Thomas Mulcair

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, June 19th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is exactly right. It is a further illustration of the fact that the Conservatives simply do not believe in sustainable development. What is saddening today is the Liberals and the Bloc are endorsing their positions against sustainable development.

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, June 19th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and friend, the member for Timmins—James Bay, has hit the nail right on the head with his question. That is where the real problems of sustainable development, longevity and viability arise.

Like him, people on Quebec's North Shore are concerned about certain companies. This concern is not merely theoretical. There are some companies—and I can comment on them because I knew them when I was Quebec's environment minister—that have definite designs on the region because they think there is nothing there, nothing but a few people, anyway. They think the place is huge and that they can always dig deep enough.

That is exactly the mentality underlying this bill. The fact that they are exploring the vast reaches of northern Ontario and Quebec looking for places to dig and bury waste, hoping that it will not escape somehow, which makes no sense at all, is proof positive of the problems inherent in nuclear development, just like the problems with this bill to limit liability.

The very idea of limiting liability reveals the danger this kind of activity poses. The government recognizes these threats, but it does not want to reduce them; it wants to limit companies' liability. That is why this bill is so shameful, and that is why it is so unfortunate that the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals are supporting the Conservatives on this one.

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, June 19th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, such excitement. For a moment I thought the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel would speak, but no. Maybe one day we will hear his voice in this House.

We are talking about an extremely important bill that aims to relieve the nuclear industry of its responsibility. Nuclear energy represents very real dangers. Because using nuclear energy to produce electricity is so dangerous, the Conservative government, which has no vision for sustainable development, wants to make things easier for companies should an accident occur.

What I am about to say may seem incredible, but to the south of us, in the United States, the limit on compensation that could be paid out for a nuclear accident is $10 billion. The Conservatives would like to set the limit at $650 million. However, we know that the total cost of damages from an accident like Chernobyl would be hundreds of billions of dollars. For a single accident. The proposed amount is obviously insufficient. It does not even represent 1% of the potential damages in the event of an accident, which is not something anyone wants to see happen, of course.

How did we get to this point? The answer is simple. For at least the past 13 years, the Liberals claimed they were doing something about sustainable development, but in reality they were not. They were all talk and no action, as is their habit. Although we do not agree with the Conservatives, at least they do not pretend to care about future generations. All they want to do is get as much as they can now, look after today and let tomorrow look after itself. That is their attitude, and it is reflected in all their decisions.

We are faced with a situation that came about through Liberal inaction: no vision, no plan for clean, renewable energy, no hydrogen, no wind power, no solar power or hydro. What we have instead is an attempt to promote nuclear power in Ontario and Saskatchewan.

I want to be very clear. The NDP is opposed to any new nuclear infrastructure in Canada. We find it regrettable that, instead of looking at potential energy sources—and what Quebec is doing is a perfect example—instead of developing clean, renewable energy sources, the government is relying on a technology that is more than 60 years old.

As I just demonstrated with the case of Chernobyl, in Ukraine, nuclear accidents can have devastating consequences. I am talking about damage in the hundreds of billions of dollars, as well as tens of thousands of deaths. Many people died immediately, as a direct result of the accident, but a huge number of people also developed cancer. By looking at the concentric circles emanating out to Europe from Chernobyl, we can even see changes in types of cancer 5, 10 and 15 years after the accident, which occurred about 20 years ago.

I am reading a book about Chernobyl and was interested to see that the accident prompted Gorbachev and Reagan to focus on the urgent need to work for peace. However, it seems as though these lessons—pursuing peace and working to eliminate the real danger of any form of nuclear energy, whether it be a nuclear weapon or, in the case of Chernobyl again, a series of reactors to produce electricity that could get out of control—are often lost.

Let us look at how extraordinary Canada is. It is the second largest country in the world, in terms of geographic area, with a small population of barely 35 million. In this country, solutions have varied over the years and generating electricity is a provincial and local responsibility. We could work, for example, with wind energy. Did you know that Quebec is heading toward a production of 4,000 megawatts? That means 4,000 times a million watts in wind energy. We have potential wind energy sites all across Canada, in other words, sites that are particularly favourable for generating wind energy, particularly in regions where first nations live.

Last week, quite rightfully, the government apologized for some of the harm caused to the first nations. What an incredible opportunity for us to have a vision of the future, to work with the provinces, which are primarily responsible, to provide incentives, including tax programs, to develop clean and renewable energy that comes from the wind.

