2009-05-29

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Peru, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Peru and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Peru, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
The Speaker: There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
Hon. Gordon O'Connor: moved that the bill be concurred in.
The Speaker:  Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
Gordon O'Connor: (Motion agreed to)
Gordon O'Connor:  moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. 
Mr. Gerald Keddy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-24, the Canada-Peru free trade agreement.
As members know, our Conservative government's global commerce strategy includes a re-energized agenda of trade liberalization with our partners around the world. It will be this strategy that will help to lead Canada out of this recession that is affecting every country in the world today.
As a trading nation, Canadian companies, Canadian producers and Canadian investors need access to international markets to stay competitive. We have entered an age of fierce global competition, as emerging economies continue climbing the value chain and establishing themselves in an ever-widening range of sectors.
In this time of economic uncertainty, with a slowdown in the U.S. economy, our top commercial partner, and ongoing turbulence in international financial markets, Canadian exporters and investors will continue to be affected.
We have done a good job of riding out the storm, thanks largely to Canada's strengths, like low unemployment, the strongest fiscal situation in the G7, a sound borrowing system and our endowment of natural resources that continue to be in demand the world over.
However, it is extremely clear that we must remain vigilant. Our Conservative government must continue to fight protectionist measures around the world and continue taking steps to ensure Canadian companies remain competitive, maintain their markets and have access to new opportunities.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade understand the challenge. The Prime Minister has committed to playing an active role in the Americas and to building strategic relationships with key partners in our neighbourhood.
Peru is a leader in Latin America, a lynchpin in the political and economic stability of the region. It has been an economic engine with a GDP growth rate of 9.8% in 2008, the top of Latin American countries and higher than that experienced by China or India.
Peru also has a solid outward orientation. A leader in trade liberalization, Peru is currently pursuing trade negotiations with a number of countries. 
As it stands, Canadian exporters are at an immediate risk of losing markets in Peru due to the entry into force of a trade promotion agreement with the United States on February 1 of this year.
Peru has also recently completed trade negotiations with China and EFTA and is negotiating with the EU, South Korea, Mexico and Thailand.
As members can see, Peru has a very robust international trade agenda. It is an economic engine in the Americas. It is beneficial to Peru and beneficial to Canada that we see this free trade agreement go forward.
Our firms and Canadian workers deserve trade agreements that address this situation and allow them to compete in international markets on a level playing field. We need partners like Peru, especially as we move forward on engaging with like-minded countries throughout the Americas.
Canadians will benefit. Peru is already an established and growing market for our businesses. In 2008, two-way merchandise trade between our countries totalled $2.8 billion. 
With this new agreement, our nations are taking a critical step to intensify our commercial relationship in the years ahead and to create new opportunities for citizens in both countries to prosper.
Upon its implementation, Peru will eliminate tariffs on nearly all current Canadian exports, including wheat, pulses and mining equipment.
It should be noted that some opposition parties have been holding up a number of these free trade agreements. At the same time, they propose that they continue to support Canadian business and Canadian opportunity, especially Canadian exports because we are an exporting nation.
In wheat and barley alone, in two free trade agreements between Colombia and Peru, roughly $250 million of Canadian trade is at risk because these agreements have not passed through the House yet.
Perhaps the members who are intent on holding up these agreements and at the same time are saying that they support Canadian industry, should take a look at this one industry alone where a quarter of a billion dollars are at risk because of opposition shenanigans, quite frankly, in holding them up.
Upon its implementation, Peru will eliminate tariffs on nearly all Canadian exports, including wheat, pulses and mining equipment. Again, that is worth repeating. A variety of paper products, machinery and equipment will also enjoy the same benefit. 
The Canada-Peru free trade agreement also provides a great opportunity to take our current trade in services to a new level in the years ahead. In 2006, the most recent year where statistics are available, Canada exported $33 million worth of commercial services to Peru. This new agreement provides a wonderful opportunity to grow this number in the years ahead and continue boosting the level of cross-border trade enjoyed by our two countries.
Canadian investors, too, have a significant presence in the Peruvian market. Even before this agreement, our countries made a firm commitment to enhancing two-way investments through a joint foreign investment promotion and protection agreement, or FIPPA, which entered into force in 2007. Canada is one of Peru's largest overall foreign investors, with an estimated $2.35 billion worth of investment stock in Peru in 2008, led by the mining and the financial sectors.
This FTA builds on the existing FIPPA and gains new ground for Canadian investors. Specifically, it includes strong obligations that will, first, ensure the free transfer of capital related to investments, protect against unlawful expropriation and provide for non-discriminatory treatment of Canadian investors. In short, we have levelled the playing field.
It also provides for an effective, binding and impartial dispute settlement mechanism. In other words, the agreement provides the security, stability and predictability that investors need. Our government procurement agreement guarantees Canadian suppliers the right to bid on a broad range of goods, services and construction contracts carried out by Peru's federal government entities. 
It is no wonder that Canadian businesses in a number of sectors have been strong advocates of this agreement. Their support has been crucial throughout the negotiating process that began in June 2007. The result is something we can all be proud of. With this new agreement, our nations are taking a critical step to intensify our commercial relationships in the years ahead and to create new opportunities for citizens in both countries to prosper.
We have negotiated a high quality and comprehensive free trade agreement, covering everything from market access to goods to cross-border trade and services, to investment and government procurement. Canadian exporter service providers and investors will benefit, and the agreement will create new opportunities for Canadian businesses and producers in the Peruvian market.
However, an effective should do more than eliminate tariffs. It should also tackle the non-tariff barriers that keep a trade relationship from reaching its full potential. With this agreement, that is just what we have done, by including new measures to ensure greater transparency, including better predictability of incoming regulations, and the right by industry to be consulted at an early stage in the development of regulations, promoting the use of international standards and creating a mechanism to promptly address problems.
We are taking action on a number of fronts to unlock the trade potential inherent in the Canada-Peru relationship but this agreement is significant for other reasons as well. This agreement is also accompanied by important side agreements that demonstrate our joint commitment to corporate social responsibility, the rights of workers and preserving the natural environment.
Many Canadian companies and the Canadian government are at the forefront of efforts to ensure accountability and transparency through renewed commitments to principles of good corporate citizenship, both domestically and internationally.
The Canadian government encourages and expects Canadian companies operating abroad to respect all applicable laws and international standards and to conduct their activities in a socially and environmentally responsible manner, recognizing that responsible business conduct reinforces the positive effect that trade and investment can have on labour rights, the environment and competitiveness.
This complements the Conservative government's recently announced corporate social responsibility strategy that will increase the competitiveness of the Canadian extractive sector operating abroad by enhancing its ability to manage social and environmental risk. Our nations recognize that prosperity must not come at the expense of the environment and workers' rights. 
This agreement paves the way for significant dialogue in other areas of mutual interest, including poverty reduction and trade related co-operation. We share a belief with Peru that open markets and international trade are the best hope for fostering development of our common security in the hemisphere. In fact, this approach builds on our successful experience with free trade partners, such as the United States, Mexico, Chile and Costa Rica. 
We recognize that prosperity cannot take hold without security or in the absence of freedom and the rule of law brought about through the pursuit of democratic governance. A good, healthy democracy cannot function without a sound underpinning of personal security and the chance to improve living standards through increased trade and investment. That is why our Conservative government is committed to working closely with partners like Peru to influence positive change throughout the region and promote the principles of sound governance, security and prosperity.
Taken together, these agreements mark a new chapter in the Canada-Peru relationship, one that will forge an even stronger bond between our nations in the years ahead. They also mark yet another milestone in Canada's trade policy. In this day of fierce global competition and overall economic uncertainty, I am proud to say that we are taking the measures necessary to continue creating a resilient and competitive Canadian economy in the years ahead.
We need to move expeditiously to help our businesses grow. As I noted, the United States already has preferred access to Peru's markets for their exports and government procurement. Canadian companies deserve to compete on a level playing field. I ask for the support of all hon. members of this place as we continue these efforts and create new opportunities for all Canadians to thrive and prosper in the global economy.
In closing, I would say that since coming to government, in 2006, we have pursued a very ambitious free trade agreement, especially in the Americas. There is a tremendous amount of Canadian direct investment abroad in the Americas. Quite frankly, this is our neighbourhood. This is the continent that Canada is part of: North America and South America. It only makes sense that we have closer ties.
Unfortunately, that was not seen as a priority by the previous government, so we have a lot of ground to make up. We have a huge opportunity. There are a number of countries throughout Central America, the Caribbean and South America that are looking to enhance ties with Canada and improve the situation they find their own countries in. 
These are growing economies with some challenges, and we recognize that. For us to turn our backs on these critical relationships at this time would not be good foreign policy, it would not be good trade policy and it would indicate that we do not have a clear understanding of what is going on in Central America and South America.
The opportunity is huge and the benefits are great. The benefits are great, not just for Canada but for our partners in Central America, South America and the Caribbean. Again, I would implore all my colleagues in the House to support this agreement. It is a good agreement, one that will help carry Canada into the future and ensure and protect Canadian and Peruvian jobs and opportunities. 
Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear in the parliamentary secretary's comments a renewed commitment to corporate social responsibility. I think that is welcome news.
