—

[SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006, November 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I agree completely with one of my NDP colleague's views, namely that the Conservative Party will no longer be there after the next election and that it will no longer form the government. We are in complete agreement on that point. We even agreed on certain amendments.

It is true that there were job losses in the forestry sector. There was talk of tens of thousands of jobs lost. No matter the number, it is always too high. The countervailing duties to be paid by the industry and the U.S. competition were also against us. And there was also the significant downturn in the market.

We cannot say no to the agreement at this point. If I have understood my colleague's remarks, now that everyone has their money we could vote against this agreement and we will have recovered our money at any rate. That is an unacceptable way of doing things.

The agreement was signed. The bill only allows the government to implement it. We must live with this agreement. I hope it will be for the shortest possible time. What we believe to be important for the forestry industry is to return to free trade. We hope that the forestry and softwood lumber industry will be part of the free trade agreement with the United States in order for both parties to have real access to the market. Our industry could modernize, become more competitive and the money recovered could be used for that purpose.

[SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS EXPORT CHARGE ACT, 2006, November 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing Bill C-24 for the third time, this time in relation to consideration of the second group of amendments that were proposed after the clause-by-clause examination.

The clause-by-clause examination of the bill by the committee involved some 132 proposed amendments. Some of them may have been proposed for the purpose of dragging out the debate. In any event, there were some amendments that did make sense, and it would have been in our interest to accept them too.

We are debating a bill in which there is still room for improvement. That much is obvious. The situation is complex. What Parliament is having to do is to legislate, to pronounce on a bill that has to be consistent with an agreement that has been signed, an agreement that, I am persuaded, any normal person would have simply rejected.

We must consider the context, however. The NDP is fond of telling us that the fact that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of and even supports Bill C-24 makes no sense. In his argument, my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster said that he was defending his constituents’ interests passionately, forcefully, and that he has consulted them and consulted them again. We have done the same thing. The same consultations were done in Quebec, with the unions, the owners, the forestry companies and employees, with everyone who has been strangled, who has been suffocated by the situation. In one sense, this situation has virtually been created and encouraged by both governments: the Conservative government and the previous Liberal government.

From the beginning of the softwood lumber dispute with the United States, the Bloc Québécois had proposed that very specific things be done to assist this industry.

Our first suggestion was obviously that loan guarantees be instituted. If that had been done, we would not be where we are now. We would not be here talking about things that have happened and that may happen again. This agreement does not settle everything and it leaves the United States government ample latitude for getting out of it in a mere 18 months and for starting to impose duties all over again. Bizarre as it is, this bill operates to impose duties. Canada is imposing duties on its forestry industry.

The United States did that, and our industry in fact won every case it brought. We were just about to get a judgment, the final judgment, which would have required that the United States reimburse the Canadian industry, one way or another. If that had happened, they would have made the repayment without keeping a billion dollars for their own benefit.

In addition, the Liberal Party, which formed the government initially, did not want to take practical measures to help the forest industry. Hon. members will also recall that during the election campaign, the leader of the Conservative Party promised to help the industry by providing loan guarantees, a promise he quickly broke after the election. Then he reached an agreement with the United States, at the expense of the people who paid duties, which were collected illegally, it must be said.

As well, $1 billion is staying in the United States and helping the United States far more than Canada and its forest industry. Obviously, we would have preferred that the government support its industry and help it through a rough time, that the forest industry be able to grow and become competitive, and that the United States not make new accusations that, of course, were unfounded.

The government backed away from its responsibilities, and as a result, we will have to live with an agreement that no one would have been willing to accept. Yet the government forced people to accept it. The Liberal Party and the NDP will probably come out against this agreement because they probably know that, in the end, the bill will be passed anyway in order to help the forest industry as soon as possible.

We are currently studying the two groups of amendments. We have finished studying the first group and are now analyzing the second group. Roughly 95 amendments have been proposed and only 19 have been kept. The Speaker will decide which amendments we will debate, and the list has been pared down quite a bit. In fact, some amendments that are no longer on the list were very interesting and could have made the bill better.

Obviously, we cannot improve the agreement, but we can improve the bill by ensuring that it contains more specific provisions and that Canada will not be taken advantage of in specific situations.

There are many different ways to help the forest industry, different measures the government could have implemented to protect the forest industry. Who will really benefit from this agreement? Yes, the industry will recover $4.4 billion, but what about that $1 billion that will stay in the United States?

What should we make of a government that lets people steal enormous sums of money?

What was the government thinking when it decided to give the United States a billion dollars? That money could really have helped the forest industry.

The Minister of Industry says that recovering these duties will give the softwood lumber industry the cash it really needs. He says it is a cash infusion, but it was the forest industry's own money in the first place. This is basically a refund.

In conclusion, I would like to remind the House that the Bloc Québécois supports this bill reluctantly. The Conservative minority government's concessions will put the forest industry in a dangerous position, especially in Quebec. Contrary to what the minister seems to think when he says this is a cash infusion, the return of illegally collected money is neither a gift nor a miracle; it is simply giving back what belongs to the forest industry.

We hope that in the future, the forest industry will never again have to put up with its own government pulling a fast one on it.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, November 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat disturbing to hear such things. People who are watching these House debates must be wondering what is going on.

We know that the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster has often repeated—as did the member for Hamilton Mountain—that the industry does not want us to vote in favour of Bill C-24 and that it even wants us to oppose the agreement that was already reached.

In Quebec, we consulted everyone, including the industry and forestry workers, and everyone wants us to pass Bill C-24. So, that is what we will do, on behalf of the industry and the workers.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, November 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Beauséjour. Dozens of amendments were proposed during the clause by clause study. There were about 132 of them. We knew that many of those amendments would be a waste of time, but that some of them, a few at least, would be good ones. We supported some of those amendments in committee.

Then there were the amendments proposed at the report stage. There were 95 of them. Mr. Speaker, you selected only 19 of those. It made sense not to open some of the amendments up to discussion. However, some of those amendments were very important.

The Bloc Québécois intends to support some of the amendments in the second group. It appears the Bloc Québécois will not support any of the amendments in the first group. We will have an opportunity to discuss this in detail when we go through the second group of amendments. At that time, we will discuss exactly how we intend to support the government. We may even have an opportunity to support the Liberal Party.