If we combine wind energy with hydroelectricity, which is often a potential source of energy across Canada, we can, when weather and market conditions are suitable—why not export clean, renewable energy if we have it in abundance?—we can create something that is sustainable and also very useful for future generations.

Quebec's current finance minister, Monique Jérôme-Forget, recently went to different capital cities to explain the intrinsic value of Hydro-Québec, and I must admit that I more or less agree with her. She was talking about the wealth that can be created, but the Conservatives do not see it that way. To them, the only thing worth doing in Canada is to develop the oil sands in Alberta as quickly as possible and soon those in Saskatchewan, too.

In an extraordinary new book by Montreal journalist William Marsden, aptly entitled Stupid to the Last Drop, he considers the oil sands and recalls a historical fact. In the early 1950s, the suggestion was made that to get oil out of the oil sands in Alberta, it would be a good idea to set off atomic bombs here and there throughout that province. Plans were created and analyses carried out. It would not surprise me to learn that they actually tried that.

Something almost as stupid is now being proposed: the construction of a number of nuclear plants to generate the steam used to extract the oil from the tar sands. This is already an unsustainable situation. Natural gas is presently used to extract oil from tar sands. And the oil is being exported directly to the United States without any value added.

This is somewhat similar to the mistake made, generation after generation, with respect to our forests. My colleague just explained to us how ridiculous it was to sell out to the Americans. Even if there were real concerns about the sustainability of certain forestry practices, that did not at all justify, in light of NAFTA, giving away $1 billion just to settle the dispute. But that is what was done. We were directly exporting our forest products, while the value added, the processing, was done elsewhere, primarily in the United States. Most of the time, this is also true of ores and our other resources from the primary sector.

The same thing is happening with oil. The new Keystone project, just approved by the National Energy Board, proposes to export 200 million litres per day to the United States. Despite the problems of extracting the oil and the pollution that already exists in Canada, the errors will be stupidly compounded by exporting the oil in bulk to the United States, along with all the jobs in processing.

For the Keystone project alone, that amounts to 18,000 jobs that will be exported to the United States. The environmental problems will be placed on our shoulders and on those of future generations and the first nations. All the benefits will be exported. With regard to the obvious problem of NAFTA, we are creating a situation where the Americans can, under the NAFTA rules of proportionality, demand that we continue sending the same amount.

This bill exemplifies the Conservatives' lack of vision in terms of energy production. They have gone so far as to draft a bill to help the nuclear industry avoid its civil responsibility. It is outright shameful and I am very proud to be a member of the only political party that has the courage to rise in the House of Commons and to express its disapproval. I am very disappointed that the Bloc and the Liberals support the Conservatives in this matter.

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, June 19th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, based on the analysis he just gave, does my hon. colleague not agree that it would actually be better for Canada to find ways to produce electricity that are permanent, sustainable and viable, unlike atomic energy? Does he not also think that, since such a low limit is being established, there is good reason to believe that that limit could be surpassed?

Indeed, as the member just mentioned, would it not be better to follow the example of countries that are setting much higher limits as a guarantee that companies will do everything they can, knowing the consequences they face in the event of a tragedy?

[Committees of the House, June 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber is quite right. That is exactly it.

I would remind the House that the third report states:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), your committee has considered a motion in the name of the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin...and has agreed to report the following:

That the committee recommend that the Rivière Rouge Mont Tremblant International Airport (YTM) be recognized as an airport of entry into Canada, without customs charges being imposed for regular commercial flights...

If it is not a matter of regular commercial flights, there is no problem; it does not cost the government a single cent. However, if regular commercial flights are involved, we are merely seeking the same treatment as everywhere else in Canada. Is that clear enough?

It is now up to the Conservatives to explain to us why, from their perspective, this airport should be treated differently from every other airport in Canada in similar situations and circumstances. That is the question.

[Committees of the House, June 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague who just asked this question.

Sometimes, I receive many requests for meetings. The only time a member of Parliament or minister, whatever his or her responsibilities are, will bluntly refuse such meetings is when the matter is already settled and it is not of any interest any more.

This is the clear message being sent by our überminister, our great Conservative potentate for Quebec. He is telling us very clearly that he is not interested at all in what happens with the Rivière Rouge airport. It is a shame.

I took great care to mention the Mascouche airport, thinking that it must be on his radar screen, but I am not even sure it is. Once again, this is on the northern fringe. We are talking about the only airport between Mascouche and Rivière Rouge, with the exception of Mirabel, with all the turmoil it has experienced, and a very small airport for parachutists near Saint-Jérôme. It is really the only infrastructure of any importance. Others have been lost over the years in the greater Montreal area, and the loss of this airport will be a real problem. The Les Cèdres airport, on the other side, much further away to the west, would be of no interest whatsoever.