I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary is aware that there was a parliamentary report by the foreign affairs committee in 2005 that was followed up by round tables in 2007 to which his government did not respond. The round table's report was retabled in 2009, to which his government did not respond. It was then followed by my private member's bill, Bill C-300. Only lately has the government got religion, in March of this year, with a proposal that has the appearance of doing something but in fact is doing very little and may actually be counterproductive. 
Some of the initiatives in that press release are actually good, and I encourage the government to pursue those. However, the ones that are most objectionable are the ones having to do with the actual investigative power of the councillor.
Would the hon. parliament secretary commit to incorporating the CSR obligations or responsibilities in the press release and the mandate of the new councillor into Bill C-300 as this bill goes forward?
[Interjection]
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the hon. member supports the government initiatives in corporate social responsibility. We certainly have come further and more quickly than any government in the history of this country.
Unfortunately, the member has convinced a number of his colleagues that the way his bill is written would benefit corporate social responsibility and enhance it, and nothing is further from the truth. 
There is the whole issue when we are looking at corporate social responsibility of extraterritoriality and the ability for Canadians to enforce our laws in foreign jurisdictions. That is simply not appropriate and it is not applicable.
The other assumption that the hon. member's bill makes is that all the NGOs' statements and the negative statements and every press release the member reads about Canada's mining sector, our extractive sector, which is the biggest extractive sector in the world by far, operating in over 100 countries, are true.
I visited a mine in Honduras that the NGO said was not practising good social responsibility and found out from being on the ground there, in a little town called San Andrés, which used to have 1,200 people and now has about 30,000 people because they have come there for jobs and opportunity and to work in the mine, a community that had no doctor, no facilities at all--one could go to the priest after one was dead--now has a hospital that is operated by the mining company there.
We had a former member of Parliament, Alexa McDonough, who never visited the town, never visited the mine, but put a report out condemning them for corporate social responsibility. In fact when one actually visits the place, it was untrue. I cannot put it any clearer than that.
I am extremely aware of corporate social responsibility. We have appointed a councillor for corporate social responsibility. We will put an office in place, probably in Montreal, for corporate social responsibility, where the NGOs and industry alike can meet and find out information about Canadian mining operations abroad. 
We will continue to work with all members of the House in a proactive way to ensure and support corporate social responsibility. But let us be clear: the whole issue of extraterritoriality has to be addressed.
One of the members in this member's own party said very clearly that although well intended it was unfortunate that the bill was brought forward because it is misguided.
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what my hon. colleague was saying. I do represent probably one of the largest mining regions in the world, and the issue of holding to account is certainly an issue.
In terms of the very rosy picture he is painting, my concern with the deal with Peru is that labour rights are not in the agreement; that is in a side agreement. Peru has a notorious record in terms of labour rights. I would hope he would at least admit that.
In terms of environmental protection, it is all well and good to say we are going to set up some office in Montreal, but the agreement should clearly spell it out, and not in a side agreement, the commitments, obligations and triggers that will be invoked if there are issues.
Once again, in terms of the rights of the investors we see the kind of chapter 11 provisions that existed under NAFTA. Any corporate operation is able to take action, and yet labour groups and environmental groups are not. Why is it that we see a very clear protection of corporate interest in this agreement without the clear commitments to labour and environment?
 If we had those clear commitments, I think the member would find a lot more interest in working with the development in Peru and making sure that our export economy works. However, when we see them shunted off to side agreements it is very hard for us in the House to take the government seriously when it comes to its Pollyannaish claims about respecting labour and respecting the environment.
[Interjection]
Gerald Keddy: Pollyannaish is an interesting turn of a phrase.
Mr. Speaker, the reality is, regardless of how the hon. member would want to mislead the public and this House, for the member for Timmins—James Bay the reality is that on labour rights— 
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would ask for a bit of common respect in this House. For him to say that I am trying to mislead the House is to call me a liar on this. I am asking what is in the provisions of the document. He can disagree with me, but I would ask him to retract that comment.
The Speaker: The Chair has generally ruled that the word “mislead” is not the same as suggested by the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay; the words “deliberately misleading” are out of order. He did not suggest that the hon. member deliberately misled the House at all, and if he had, he would have been asked to retract such a statement.
I do not think that anything the parliamentary secretary has said up until now has been out of order. He can respond as he will to the submission by the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay on this point.
[Interjection]
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the comment that I have not been out of order up to now. I hope by the time I finish my statements today, I will not be out of order either.
Quite frankly, the labour rights and environmental side agreements to this agreement are the strongest we have ever signed. This is a trade agreement. This agreement is really not meant to cover labour and the environment, but we have expanded our trade agreements. We accept the fact that labour and environmental rights are a part of a new era of corporate social responsibility and a new era in trade agreements, especially with countries where their labour and environmental processes may not be as advanced as ours. These are very solid protections for labour and the environment.
 I find it interesting. The opposition members say that we have signed a separate agreement on labour and a separate agreement on the environment, which have strength of their own. However, had we put them in the main agreement, they would have said that they meant nothing because they were only one line. Yet they have a force of their own, separate of trade. Because we have done that, however, those members say they are just an addition and they do not mean anything. No matter how we did it, NDP members would not be satisfied. Therefore, I am not going to pretend to satisfy them.
However, I will explain to them, one more time, that these are the strongest additions and protections for labour and environmental processes of any agreement ever signed in the history of Canada.
We have already looked at the rights for the environment and labour. When we look at the rights for investors, they need to have some protections. Let us be clear. What we have is a rules-based process to settle disputes. That is much better than gunboat diplomacy, which apparently those members would like to see us apply. I do not agree with that.
Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-24, the Canada-Peru free trade agreement implementation act. The bill seeks to implement the free trade agreement, the agreement on labour co-operation and the agreement on the environment entered into by Canada with the Republic of Peru on May 29, 2008.
The bill is extremely important to Canada's agriculture sector. While the agreement has potential for many of our farm products, it is critical to our wheat and durum industries, to our pulse and specialty crop industries, to beef and to pork and to potatoes. We know about the tremendous potatoes that come from the province of Prince Edward Island. I can see my colleague from Manitoba is jealous of the kind of potatoes we produce in Prince Edward Island, and I understand why.
Before I get into all the reasons why this is so important to farmers, there is a point I would like to raise on corporate social responsibility.
 My colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood earlier raised the point. Peru is cited in the strategy of the Government of Canada on corporate social responsibility for the Canadian international extractive sector. Peru is also cited as a country where the Canadian International Development Agency has worked extensively with the government, mining companies and affected communities to develop and promote regulatory requirements for social and environmental management.
The Canada-Peru FTA also includes corporate social responsibility provisions encouraging the promotion of principles and of responsible business, and that is an important point to make. We feel very strongly about corporate social responsibility and we have some very grave concerns about the trade agreement with Colombia. However, on this side of the House, we believe Peru is doing much better.
On the human rights side, it is clear that some human rights issues remain in Peru. In its 2008 report, Amnesty International recognized that important steps had been taken to bring to justice those responsible for human rights violations during the years of armed conflict between 1980 and 2000. In terms of violent crime in Peru, the country's homicide rate now stands at 5.7 per hundred thousand, which is still too high, but it is among the lowest in South America. Those are some steps forward.
I know there will be some who will say that human rights are still a concern and we understand that. However, when the agreement is settled with Peru, I would encourage the Government of Canada to continue its emphasis in discussions about good human rights standards to ensure that CIDA does its part in Peru as well.
 I believe we can do both. We can improve trade to the benefit of both countries, the citizens of Canada and the citizens of Peru. We can also improve human rights in the Republic of Peru for the benefit of Peru and certainly the globe.
I might mention as well that there are side agreements on labour co-operation and the environment, and that is important. I will agree with my NDP colleague, however, that it would better if they were encompassed in the agreement as a whole rather than being in side agreements, but it is a step forward. More and more we see the United States negotiating agreements that include the environment and labour as part of those agreements.
If environment and labour are not part of those agreements, we are allowing people and industries in other countries to abuse the environment. We give them a competitive advantage. We allow them to undermine labour standards and give their countries and those industries a labour, wage or benefit advantage. That is not what we want to see happen. We have to bring up the standard globally and that is what we must work toward.
There is certainly economic risk if we do not ratify this agreement, especially as it relates to the agriculture sector. Since 2005, Peru has concluded free trade agreements with the United States, Chile, Thailand, Singapore and the Mercosur region, which is Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. The United States Congress has ratified the U.S.-Peru free trade agreement. In fact, that just entered into force on February 1 of this year.
If Canada fails to implement a Canada-Peru free trade agreement, Canadian businesses will be at an economic disadvantage compared to their foreign competitors. One stark example of this concern is the export of wheat. We produce wheat in abundance in our country. We have one of the greatest selling agencies in the world, the Canadian Wheat Board, which the government hates to admit. 
The wheat exports of the United States have recently benefited from the U.S.-Peru free trade agreement, immediately receiving duty-free treatment. Without a free trade agreement, Canada's exports of wheat, which comprise 38% of Canada's total exports to Peru, will continue to face a 17% tariff. This would place Canadian wheat at a very substantial disadvantage. We cannot allow those negative consequences to happen by opposing this agreement.
Let me turn to why the agreement is so important for Canadian farmers. Perhaps the best way for me to do that is to turn to the presentations that farm leaders have presented to either government or parliamentary committees.
 I will turn first to a letter by Larry Hill. He is the president of the Canadian Wheat Board. In his letter to the chair of the Standing Committee on International Trade, he said:
 It's important that the legislation is passed in a timely manner so as to avoid western Canadian farmers being placed at a disadvantage into this important Latin American market. 
 Wheat and durum are Canada's number one export to Peru. Under the agreement, Canadian wheat, durum and barley will receive tariff-free access upon implementation. While there is currently no tariff, applied tariffs have historically averaged 15%. The tariff was temporarily removed during last year's high price period, but is likely to be reinstated now that prices are declining. 
Mr. Hill went on to say:
 Peru is a key, fast-growing Latin American market for western Canadian farmers. CWB exports to Peru average 410,000 tonnes of wheat and 18,400 tonnes of barley annually. In 2008, Canadian sales were worth $134 million Cdn for wheat and barley farmers. 
 In February 2009, the U.S. and Peru implemented a Trade Promotion Agreement, resulting in guaranteed tariff-free access for American wheat and barley into Peru. Without a similar agreement, Canadian wheat and barley will be placed at a real commercial disadvantage, likely resulting in lost sales. It is imperative that the Canadian agreement be implemented prior to Peru reinstating its tariffs. 
In that letter, Mr. Hill mentions how important the market is and the amount of wheat that we export into that country.
 I was in Ecuador a number of years ago and spoke with the president of Bonita Bananas. Ecuador is a big importer of Canadian hard red spring wheat mainly. He told me that Ecuador imported somewhere around $72 million of Canadian wheat on average each year. 
The United States signed an agreement with Ecuador and to a great extent we have been displaced from that market. We cannot afford to lose that market. Our most important market, as we consistently tell the government, is the market that we have. We have to maintain that market. 
There are concerns from some agricultural producers that Canada was unable to secure the same favourable conditions in tariff reductions as the United States, particularly in beef and pork products. Still, even Canadian beef and pork producers want us to ratify the Canada-Peru FTA as they believe that imperfect tariff reductions are better than no tariff reductions at all.
Even with these concerns, the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture spelled out the concerns and benefits. He did that best when he was before the Standing Committee on International Trade on May 7. I would like to quote a few of his remarks, because he sums it up certainly better than I could in my words. Laurent Pellerin, the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, said:
 --I would like to say that this agreement should be implemented as quickly as possible. It is not a huge achievement with regard to the objectives of agricultural producers, but some improvements are worth implementing. 
 We are negotiating this agreement more or less at the same time as the United States, or a bit later. We believe, however, that we must negotiate parity with the United States in future negotiations or free trade agreements and contracts with countries like Peru. Unfortunately, in the case of Peru, Canada is far from achieving the same thing as the United States. We recognize that the Peruvian market is probably more significant for the United States than it is for Canada, but all the same, parity would have been a very desirable goal. 
It is too bad that the American negotiators perhaps negotiated a little tougher than our negotiators. In any event, it is a step forward. He went on to say:
 In the case of Peru, the United States will have shorter tariff elimination periods, and in some cases, tariff-free access, and in others higher quotas. Even if Canada negotiated something better than our current conditions, because the Americans negotiated tariff reductions and completely free access before us, the market or business will favour American products over ours. This is something we must bear in mind. 
He went on to talk about the beef industry. Again I will quote his remarks because he is the representative of the industry and his words bear merit. He talked about how important the Peruvian market is for beef and pork, but that again, the Americans have a substantial advantage. He said:
 A great deal of fresh, chilled and frozen beef offal is traded between Canada and Peru. In this sector, the tariffs will be eliminated simultaneously for both Canada and the United States, but it should be noted that the quota or volume exported by the United States is twice as large as Canada's. So once again, the agreement will favour the U.S. market. 
 In the long term, both Canada and the United States will achieve duty-free access for pork carcasses and cuts. However, in the short and medium term, the agreement is definitely more favourable for the Americans and could seriously affect the products from Canada because there again, the tariffs on U.S. pork will be eliminated by the beginning of the 5th year, whereas for Canada they will not be eliminated until the 17th year. 
He went on to state:
 Still in the pork sector, the quota for cuts in the offal category, including pig fat and bellies, will start at 325 tonnes per year and increase to 504 tonnes in year 10. Once again, these are not large quantities. However, the Canadian Pork Council has told us that this agreement must be supported, since a deal with slightly increasing quotas is better than no deal at all with a risk of retaliation. They agree with these measures. 
In other words, the Canadian Pork Council agrees.
Mr. Pellerin went on to say, “Canada is extremely present on the potato market as well”, an area that I am certainly most familiar with. He said, “Duty-free access strongly favours the United States over Canada, particularly during the first nine years”. I must remind my friend from Manitoba again that when I am talking about potatoes, Prince Edward Island still remains the biggest potato producer. That small province remains the biggest potato producer in this country. This is very important to us in Prince Edward Island.
Mr. Pellerin went on to say:
 Tariffs on fresh and chilled potatoes, other than seed, will be eliminated immediately for the United States. As for tariffs on Canadian potatoes, they are subject to a gradual reduction and will be eliminated as of year 10. There again, our small Peruvian market may be replaced by American products, which will be more competitive because they will have duty-free access. 
My point is this. Yes, the agreement is important but even with this trade agreement that the Canadian government has negotiated with Peru and the implementation act that we are talking about in the House, the Americans, it is sad to say, still have advantages in that market. Yes, it is a step forward, but it is not as big a step as we would certainly like to see.
The last point raised by Mr. Pellerin concerned frozen potatoes. He said, “I don't need to name the large Canadian companies in this sector, because you already know them”. They would be McCain, Cavendish, et cetera. He said: 
 Canada is very active on this market as well, and Canadian potato farmers count on this market, especially the frozen french fry market. If the agreement is signed, tariffs on frozen potatoes from the United States will be eliminated immediately, whereas the tariffs on Canadian potatoes will be eliminated gradually, reaching zero in year 10 of the agreement. This market could potentially be attractive for Canada, but you will understand that over the next 10 years, the United States will have a major competitive advantage in the potato sector, and so this is not a major gain for Canada. 
All that to say, yes, certainly the agreement is important. It is very important especially to the agricultural industry in Canada, wheat and durum, beef and pork, pulse and specialty crops and certainly potatoes. But even with the agreement the Canadian government has failed to negotiate the same advantages as the Americans have negotiated. That is a sad commentary.
The Canada-Peru free trade agreement is certainly supported by a lot of the agricultural industries, and I mentioned the Canadian Wheat Board, pulse growers, et cetera. It is also supported by quite a number of business groups, such as the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and resource organizations such as the Mining Association of Canada.
A reduction in Peru's tariffs could certainly contribute toward increasing the competitiveness of Canadian exports, whether they are industrial goods or agricultural goods.
Therefore, the Canada-Peru free trade agreement is a step forward. As I said in the beginning, in corporate social responsibility, the safeguards are there. The labour and human rights issues are improving. For those reasons the bill is an important bill and I welcome it in the House.
Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in his intervention, the member for Malpeque talked about how important this agreement is for our agriculture industry.
The Minister of International Trade and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, with the support of their parliamentary secretaries, have put a lot of work into developing these trade agreements which are critically important to agriculture across Canada.
As chair of the Canadian section of the Interparliamentary Forum of the Americas, I follow quite closely how important the Americas are to the relationship with Canada, whether that is from a standpoint of commerce and trade, or on the other side, when I wear my other cap, from an environmental standpoint and social responsibility, and as more and more American states want to have a closer relationship, from a democratic standpoint, with Canada.
Recently I met with the Ambassador of Peru. We talked about the many values that we share and that are mutually respected in both our countries, such as democracy, the rule of law and the free market.
The member for Malpeque talked about all the organizations that have come out quite strongly in favour of this free trade agreement with Peru and want us in the House of Commons and the Senate to deal with it in a rather rapid fashion. Despite some of the concerns that the member has laid out, and I take those at face value, that our American competitors may still have some advantages, the member did say that this is a major step forward. It is a step that we need to take if we are to continue to level the playing field between Canada and our other international competitors. We have to have access to markets. We have to have a mechanism to reduce tariffs, especially if they are over quota in those particular marketplaces.
He mentioned that the Grain Growers of Canada favour this. The Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance are on side. The real voice of the cattle industry, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and the Canadian Pork Council want to see this brought into place as quickly as possible. As well, the Canadian Wheat Board, which he mentioned, wants us to move forward.
In my province of Manitoba we grow a great deal of potatoes. It is one of the largest potato-producing provinces in Canada, and produces, in my opinion, the best potatoes in the country. 
The pulse growers in Manitoba and across Canada need to have access to these Latin American markets. When we start talking about the sales of beans and peas and pulses, the Latin American market is the number one marketplace for those growers and we have to make sure that we have the opportunity to export.
I am glad the member mentioned the importance of agriculture. I am hoping that he will come back and say that the Liberals are in support of the agreement and that we will be moving forward on it as quickly as possible.