People are not sure they want to invest because of this uncertainty in economic development issues. A lot of things depend on the available systems and infrastructure. If they are nonexistent or if there is too much uncertainty, investments are not made and jobs are not created. This shows the silliness of the Conservatives in an issue such as this one. It is really distressing, because in this motion, we are only asking for fair treatment, the same treatment other, similar airports get elsewhere in Canada.

[Committees of the House, June 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it would probably be best for me to answer my knowledgeable colleague in English.

What the member has just said is completely false. It is not borne out by the facts.

First, as has been amply demonstrated by the Bloc and the NDP who have moved this motion, Mont Tremblant is the only airport in Canada to have such fees imposed on regular commercial flights, full stop.

Second, I know it is difficult and maybe the member has trouble so I will read the motion for him again. It states:

That the Committee recommend that the Rivière Rouge Mont Tremblant International Airport...be recognized as an airport of entry into Canada, without customs charges being imposed for regular commercial flights....

That is the condition in the text, nothing else. Therefore, would he please stop embroidering and inventing and read the text and then come to a decision. The rest of it is of no interest to us or anyone else in the region.

[Committees of the House, June 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address this important motion on the third report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, which reads as follows:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), your Committee has considered a motion in the name of the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin and has agreed to report the following:

That the Committee recommend that the Rivière Rouge Mont Tremblant International Airport (YTM) be recognized as an airport of entry into Canada, without customs charges being imposed for regular commercial flights, as is the case with the airports in Montreal and Quebec City.

A number of things that just took place in this debate deserve an immediate comment.

It is clear that the Conservative government asks members to talk about a bill without being at all prepared to do so, without checking the facts. That is amazing. The very wording of the report explains what the issue is all about. Regular commercial flights are being targeted. The government's spokesperson—the Conservatives have such contempt that they do not even send a minister—claims that this is not the case. It is incredible to be here and to see that, despite all the resources at its disposal, the government would delegate someone to utter such nonsense, to make such foolish remarks in this House.

The issue before us today is simply a matter of regional economic development. However, it is as if the very notion of regional economic development, particularly in Quebec, is anathema to the Conservative government. One just has to look at the contemptuous attitude displayed by the minister, who is showing off and travelling in Quebec, just like Maurice Duplessis, as a Quebec minister recently pointed out, to distribute his little envelopes of taxpayers' money for projects that he, alone, decides to support.

Shortly after the holidays, I was in Rimouski and I revisited a centre that I had had the pleasure of visiting before, when I was Quebec's minister of sustainable development, environment and parks. I am referring to Rimouski's marine biotechnology research centre. That centre is truly one of those regional economic development gems that Quebec seems to have a knack for creating. And it is because it is so successful that the Conservatives want to destroy it.

It is a little as though Mont Tremblant were starting to get a bit embarrassing. It is too successful, so the government is going to start putting obstacles in its way. That is what is happening here today. There is no real reason for this sort of discrimination against Mont Tremblant airport, aside from the fact that the government gives preference to other airports in Canada, where such rules do not apply. That is how the Conservatives discriminate against Quebec, and I for one have had just about enough of it.

With their questions and comments, the Conservatives are trying once again to tell us that their problems are the Liberals' fault, but enough is enough. They have been in power for two and a half years, even though they have a minority government. It is about time they stepped up to the plate for the good of everyone.

Under our Constitution, aeronautics and customs are federal responsibilities. When it comes to customs, the government should at least apply the same rules everywhere.

The motion is very clear. The Rivière Rouge international airport should be treated like other international airports, meaning as an airport of entry, with no customs charges on regular commercial flights. What is the problem? This is how all other airports are treated. The Bloc member responsible for this issue made that point. The member who represents the riding could not have been clearer.

This is not an answer. It is ridiculous for the Conservatives to keep rising and blaming the Liberals. Certainly, the Liberals are incompetent. That is why they are no longer in government. But the Conservatives have to start shouldering their responsibilities when it comes to this international airport.

When I talk with Americans, to give them an idea of the size of Quebec, I like to remind them that Quebec is two and a half times the size of Texas. It is an image they can grasp quite quickly. When I talk with Europeans, I like to tell them that Quebec is three times the size of France, which has the largest area of any European country. It is a striking image that also reminds us, given our population, that Quebec is a huge land mass that we need to develop in, of course, a sustainable and viable way.