I would also like him to comment on why we were not seeing any of these agreements brought into play over the 13 years when he sat on the government side and functioned as a parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture.
[Interjection]
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Selkirk—Interlake for his remarks. In fact, I agree with most of what he said, but certainly not all. If he is growing good potatoes in Manitoba, they must be from Prince Edward Island seed. We know that.
I cannot emphasize enough, as I said in my remarks and as the member for Selkirk—Interlake said in his, that it is critical that this agreement be implemented quickly. I personally see this agreement being quite substantially different from the Canada-Colombia agreement, mainly on the human rights side. There have been tremendous gains in human rights and corporate social responsibility in Peru that we do not see on the Colombia side of the agreement, and we ought to be very concerned about that in this House.
The member asked why these agreements were not signed when the Liberals were in government, the party that balanced the books, had 10 surpluses. In two short years the Conservative government has driven the country into the biggest deficit in Canadian history. That is the sad part of the Conservative government, that in two short years it has basically driven this country away from its tremendous potential with well balanced books and the moneys that were put into research and development for the Canadian people. Now, that has all been squandered away. What we see is the red ink into the future on account of Conservative mismanagement and incompetence in terms of the economy. I had to mention that.
However, in terms of the trade agreements themselves, all that is really happening here, finally, and it differs from how the Conservatives have taken our fiscal position that we left them in and drove it into the ground and put the country into debt into the future, is that they are building on the good work that the Liberal government has done on these trade agreements.
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I like the hon. member, but I do question the Liberal's logic of rubber-stamping everything the Conservatives bring forward on trade.
We had the disastrous softwood lumber sellout that the Liberals helped push through Parliament. It cost tens of thousands of jobs, plus over $1 billion in fines that are coming. Canadian taxpayers are going to have to cover these fines because of the irresponsibility of the government. We had the shipbuilding sellout that the Liberals rubber-stamped, as well, even though hundreds of shipyard workers from Liberal-held ridings were writing to Parliament saying, “Don't pass this agreement”.
Now, we have this egregious agreement with murderous paramilitary thugs and drug lords in Colombia, and the Canada-Peru agreement that the hon. member admits even people are writing in saying it is an inferior agreement to what the U.S. signed with Peru.
This blanket rubber-stamping of everything the Conservative government brings forward on trade, I simply do not understand because it is in not in Canada's interest. Canadians are losing jobs because of these ill-favoured and irresponsible agreements.
Why do the Liberals rubber-stamp everything the Conservatives bring forward?
[Interjection]
Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the questions from the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley directly in a moment.
First, however, I must point out that the biggest rubber-stamp in Canada for why we have this man as Prime Minister and that party on the government side is the leader of the NDP. He is the man. At the time when we had early learning and child care, he ended up supporting the Conservatives when we were in opposition, so we lost that agreement on early learning and child care.
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  You lost the election.
Wayne Easter:  Of course we lost the election, we know that. But it was his party's support for agreements that were already in place that has given the Prime Minister the opportunity to drive this country into debt as he has and undermined the early learning and child care agreements.
Now to his question, the fact of the matter is we are a global trader, we are an exporting nation, and we have to move forward with trade agreements. This is a step in the right direction. It is especially important to the agriculture industry and we need to give the agriculture industry opportunities as well.

Statements By Members
International Children's FestivalMr. Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this past Tuesday saw the kick-off of the 28th annual St. Albert International Children's Festival. This festival will entertain over 50,000 children over its five day duration. 
There are many different events featuring a host of international artists coming from Scotland, the Netherlands, U.S.A., Mexico, Cuba, New Zealand, and of course Canadian artists. These artists will amaze and delight children young and old with their performances.
I would also like to thank the Canadian Armed Forces for the construction of a temporary foot bridge to provide children with access to the stages on the opposite side of the Sturgeon River. 
Many people in my constituency have worked extremely hard to pull this festival together. Not least of which I would like to thank the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage, and I also extend my thanks to the hon. Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities for his assistance with the temporary foot bridge, as well as the tireless work done by St. Albert Mayor, His Worship Nolan Crouse and his staff, and of course the Canadian Armed Forces for the rapid construction.
I am confident that all who attend will have a wonderful experience at this annual St. Albert International Children's Festival.
Roots and ShootsHon. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 1991 Dr. Jane Goodall, the world famous primatologist and humanitarian, created the Roots and Shoots program for children. Today more than 100,000 children participate in it in over 50 countries. The program encourages children to get active and create projects that benefit their environment.
Last month we announced, with Dr. Goodall and National Chief Phil Fontaine, a partnership that will see Roots and Shoots programs in first nations communities. First nations from Beecher Bay and Sooke on Vancouver Island in my riding are the first to participate and further interest has been expressed by communities from Yukon to the Maritimes.
This initiative will get children engaged in their environment, link children up across cultural, geographic and linguistic divides, build their self-confidence, and reduce an array of social problems. 
I would like to thank Dr. Goodall, National Chief Phil Fontaine, and especially Gina Cosentino from the AFN and Jane Lawton and Barbara Cartwright from the JGI for their ceaseless efforts to make this happen.
I invite communities across our country to look at the Roots and Shoots program and participate in this program for our children and for our environment.
Roger MironMr. Nicolas Dufour (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to one of Quebec's country music legends, Roger Miron, who is celebrating his 80th birthday this week.
Mr. Miron developed a love for the guitar at a young age. He started his career in country western singing in 1950. Two years later, he started his own band, which he sang with across Quebec, Canada, the United States, and even France. 1956 marked the release of one of his most well-known songs, À qui l'p'tit coeur après neuf heures.
In celebration of the famous Troubadour Tyrolien, some thirty well-known artists are participating in a show at the Centre Léo-Chaussé in Saint-Sulpice. Fans from across Quebec, New Brunswick and Ontario will be there to pay tribute to him. Not only is Mr. Miron a multi-talented performer, but he has also opened the door to country music for a number of musicians.
As member of Parliament for Repentigny, I would like to congratulate Mr. Miron on his career, and I salute his dedication to promoting country music in Quebec.
InfrastructureMs. Denise Savoie (Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada reports a 159% increase in EI recipients in greater Victoria, the second highest among Canadian urban centres.
We need our share of the federal stimulus soon. Victoria is waiting for approval to replace our landmark Blue Bridge. Saanich is ready to upgrade the Rithets reservoir and the Portage Inlet sewer lift station.
But every day we wait makes it harder to meet the seemingly arbitrary deadline of March 2011 for project completion.
Municipalities cannot be left hanging if these badly needed projects are to go ahead in the prescribed timelines and create jobs. Our workers are ready to work.
These infrastructure projects are crucial not only because of the recession in the short-term but for the long-term viability of our cities.
Governor General's Caring Canadian AwardJames Bezan: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Claudia Campbell from my hometown of Teulon, Manitoba, on being awarded the Governor General's Caring Canadian Award.
This award honours Canadians for volunteer work at the local level and the fine example they set with their compassion and love of community.
Claudia is a special volunteer. She is an organizer of the annual Teulon Fair, director of the Teulon and District Agricultural Society, and she has been a key organizer of the Rockwood Festival of the Arts since founding the event back in 1956.
On top of that she has been active in her church, playing piano and organ on Sundays for most of the past 60 years, and as a music teacher Mrs. Campbell has artistically influenced three generations.
My home town of Teulon has been graced with two previous winners of the Governor General's Caring Canadian Award. Last year, Bill Docking was honoured and previously, Claudia's husband, David Campbell, received the award.
Claudia Campbell is very deserving of this high level of recognition for her countless hours caring about our community, our youth and our local arts.
On behalf of the people of Selkirk—Interlake, I congratulate her.
TaxationMs. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are off in dreamland again. They say the massive deficit is not at issue, but tell that to the millions of Canadians who know they will be left holding the bag for Conservative mismanagement. 
Canadians are particularly incensed when they see the millions upon millions of dollars that the Conservative government is wasting on consultants, polling, advertising, and a bloated cabinet that it expanded after the recession had started. 
But at least we now know how the Conservatives plan to pay for it. The Conservative leader revealed their plan is to raise taxes on Canadian families and businesses. This week, he announced in this House that he will not bring in a new budget “until we need to raise taxes”. 
Canada was once a leader in the G8, but the Conservatives are trying to spend us into oblivion. Canadians do not need tax-and-spend Conservatives with their hands in the cookie jar. 
In these times, only the Liberals will provide the steady leadership that will get Canada back on the right track.
The EconomyMr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC): Mr. Speaker, let me respond to that. 
Canadians see evidence of good, sound fiscal management by this Conservative government during these tough economic times.
The International Monetary Fund said, with respect to the stimulus package, that it is timely, appropriately sized, diversified, and well structured. And it said that it protects the vulnerable. That is exactly the point.
Compare this to the Liberals: no plan, no focus, nothing to add that would help the economy. All the while they are dreaming and scheming on getting into office and back to the good old days of the tax-and-spend ways at the expense of ordinary hard-working Canadians.
The Liberal leader attacks the deficit while, at the same time, demanding billions of dollars in new spending; a totally hypocritical position. He says we need to reform EI by introducing a 45 day work year, costing billions.