Tourism is the one thing we have to bring people to a region. We are doing all we can to have protected areas, national parks and so on. We have wonderful resorts and people come here from all over the world.

Let us not forget that tourism is the number one industry in Quebec. Over the years, as my colleagues explained, we have succeeded in investing considerable amounts of money in this airport to ensure that any regional economic development initiative takes into account not only the environment but also various socio-economic aspects, and it pays off. Jobs have been created; it works. Governments at all levels have been involved in this file for years and it is now producing results and generating spinoffs in neighbouring regions.

So why such a relentless attitude on the part of the Conservatives? They are always there to throw obstacles in the way of any initiative that has to do with regional economic development in Quebec. We have to wonder.

Since we are on the subject of air transportation and small airports, it is important to remind members of what is happening at the Mascouche airport. This issue will soon be coming back to the House since the federal government's commitment to that airport will end in 2011. In fact, it even seems that if the city of Mascouche is able to repay its debt to the federal government, that airport could disappear even sooner. However, the threat that is already hanging over the second largest uncontrolled airport in Canada, after Buttonville, in Ontario, is a hindrance to development.

In Mascouche, five flying schools generate 75 permanent jobs. But there is more: in terms of regional economic activity for tourism in the greater Montreal area, that airport is crucial. Recently, legal proceedings between the city and the Government of Quebec have been initiated to determine who has a right of release. It is a complicated matter and I will not get into the details of what is before the courts.

Nonetheless, this proves the extent to which the government must assume its responsibility to ensure that this part of our infrastructure is maintained and preserved. The federal government must intervene to ensure the survival of the Mascouche airport and ensure that the Rivière Rouge international airport in the Upper Laurentians is treated the same as other Canadian airports. The current situation makes no sense.

I will read an excerpt from a letter from Gilles Lapierre, president of Aviateurs et pilotes de brousse du Québec:

The Mascouche airport is the largest uncontrolled airport in Quebec and the second largest in Canada. It accommodates 15 aviation related businesses, including 5 flight schools, and employs 75 people. Its geographic location makes it a leading private and commercial aviation training centre and it is recognized as the place where pilots from the metropolitan area cut their teeth. It is also a strategic centre for volunteer search and rescue operators and for transporting the sick, the injured and organs to local health institutions, including the Lachenaie hospital centre currently being built [the construction is now completed] and it is used as an alternate airport for Dorval and Mirabel...

This is another airport matter that will soon be studied in this House. Nonetheless, if the government keeps on serving up people who do not have even have ministerial responsibility to replace ministers in matters such as this, we will end up with the same result and will have to find a solution here in this House. We will be forced to stand up and ask questions to figure out what is at stake. Is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?

I want to make it clear that although this is a minority government, it still has responsibilities. We have a Minister of Transport. He is the überminister for everything that moves in Quebec. I am anxious to see what the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities will do to save the Mascouche airport. It is not the municipality's fault. I am not criticizing Mayor Marcotte, whom I have had the pleasure of knowing over the years. He does his job as mayor and has his own strictly local concerns, and that is normal. He tries to do his best with his own priorities.

Nonetheless, the federal government must have a broader vision and look from a higher vantage point at regional economic development and infrastructure such as airports, like the Rivière Rouge airport at issue today, or the one I just mentioned, closer to Montreal in the Mascouche area.

We are very disappointed in the federal government's attitude towards this infrastructure and towards economic development in Quebec in general. What we are discussing today is only the tip of the iceberg.

I had the chance to play a part in the development of this airport when I sat in the Quebec cabinet. I know the Laurentians well—my family hails from that region—and I appreciate the area, which has always struck me as important given geopolitics and economic development in Quebec.

It is sad that no one in this government's cabinet, which boasts about supporting the recognition of the Quebec nation, can make their colleagues understand occasionally that they will be severely criticized the next day in the House of Commons because they were asleep at the switch again. They should be wondering if there is anything they can do to help the airport.

Previous federal governments, the Quebec government and municipalities went to great effort to build an airport at Mont-Tremblant, this important site for developing tourism and therefore regional economy in the Upper Laurentians, and that effort is beginning to pay off.

Could the government do something intelligent? Apparently not. They send in someone who is not even the minister responsible for this file with explanations obviously prepared by junior employees, who did not even have the intelligence or common sense to study the file and learn what it is about.