How will he pay for this? The Liberal leader himself has tipped us off. He says he will have to raise taxes.
Either he will raise taxes or he will have to add a job-killing payroll tax.
The truth is out. Both are bad for our economy.
Sylvie HarveyMs. France Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on May 7, the seventh edition of Soirée Aequitas was held at the Hôtellerie Le Boulevard in Sherbrooke. The event was organized by a group called Promotion des Estriennes pour initier une nouvelle équité sociale (PEPINES) to highlight the contributions of women, men and organizations to equal representation of women in decision-making positions in the Eastern Townships. Pauline Marois, the first woman to lead the official opposition in Quebec, was the honorary chair of the event.
Sylvie Harvey, chief administrative officer of the RCM of Coaticook, was honoured for her contribution to the advancement of women in decision-making positions. Sylvie Harvey was the first female director of the local development centre in the RCM of Coaticook. She gained experience as the development commissioner before being appointed CAO of the RCM of Coaticook. Sylvie Harvey richly deserves this honour, and today I would like to take this opportunity to salute her pioneering spirit. 
Leader of the Liberal Party of CanadaMr. Chris Warkentin (Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader seems to be a fan of cover-ups. Perhaps he is just paranoid.
The Liberal Party of Canada had its legions of lawyers attempt to stop the use of a video clip that its leader had during the time that he spent on C-SPAN. The lawyers from C-SPAN said that they had no problem with the Conservative Party using this clip, saying, “It's the highest form of speech...political speech”.
Trying to crush free speech is draconian. Trying to hide the Liberal leader's remarks, of which there are many on the public record from his time in the U.K. and the U.S., surely needs to be explained.
Clearly, the Liberals are trying to hide their leader's statements when he called America his country. Is that because the only thing he missed while he was outside of our country was Algonquin Park?
Their leader said that he was not worried about his time outside of Canada. So, why are the Liberals and their lawyers trying to stop Canadians from learning about their own leader's real record?
Saint-Rédempteur Elementary School in GatineauMr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, April 30, the Saint-Rédempteur elementary school in the Hull sector of Gatineau celebrated its 50th anniversary. A huge reunion held at the school gave former students an opportunity to renew friendships and share memories. Built in 1959, Saint-Rédempteur's story is very special. It may be small in terms of the number of students, but it has achieved greatness through its choices and actions. Over the past 50 years, the school has done such wonderful job of shaping its students that it deserves our admiration and attention. 
The school on Saint-Florent is a place of learning where the curriculum goes beyond numbers and letters to values. The school is proud of its past and its ongoing work. The current principal, Catherine Dubuc, and the teaching staff go above and beyond to carry out the school's inspiring educational mission.
I would like to congratulate all past and current students and teachers who have been a part of Saint-Rédempteur school's wonderful story.
Bravo!
Liberal Party of CanadaMrs. Sylvie Boucher (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in recent days, we have watched as the Liberals have ramped up the worst sort of political partisanship. It is nothing but smoke and mirrors, motivated by an obsession to win at any cost. This pernicious partisanship clearly shows that the policies of the Liberal Party are devoid of ideas and lack direction.
On the one hand, the Liberals criticize the size of the deficit, and on the other, they want us to spend billions of dollars more. This government will not apologize for spending to stimulate the economy, protect jobs and support the unemployed. These are necessary, affordable, short-term measures.
The only ideas coming out of that party seem to be ideas for new taxes: more GST, more tax, an added tax burden on businesses. We get no answers from the Liberal leader. Where I come from, we call that blowing with the wind.
Quetico ParkMr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, 100 years ago, Quetico Park was created. It is located right in the middle of my riding of Thunder Bay—Rainy River.
 While resource development and corporate expansion continued aggressively across the continent, Quetico began a different course. The “wilderness” designation for Quetico Park was secured in 1978.
On a small planet, with so many global influences, climate change being just one, it is inconceivable that any area would remain a primeval wilderness. Quetico's special character is not due to its protecting biodiversity or even a great array of endangered species. No. In a sense, Quetico's treasure arises simply from being deliberately and wisely managed for 100 years. It is well worth a celebration.
A new management plan will nudge Quetico Park toward becoming a pristine wilderness, in essence, a step back in time.
I have spent many days, indeed weeks at a time, paddling, fishing and enjoying Quetico Park over the years. I invite all MPs and all Canadians to experience the wonders of Quetico Park and to join me in celebrating Quetico Park's 100th birthday.
Liberal Party of CanadaMr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Liberal hypocrisy is at an all-time high. On one hand, the Liberals are attacking the size of the deficit and, on the other hand, they are demanding billions more in spending.
One example is the Liberal leader's EI proposal. It is estimated to cost billions of dollars and would result in a job-killing payroll tax. This proposal will harm workers, small businesses and families. 
The Liberal leader also has a plan to pay for these huge irresponsible spending promises and he revealed it on April 14 when he said, “we will have to raise taxes”. He made it clear that he is willing to increase the GST. He wants to eliminate the universal child care benefit and he was also the first Liberal to propose the job-killing carbon tax.
We are in a global recession and we are taking the necessary measures to protect Canadians. Our measures are affordable and short term. We are proud to say that Canada's deficit will still be the lowest among all G7 countries.
Let us be clear, we make no apologies for spending to protect jobs and support the unemployed.
Marcel RobidasMrs. Josée Beaudin (Saint-Lambert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher and I want to pay tribute today to the memory of Marcel Robidas, who passed away on May 17 at the age of 85. This man led such a full life that it would be impossible to sum it up properly in just a minute.
After serving as a soldier in the army, where he discovered flagrant injustices against francophones, Marcel Robidas was an ardent defender of Quebeckers' rights for his entire life, a commitment that led him to become grand commander of the Ordre de Jacques-Cartier, where he worked for the advancement of the French-Canadian elite.
The father of 14 children, he served as Mayor of Longueuil from 1966 to 1982. His vast and rich legacy includes annexing Ville Jacques-Cartier, creating Marie-Victorin park and the Longueuil outdoor sports centre, developing public transit and promoting regional economic development.
His tireless dedication changed the face of Longueuil forever. With his death, Longueuil has lost one of its builders.
Lou Gehrig's DiseaseMs. Martha Hall Findlay (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I urge all those of my colleagues who are staying in Ottawa this weekend to join the ninth Ottawa walk for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, ALS, better known as Lou Gehrig's disease.
Many wonderful people from all walks of life have had their lives turned upside down because of ALS. A member of our political family has this terrible disease.
Taking part in the Ottawa walk will show support for the brave men and women who battle ALS every day, as well as their families who accompany them through this challenge.
Close to 3,000 Canadians suffer from ALS. If my colleagues wish to make a difference, I urge them to go to Lansdowne Park tomorrow morning to walk to raise funds to help those suffering from ALS, as well as their families, and to offer hope for a cure one day through research.
Liberal Party of CanadaMrs. Shelly Glover (Saint Boniface, CPC): Mr. Speaker, when things do not go their way, the Liberals go running for cover. In fact, hypocrisy is at an all-time high with the Liberal Party.
Over the last few months, Canadians have become more and more aware of what the leader of the Liberal Party really thinks of Canada. Most recently, it was revealed that the leader of the Liberal Party called America his country. The leader of the Liberal Party himself said that he was not worried about the 34 years he spent outside of Canada, and yet now the Liberal Party is trying to hide these sad statements.
The Liberals are running for cover and are trying to hide their own leader's statement of calling America his country. 
Considering that they want to lead the country one day, why are the Liberals trying to stop Canadians from learning their leader's record?

Oral Questions
The EconomyHon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the past six months, the Conservatives have not been right once when it comes to the economy. They were wrong in October, in November, in January, in April and again today. Some 350,000 jobs have been lost because of the Conservatives' recession. Access to employment insurance is discriminatory and infrastructure funding has been frozen.
How can the Conservatives explain such flagrant incompetence?
Mr. Ted Menzies (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I always need to listen very closely when the Liberals are asking questions because one question will be, “Why is the deficit so large?” The next one will be, “How can we make it larger?”
I am not just sure on which side of that this falls today, but I do need to remind the hon. member that there is one position that this government has taken, and that is to help Canadians. We put in place an economic action plan that will help Canadians.
I should remind that hon. member that at one point he did vote for that. That is what will help Canadians through this, not rhetoric from the Liberal Party suggesting bigger deficit, lower deficit.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the issue is Conservative incompetence. The Conservatives destroyed the fiscal security of this country long before there was any recession.
Now the Conservatives are more than $50 billion further in the hole, with nothing to show for it. That is the point: no new jobs created, 350,000 jobs lost and EI that is failing vulnerable Canadians.
What do the Conservatives have to say to Premier McGuinty, Premier Stelmach and Premier Campbell, who all say that the government is wrong and incompetent on EI?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, once again, I am not sure where the hon. member is getting his facts. I was in a meeting on Monday with our finance minister and all of the finance ministers from across this country. There was nothing but glowing compliments for how the government is handling this worldwide recession.
It is in partnership with those provinces that we have been able to put a stimulus fund together that is probably larger than every other one in the world. It is, indeed, the largest in the G7.
If that is not enough for the hon. member, what would he have us do?