The answer I heard earlier was shocking. It was absolutely shocking to hear a Conservative representative say earlier that we are not talking about regularly scheduled flights. The Bloc members were quick to correct him. Let him rest his mind for a moment. I will read the recommendation to him once again so that he will understand:

That the Committee recommend that the Rivière Rouge Mont Tremblant International Airport (YTM) be recognized as an airport of entry into Canada, without customs charges being imposed for regular commercial flights--

Did the member understand that?

“for regular commercial flights”.

That is what we want. Our colleague should not start talking about something else. He should not just repeat what he has in his papers prepared by department officials. He should take three seconds to read the official document from the committee that he has right in front of him and try to understand what we are saying. Maybe then he will see how shocking it is for us, who have been trying for years to prioritize regional development all across Quebec and in the rest of Canada too, to hear someone in the House simply ignore the clear wording of the resolution before us, talk about something completely different, and blame the Liberals and the previous government. He should stand up and start assuming his responsibilities.

While on the subject of assuming responsibilities, I want to extent an invitation to the Liberals. I just listened to my colleague from a riding in the Outaouais region imploring the government from the very bottom of his heart. For 20 minutes he bent our ears about the “aréoport”. The document I have in front of me, though, is about an “aéroport”. Maybe he was talking about something else, but in my document the é comes before the r. He went on for 20 minutes about the “aréoport” but should just learn instead to stop begging the Conservatives. He should just stand up and vote with us to defeat this Conservative government.

As usual, his are empty words. The Liberals are incapable of standing up straight. They do not actually believe in anything. They rise here in the House, they make fine speeches in favour of regional economic development, and they ask questions about the cuts currently being made to institutes like the Marine Biotechnology Research Centre in Rimouski. But the only concrete thing they are capable of doing is cutting back and imposing rules and restrictions on facilities and infrastructure in Quebec that do not exist in the rest of Canada.

That is really what we are talking about today. When it comes to Quebec, the Conservatives impose restrictions and additional costs that do not apply in the rest of Canada for similar things under similar circumstances.

Instead of reading us papers prepared by his staff, instead of pretending the Bloc members are wrong to say these are regular flights, can the hon. member just take two minutes to read the resolution before us? The report could hardly be clearer. All people want is equal treatment for the Rivière-Rouge airport in comparison with what is done in other jurisdictions in Canada. The wording could hardly be any clearer in this regard.

Although the Conservative government still tries to make us believe it is interested in Quebec and the development of Quebec, everything it does proves just the opposite. People often say in English:

“You can talk the talk but can you walk the walk”.

The Quebec version of this is even more colourful and much better: “Il faut que les bottines suivent les babines”. The Conservatives need to start not just talking the talk but walking the walk when it comes to regional economic development.

[Petitions, June 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition today in this House that calls on the government to put an end to customer abuse through automatic teller machines, specifically in regards to the charges the public must pay to access their own money.

It is an honour for me today to table a petition from a number of people, mostly in the Thunder Bay region of Canada, who want to make sure that the abusive ATM fees that are currently being charged by Canadian banks are eliminated when workers are trying to get access to their own money.

[Canadian Multiculturalism Act, June 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to speak about this important bill that will foster a very healthy debate in this House and in society as a whole.

Bill C-505, introduced as a private member's bill by the Bloc Québécois, is called An Act to amend the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (non-application in Quebec). It is interesting that it has come before us on a day when the media are paying rather close attention to this issue. It was refreshing to see on the front page of the La Presse newspaper in Montreal today a reference to all of the private members' bills that have made it before Parliament.

It is even more interesting because we currently have a minority government. So, when the three opposition parties agree on a bill, as was very recently the case with the important climate change bill introduced by the leader of the NDP, we are able to come together and move forward with ideas that would otherwise by blocked by the government. This process is in the best interests of the institution.

I will divide my remarks into two parts, because the bill before us addresses two completely different aspects. There is the issue of proposing a review of multiculturalism, an important topic that has been part of Canada's vision since the 1960s. It is generally associated with former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and rightly so, because in the 1960s, it was a way to distinguish between Canada's vision for integrating immigrants, and the vision prevailing among our neighbours to the south, in the United States. The second part will have to do with the more technical aspects of the bill, and that is where we distance ourselves from the approach proposed by the Bloc Québécois.

Let us come back to the basic principle of multiculturalism. As my colleague just said, it is in the charter. But in his view, the fact that it is in the charter is the answer to the debate. In the view of my party and myself, that sends us back to the starting gate. It is not sufficient to say that section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms talks about multiculturalism and the debate ends there. In fact, I am not persuaded that my Bloc Québécois colleague knew what a hot topic this would be at the time when it came to be debated. Nonetheless, there could not be a better time to discuss it openly and let the audience listening to us know what the differences between the parties are.