Canada Pension Plan Investment BoardRalph Goodale: Being competent would be a start, Mr. Speaker. 
Asking for some moral leadership on CPP Investment Board bonuses is not interference in the essential arm's length work of the board. The board has lost about $24 billion. The economy has been shrinking and 350,000 jobs have been lost. Tens of thousands of the most vulnerable Canadians cannot get access to EI. There is hurt across this country.
In this environment, the moral and competent thing to do is to invite the CPP Investment Board to review its policy--
The Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member actually does have a point for a change, and now we know where he is going. It is important that all levels of departments do the best with taxpayer money. 
The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board is an independent body but it must be reasonable in its own compensation.
Employment InsuranceHon. Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I sense a wrinkle in the answers that have been given.
The comments by Premier Campbell that were contained in today's Globe and Mail show that employment insurance has now become an issue of national unity. We know from experience that downloading costs on to the provinces, causing them to have higher welfare costs, will have a serious effect on the costs of province and what is happening to them.
Why is the government so rigid in its refusal to consider a single national standard for eligibility on employment insurance?
Ed Komarnicki: Mr. Speaker, what is unconscionable is when that party cut $25 billion from the Canada social transfer to balance the budget.
We have not done that. We have added billions of dollars to improve skills upgrading and training, to extend EI by five weeks to help 400,000 people, to ensure work-sharing is easier to get for others and ensuring that will help employers and employees alike. That is what we have done.
We are looking after the most vulnerable and those who are hurting at this time.
Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, the question is very specific. The government's refusal to have one eligibility threshold for all Canadians means that it is passing the cost of the recession along to the provinces. It wants to offload its problems and unload its responsibilities onto the provinces. The cost of social services will increase because of this government's refusal to budge. I hope this government will have the opportunity in the next three weeks to change its very negative policy.
Ed Komarnicki: Mr. Speaker, one word describes it: hypocritical. On the one hand, the members do not want the deficit to go up; on the other hand, they want to spend billions of dollars. They have taken a 360 hour, 45 day work year, from the NDP and borrowed it without the intention of giving it back. 
Here is what Don Martin of the Calgary Herald had to say about that plan, “Just 360 hours to qualify for a benefit period payment just shy of a year. Come on, that's a bit rich even for the Liberals. There are many better ways to reform the system, starting with the Conservatives' $500 million to stretch benefits for long-term workers”. 
That is the way to go, to enhance the benefits, just like we are doing for Canadian workers.
Forestry IndustryMr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, almost half of the $16 billion increase in the deficit announced this week represents assistance to the automotive sector. Thus, Ottawa's assistance to that sector has risen from $2.7 billion to $10 billion, which represents $1.4 million per job. By comparison, the forestry sector and Quebec will receive peanuts. We do not have a problem with an assistance package for the auto sector. However, we do want to be treated fairly. At present, the assistance provided per job in the auto sector is 1,400 times greater.
Why are the Conservatives refusing to help the forestry sector and Quebec yet they are prepared to move heaven and earth for the Ontario auto sector?
Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and to the Minister of National Revenue, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the opportunity he has given me to comment. In recent days, we have seen an escalation in the pernicious Liberal partisanship as regards our citizens. They are propagating illusions and false hope motivated by the obsession to win at all costs. Over the past few days, the Liberals have shown that they are two-faced. I invite members of the Bloc to show solidarity with the forestry sector.
Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, to put it mildly, this response is ridiculous. The government is hiding behind the special committee on forestry to justify its inaction. It is a well known fact that forestry companies need cash flow. The industry, the Government of Quebec, the unions and the elected regional officials have pointed it out. They need liquidity.
What is the government waiting for to open its ears, respond intelligently and provide the cashflow and loan guarantees that the industry has asked for?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, while the Bloc is playing politics at the expense of workers and promising measures that could jeopardize the industry, our government is providing concrete assistance to the industry to protect forestry families and communities.
Employment InsuranceMrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the consensus for a comprehensive reform of the EI system is growing every day. Unions and a number of conferences of elected representatives from the regions of Quebec are calling for the modernization of the system that the Liberals created and that no longer meets current unemployment needs.
Will this Conservative government finally realize that the job world is experiencing exceptional circumstances that demand a comprehensive response?
Jacques Gourde:  Mr. Speaker, we all know that having a job meets people's basic needs for self-esteem and fulfilment. Everyone has the right to a satisfying professional life that allows them to live well. That is why we have introduced our economic action plan, with real measures to help people get through the economic crisis.
We have increased the number of benefit weeks by five. We have also added 14 weeks to the work sharing program. We also invested in workforce training so that workers are better trained for the future, while being paid to take the training. Not to mention that we have frozen EI premium rates.
Claude DeBellefeuille: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that if the recession were to get worse, he would do more to help the unemployed. The Bloc's plan, which is more comprehensive than the Liberals', proposes creating a 360-hour eligibility threshold, abolishing the waiting period, increasing benefits from 55% to 60% of income, and increasing insurable earnings to $42,500.
The recession is happening right now. What is the government waiting for?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, unlike the Bloc's ideology that encourages a climate of social uncertainty, Canada's economic action plan gives hope to Canadians. Our plan contributes to a promising and prosperous future.
Canada Pension Plan Investment BoardMs. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, for 2008 and 2009, David Denison was rewarded with a $6 million bonus, Mark Wiseman got $5 million, Donald Raymond was awarded $3.5 million, Graeme Eadie received $3.2 million. What did they do? These four executives of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board lost $24 billion. 
How can they gamble with Canada's pensions on the market, lose so big and be rewarded with $18 million over two years? How can that be possible? Why will the government not do anything about this?
Ted Menzies: I said in answer to an earlier question, Mr. Speaker, that even for those who are arm's length from the government, such as this independent body that was established by an act of Parliament that most parliamentarians voted for, we expect compensation to be reasonable. 
The compensation has been reduced by 31% since last year. In actuality, it is over a four-year average. Over that four years, that is a very sound investment board.
The EconomyJean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, in the election, the Prime Minister said we would have no deficit. In November, that changed to a small surplus. In January, that changed again to a $34 billion deficit. Now the Conservatives are admitting to the largest shortfall in Canadian history. The finance minister has changed his numbers so often that no one is confident he knows what he is doing. 
For the good of the country, will the Prime Minister agree to turn the books over to the Parliamentary Budget Officer for an honest appraisal?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is no. We have a very competent finance minister, who has done a great job of leading us through the outcome of a worldwide recession. In fact, we have put $29 billion, almost 2% of the GDP, into the economy as stimulus money this year. 
We care about Canadians. We are helping Canadians. We are there to help industries that are struggling. We are there to help those who are unemployed.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, that side does not know how to create jobs, it does not know how to get the stimulus out the door, and tragically it either cannot be honest with Canadians or it does not know how to count. No one trusts the Conservatives because they are making it up as they go along.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer exists to take the politics and the posturing out of this. That is what the Prime Minister said he would do. Will the Prime Minister agree to let the professionals evaluate the books?
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that hon. member talks about the deficit but then in the same breath proposes billions and billions of dollars of additional spending that would make the deficit even larger. 
That is the same position of her coalition leader, the leader of the Liberal Party, who on the one hand criticizes the deficit and on the other proposes a 45 day work year under EI that would balloon the deficit even more. He opposes the auto bailout when he is in B.C., but wants it to be bigger when he is in Ontario. 
The coalition should start to take a consistent position so we can understand where it is coming from.
Employment InsuranceMr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, recently re-elected Premier Gordon Campbell added his voice to the chorus calling for a national standard on EI. He joins a diverse group, including the CCPA, labour unions, the C.D. Howe Institute, the TD Bank, a number of premiers and even the finance minister's wife. What these people understand, but the Conservatives do not, is that EI is perfect stimulus spending. 
We know that individuals spend the money right away because they need the money to survive. For every $1 of EI, we generate $1.60 of economic activity. It makes perfect economic sense. Is that why the government opposes it?
Ed Komarnicki: Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting to have that coming from the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, when in the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development on April 1, 2008, he had this to say on regional rates when the benefits go up and the period lessens when the unemployment rates go up: “It is my view that if you get rid of the regional rates and there are changes forced on the EI system because of the economic circumstances, those in high unemployment regions will be hurt disproportionately”. 
He favours the regional rates and now he is talking against them. He is talking out of both sides of his mouth, “Don't increase the deficit; spend more”.
Michael Savage: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has been making a lot more sense since he started quoting Liberals, even taken out of context. The Conservatives say that they are bringing fairness to EI at this difficult time.
Let us put it in context. The Minister of Finance's $50 billion deficit for one year could fund our proposal for the next 40 years. Our proposal would support 150,000 families, who would then immediately put it into the real economy. They need the money and so does the economy.
That is a win-win. It is economically prudent, fiscally responsible, perfect stimulus for families and the economy. Is that why the government just does not get it?
Ed Komarnicki: Mr. Speaker, this government does get it. That is why we spent $1 billion on skills upgrading and training. That is why we have added benefits across the line.
However, let us quote what Harvey Enchin from The Vancouver Sun had to say about the Liberal plan. He said, “The Liberal option not only seems to be illogical but it would raise the federal deficit—and probably taxes—while doing nothing to address the fact that many jobs that have been lost are not coming back. The Conservative government is on the right track to reject it. The federal government is on the right track with investment in skills training and transition payments”.
That is what we are doing. That is what Canadians want.
Government SpendingMrs. Alexandra Mendes (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is trying to use the size of the deficit to justify its mean-spirited cuts to funding for culture and scientific research. As we all know, there are other areas in which the Conservatives could have cut spending to better balance the budget. For example, the government's advertising expenses have doubled since the Conservatives came to power.
Why are the Conservatives so lacking in judgment and so incompetent?
Mr. Dean Del Mastro (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly sure where to go with that. The hon. member voted in favour of an economic action plan that increased funding to arts and culture in this country. I would hope that she looked at what she voted in favour of.
Have we reviewed things? Have we looked to make sure we are spending every single tax dollar as effectively and efficiently as we possibly can? You bet, Mr. Speaker. Canadians expect us to do that. We have put our money where our mouth is on arts and culture.
Alexandra Mendes: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives would rather spend taxpayers' money on politicking than on stimulating the economy. They have spent nearly $90 million on advertising and $31 million on polls—two polls a day. In two years, they have spent a billion dollars—a billion dollars—on consultants like the one who helped the Minister of Finance make such an outrageous mistake about the size of the deficit.
How many closed laboratories and cancelled cultural tours could that money have saved?
Mr. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about playing politics, but here is what her leader had to say about politics in an op-ed for the New York Times on August 5, 2007:
 ...politics is theater. It is part of the job to pretend to have emotions that you do not actually feel. 
That is what her leader wrote, as an MP, in an op-ed in the New York Times. While the Liberals pretend to care about what is going on in Canada, this Conservative government is actually acting in the interest of Canadians.
EnvironmentMr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment is once again in the process of rewriting the plan to tackle climate change, and that is further delaying the implementation of reduction targets. We are now on our fourth report. These reports began with the Liberals and now various Conservative ministers are doing it too. 
Instead of hiding behind excuses, will the minister admit that the only reason for all of these ploys and reports is that he is trying to protect his oil company buddies?
Mr. Mark Warawa (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this government has been very clear that we are committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions 20% by 2020. That is one of the toughest targets in Canadian history.
The minister has already announced regulations for vehicle tailpipe emissions. He will be announcing regulations for thermal coal, and he will shortly be announcing the government's offset policies. We are providing strong leadership on the environment. Our international and continental partners are catching up to us as we harmonize a global approach.
Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, the truth is that, as of yesterday, the government has no strategy, no plan, no policy and no regulations. That is a fact.
Next December, an environmental summit will be held in Copenhagen to figure out what to do after Kyoto. Many other countries are setting their GGE reduction targets for phase II of Kyoto, but Canada does not even have a plan to get started on phase I.
Will the minister honour Canada's signature and implement a real plan to fight climate change right now?
Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that member voted against $350 million going to Quebec to help it with its environmental program. He voted against $1 billion for green infrastructure, $300 million for eco-energy retrofits and $1 billion for carbon capture and storage. Two weeks ago the committee travelled to Alberta to study greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands and he was not there. One would even question whether he really cares about the environment.
Medical IsotopesMr. Luc Malo (Verchères—Les Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, one would think that a country that supplies 50% of the world's medical isotopes would show some leadership. Yet the Liberal and Conservative governments have been burying their heads in the sand and have shirked their responsibilities when it comes to medical isotopes.
If we wanted any more proof that the federal government is incompetent when it comes to health care, this is it.
Will the Minister of Health admit that she has failed in her duties, especially after what happened in December 2007, by not ensuring that the world would never see another medical isotope shortage because of Canada's negligence?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, since 2007, government and health care providers have developed contingency measures to minimize the impact on patients. This includes alternative isotopes, such as thallium 201 for cardiac scanning.
The Minister of Natural Resources is working very hard with the international community to deal with the supply issue. Health Canada has been in contact with the provinces and territories and has discussed the implementation of the contingency measures to provide medical isotopes alternatives.
Atomic Energy of Canada LimitedMs. Paule Brunelle (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt, steps taken by the federal government have been very ineffective, to say the least. Now people who are sick are suffering.
The government's haste to privatize Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is suspicious, especially knowing that Jean-François Béland—a former senior advisor in the Prime Minister's Office and staffer in the office of the member for Beauce, who was the industry minister at the time—is now working for the French firm Areva, which specializes in nuclear energy.
Are we to understand that the government's haste to complete this privatization is directly related to this man's involvement in the matter and that the government has given its friends preferential treatment—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health.
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources is working closely with her international partners on the issue of supply.
The current isotope shortage is concerning, however, Canadians can have confidence that the government is taking short-term measures and looking at long-term solutions. I have engaged with my provincial and territorial counterparts and the U.S. secretary of health, as well as the medical community and experts in the field.
My colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, again, is working closely with international partners to come up with a global response to this issue.
The EconomyJohn McKay: Mr. Speaker, during the last election the Conservatives talked about tightening their belts. It turns out that the only belts being tightened were Canadians.
When the recession began, the Prime Minister's first reaction was: (a) to expand his cabinet by 20%; (b) appoint 18 new Conservative senators; and (c) order a new fleet of limos.
Will the government simply admit that it is too blinded by partisan self-interest and largess to get Canada's fiscal house in order?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the real challenge is making some order of the Liberal positions on the economy.
First the Liberals attack the deficit for which they voted. Then they want to increase it with a multi-billion dollar 45-day work year. The Liberal leader says that the coalition, which he signed on to, would break up Canada. When he is in British Columbia, he is against support for the auto sector. When he is in Ontario, he says that it should be bigger and faster. It is hard to keep track of the shifting flip-flops that we see on the other side of the aisle.
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, in the first year the government sole-sourced 40% of its $17 billion in military procurements. It is estimated that sole-sourcing increases costs by 30%. However, that is just the tip of the iceberg.
 We have a finance minister who has a talent for pricing illegal contracts to his friends, but shows no aptitude for estimating deficits. We have a Prime Minister who craves appearances on U.S. television, while driving Canada's fiscal house into the ditch. Why?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we have a leader, a real Canadian leader.
On that side of the House, the Liberals have the man who fathered the carbon tax, put it up for adoption to his predecessor and now wants a paternity test to prove the tar baby was never his in the first place. He attacks the deficit that he voted for, but wants billions more for a 45-day work year.
On this side of the House, we stand for lower taxes, strong economic action plan, getting the job done for Canadians. That is where we stand. That is our leader.
Medical IsotopesMs. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians who are facing cancer are under tremendous stress. The shutdown of Chalk River has adversely affected the necessary supply of medical isotopes that 5,000 patients a day in Canada need. The government faced a similar situation a year and a half ago. It said then, never again.
Where was the planning to head off this interruption in the supply of medical isotopes when lives are at stake? Concerning is not good enough.
Why are the Conservative so incompetent?
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, since 2007, government and health care providers have developed contingency measures to minimize the impact on patients. This includes using alternative isotopes, such as thallium.
I have engaged with my provincial and territorial counterparts as well as the United States and medical experts in this area. My colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, has been working with the international community.
 Health Canada has provided advance warning and regular updates to the provinces and territories. We have worked with the isotope experts to develop medical guidance on dealing with the shortage, including using medical isotope alternatives.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, approximately two million cancer screening tests are conducted every year in Canada using radioactive isotopes. In addition, the Chalk River isotopes are used in some 10 million tests each year in the United States.
Does the minister realize that 80% of these tests cannot be administered while the reactor is not in service? For heart and cancer patients, these are the life and death consequences of the Conservatives' dismal management. What is the minister doing? What is her plan? Will there be funds to purchase new PET scanners needed to diagnose cancer?
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, again, this is an international issue that requires international co-operation and global response.
Health Canada has provided advance warnings and regular updates to the provinces and the territories. I am working with the medical isotopes experts to develop medical guidance on dealing with the shortage, including examining other possible isotopes. We are also using levers, such as the special access programs and clinical trials, to provide alternatives to Canadians.
 Health Canada is taking every possible steps to ensure access to alternative isotopes where possible.
TaxationMr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last May, CTV's Craig Oliver asked the Liberal leader, “Now you were the first leader as a candidate leader to talk about a carbon tax, and you took a little bit of heat for that. Do you still believe in a carbon tax? Of course you do?” The Liberal leader replied, “I do, Craig. I learned that there's no punishment more severe in politics than being the first guy with a good idea”.
Is that what the Liberal leader meant when he said last month, “We will have to raise taxes?”
Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister please inform the House?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader should give himself more credit. He fathered the carbon tax idea. Then he generously put it up for adoption to his predecessor. Now he wants a paternity test to prove that this tar baby is not his.
He says that the coalition, on which he signed in support of, would break up the country. He attacks the deficit that he voted for and wants billions more of spending, even on a 45-day EI work year. When he is in Britain, he is British. When he is in America, he is American. When he is in B.C., he is against the auto bailout. When he is in Ontario, he wants it to be bigger. The Liberal leader does not seem to know who he is.
InfrastructureMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government is incapable of transferring the money promised for infrastructure to communities that need it. Only 6% of infrastructure funds have been reached the communities.