I would say, after hearing the Liberal Party on this question, it appears that the New Democratic Party falls midway between the very closed position of the Liberal Party and the position taken by the Bloc Québécois, and I will try to describe that later, which wants to make this a political issue.

We must recall what section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says, because it gives us an indication of why we must oppose this bill, “This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.”

Because Bill C-505 is not constitutional legislation, as a result of the straitjacket imposed on Quebec by the 1982 Constitution, it cannot be amended without following the relatively tortuous process that we all observed in relation to the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords, the outcome of which we are all familiar with.

What the Bloc is trying to do with this bill is to alter the Canadian Multiculturalism Act to do something separate for Quebec. It would be easy to follow them down that road, if the goal were to stay in Canada. But let us not delude ourselves. The Bloc Québécois, as is its absolute right in this democracy, has as its ultimate priority the removal of Quebec from Canada. We must therefore realize that the only purpose of the bill must be to position the Bloc in a debate that has been raging in Quebec for the last year and a half. So the goal is not to improve how things work in Canada, and the result of the votes on this subject is entirely predictable. This way of going about it is therefore rather clumsy and heavy-handed.

With all the respect I have for the individuals in the Bloc Québécois, that party’s political manoeuvring is pretty transparent when it comes to what they are trying to do. On top of that, the arguments the Bloc is advancing are wrong.

Important as it is to allow Quebec to work within its jurisdictions, we must also realize what accommodations, dare I say, have been made over the years. Quebec is the only province—thanks to the Couture-Cullen agreement—that has significant authority over immigration. It has its own system for attracting and selecting immigrants and providing for their integration into our society.

These differences between Quebec and the rest of Canada had already been examined long before the constitutional amendments of 1982 that I mentioned earlier. At the time the multiculturalism policy was introduced, it was often said that the United States, Canada's southern neighbour, was a melting pot, a sort of soup or stew where everything blends together and individual elements become indistinguishable.

On the weekend, a Canadian actor talking about a new film described our system as a salad. We have often heard our system be compared to a tapestry or a mosaic in which every piece can be distinguished. Nonetheless, I must say that I like the image of a salad: it is something pleasant and well composed; we can still distinctly see each component and know what it is made of. It was Mike Myers, the famous Canadian actor from Ontario, who created the best image by describing our lovely Canadian salad on the weekend. I am going to adopt his very evocative expression.

The NDP could accept the Bloc's suggestion to debate a bill to protect the language of work for the employees of banks, which are under federal jurisdiction, or Société de transport de l'Outaouais employees who cross the border and work under the Canada Labour Code instead of the Quebec Labour Code. It was easy for the NDP, which has a long history of protecting workers' rights, to understand that it was not right for a bank employee in Montreal to have fewer linguistic rights than someone who works in a caisse populaire. It was easy for the NDP to understand that it was not right for a Société de transport de l'Outaouais employee to have fewer linguistic rights than a bus driver in Sherbrooke or Quebec City.

The NDP is very proud of its history of defending workers' rights. The language rights of workers are a subset of this important principle.

The NDP therefore voted with the Bloc Québécois to bring the bill forward for debate. Changes are likely needed. Like Graham Fraser, we believe that nearly all these changes can be made through the Canada Labour Code, instead of fiddling with the Official Languages Act, which we felt might cause problems, especially for linguistic minorities in the other provinces, and even in Quebec. We preferred to look at this option.

Unlike the Liberals, we believe that the language rights of Quebeckers can be improved to ensure that they can live in French in the only French-majority province in Canada, without that having a negative impact on the rights of linguistic minorities in Quebec or anywhere else in Canada. In that respect, we challenge the position taken by the Liberal Party of Canada, which would not even agree to discuss this important language rights issue.

We have to look at it all the way from Trudeau's pan-Canadian vision to today's reality, where French in Quebec is seen as increasingly fragile. We all have an obligation to enhance the French language anytime we can and make sure we do so in an inclusive way, with all Canadians in mind. This is in everyone's national interest.

We must not strip this out of the legislation, when the problem continues to reside in the constitutional straitjacket that was imposed on Quebec in 1982. As far as we are concerned, that is a complete waste of time and nothing will be resolved that way. Moreover, it does not reflect Quebec's uniqueness, as set out in the Couture-Cullen agreement which was signed more than a generation ago and which gives Quebec very specific rights in that important area.