Why is the government delaying the transfer payments for community infrastructure?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised that this honourable member is asking such a question because in downtown Ottawa, in his own riding, the work underway on the Ottawa Congress Centre is being funded by the Government of Canada. 
The coalition criticizes our policies and our deficit but, at the same time, it is telling us to spend more and faster. The coalition should decide if the deficit is too large or too small. We are managing our economy properly.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, the whole country is shovel in hand, waiting for the government to get its act together. 
Look at Perth, Ontario, not Ottawa Centre. It has received zero dollars. It does not even know the status of its application. The money is delayed so communities cannot finish the infrastructure projects within the 24 month deadline. The mayor of Perth worries that Perth will have to return any money it might eventually get back to the federal government.
Will the government at least remove this unrealistic deadline and will it be reasonable with communities both large and small?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, we have doubled the gas tax and have moved it forward so municipalities can get it quicker. We are announcing support for projects right across the country.
 However, the leader of the opposition coalition, of which the member was a supporter, said, “It does not make sense to say we passed a budget in April and it's the first of May. We have to deal with it for a little bit of time to see if the measures we supported have in fact worked”.
 It is going to take time. However, the Liberal-NDP coalition cannot simultaneously say that the deficit is too big and then say that we need to spend more and faster.
Mirabel AirportMr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the control tower at Mirabel Airport was closed on the pretext that there was not enough air traffic. Representatives of Bombardier, Pratt &amp; Whitney, Bell Helicopter, L3 Communications, Helibellule and Federal Express wrote to the Minister of Transport on April 23, urging him to correct this situation. The minister did not deign to reply and give special status to the airport, which has become part of the aerospace industry infrastructure over the years.
Will the minister see to it that Mirabel Airport gets its control tower back, so that the aerospace industry can keep growing?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
The safety of Canada's air transportation system is important to this government. The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities is aware of the situation at Mirabel and has asked officials to look at it.
Officials will meet with key stakeholders this morning. In 2007, NAV CANADA began analyzing services at Mirabel. This analysis is still under way, and I invite the member to work with us to resolve this issue. 
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, since the control tower was closed, two incidents have occurred at Mirabel, fortunately without serious consequences. NAV CANADA's decision is hurting development and investment in Montreal's aerospace industry.
Will the minister listen to reason and give Mirabel International Airport back its control tower?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I believe that my hon. colleague will acknowledge that in 2007, NAV CANADA began analyzing services provided at Mirabel and that Transport Canada determined that the changes subsequently proposed would not have a negative impact on safety.
That said, if a group of users is worried about the changes to services, we will be pleased to meet with them to discuss this further.
Canadian International Development AgencyMr. Glen Pearson (London North Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, earlier this week we witnessed something unprecedented in this building. Nineteen African ambassadors assembled in front of the foreign affairs committee, at their request, to act as a voice of solidarity with those eight African nations that have had large portions of their development funds cut by CIDA. They pleaded with committee members to consider the implications to our own reputation as a caring nation if we pursued these cuts.
Would the Minister of International Cooperation reconsider these cuts in light of this development?
Hon. Jim Abbott (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member is correct. There were 18 representatives of African nations who attended that meeting. Regrettably, their report to the committee was erroneous because it was based on erroneous information that had been propagated by the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP.
In fact, we have doubled our aid to Africa in the last three years. The figure is now $2.1 billion. We are very proud of the reputation that our government has in supporting African issues.
Glen Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about emergency relief funds. We are talking about long-term development resources, the kinds that lift people and nations out of poverty.
These countries and their ambassadors were not consulted prior to this announcement. They confirmed this forcefully in front of the committee.
Would the government consider consulting with them now as a group and provide them with at least the chance to fight for the future of their own people?
Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity personally to meet with representatives of about 10 of these nations. I know that the minister has had the same opportunity.
Canada, and Canada's government, will make its decisions about what it is going to be doing with respect to Africa. We are absolutely prepared to sit and meet with these people.
However, the continuation of the myth that we have cut aid when in fact we have doubled aid to Africa is deeply regrettable. I would ask all members of the opposition to rethink this policy. It is doing a damage to our reputation. We have doubled the amount.
Workplace Hazardous Materials Information SystemMs. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the WHMIS regulatory authority coordinates intergovernmental efforts and will be asked to play a major role in the implementation of new UN standards. 
Workers rely on the system to protect them from hazardous materials at work, but the Conservatives want to cut the national authority's budget by $2.6 million.
Why is the government trying to hurt workers yet again by reducing funding to the organization that is responsible for their safety?
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, we will continue to meet our commitments under the WHMIS program. I recognize that the hon. member may wish additional information. I am prepared to share that information with her.
Health Canada will continue to meet its obligations. As I said, the savings come from leveraging efficiencies in similar programs, such as chemical and product safety, and to ensure that worker safety is not compromised and in fact will be improved through these efficiencies. We will continue to meet our obligations.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, the government is actually doing the opposite.
The minister's officials right now are working to have the global system of classification and labelling exclude dangerous workplace chemicals. This, plus the knee-capping of the national office of WHMIS, are an absolute disgrace and an affront to all workers in this country. Why would the government want to compromise workplace safety?
Will the government follow the European Union, adopt the entire list of hazardous materials and rescind its cuts?
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that we will continue to meet our commitments under the WHMIS program.
The savings come from leveraging efficiencies in similar programs, such as chemical and product safety, to ensure that workers' safety is not compromised and in fact will improve through these efficiencies.
Health Canada will continue to meet its obligations. I would be happy to provide additional information to my colleague on the questions that she has raised.
The EconomyMr. Bob Dechert (Mississauga—Erindale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals continue with their inconsistent and, quite frankly, baffling arguments against our government's economic action plan to protect the Canadian economy during the current global economic downturn.
On the one hand, they are angry that our government is spending money to protect the unemployed, the auto sector and working to keep taxes low. On the other hand, they are really angry that we are not spending to make unwarranted changes to EI.
Can the government try to explain the Liberals' hypocritical statements and constant contradictions?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, usually from my colleagues I expect nice questions, but that may very well be the most difficult question of the day to answer and I am not sure that I can do it.
I cannot explain the bizarre, illogical argument the Liberals are using that on the one hand we are spending too much and on the other hand we need to spend more.
We are doing what we said we would do in our economic action plan and that is providing help for all Canadians. Whether it is through support for our industries that are struggling, whether it is support for the unemployed, we have a common goal and that is to help Canadians.
Lobster FisheryHon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. 
The minister is fully aware of the disastrous situation in the eastern Canadian lobster fishery.
Can the minister assure the House today that there will be a rationalization program for the eastern Canadian lobster fishing industry? Can the minister assure the House that the rationalization program will be publicly funded and the program will not be funded on the backs of local fishermen?
This is a serious issue that needs to be addressed now.
Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right that this is a serious issue. Our government is committed to the long-term success of the lobster fishery. We are working with all Atlantic provincial governments and Quebec, as well as industry associations and processor associations to help the industry during this difficult time. 
At the heart of the problem is the very low price due to reduced demand. That is why last week we announced an investment of $10 million to improve marketing which should help that situation. The minister is having discussions with her colleagues and provincial counterparts for additional solutions.
International CooperationMrs. Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government's logic is nothing if not surprising. The Minister of International Cooperation says that she will hold consultations, but only after having revealed the strategic orientations of Canada's policy on international aid.
Does the minister not think that she is putting the cart before the horse? Would it not be better to start with the consultations and then determine the orientations?
Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, in response to a question earlier, I made the point that Canada, and the Canadian government, will make its decisions in the best interests of Canada, Canadian taxpayers and the best interests of the world.
 Having made those decisions, our doors are open. I have made a personal invitation to all of the nations that have been affected. I have had meetings with people, as has the minister. Our doors are open. We want to be cooperative with the people with whom we are involved in these issues.
Mining IndustryCharlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, the government continues to drop the ball when it comes to the mineral development of northern Ontario. Sudbury developed a unique partnership of academia, industry and the province to set up a centre of excellence in mining innovation. Through all of this the Conservatives were missing in action. 
Now we learn that the Conservatives are investing in mining research in, of all places, Toronto. Sudbury is recognized as a mining innovation centre by everyone, it seems, except the government. Why has the government walked away on the research and innovation agenda of Sudbury and northern Ontario?
Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. This government has committed to communities across this country with our community adjustment fund. We have committed with the clean energy fund as well. We undertook the most extensive prebudget consultations in Canadian history. 
In terms of the mining sector we have done a number of things. I met with folks from the mining industry last week and they congratulated us on extending the super flow-through shares for mineral exploration. We are working on exploration. We are working on research and development. We are working on developing the industry and supporting mining through this tough time.
The EconomyMr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, for some time, the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues have been flip-flopping on the issue of taxation. 
Earlier this week, The Toronto Star blasted the Liberal leader for his juvenile and illogical positions.
Now Alain Dubuc of the daily newspaper La Presse is criticizing the Liberal Party for its inconsistent positions.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary explain what the government is doing to deal with the global economic crisis?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, that is a very relevant and important question. The Liberal opposition has been doing 180s for the past week, and now it is time to see where they stand. Maybe the Liberal Party needs a GPS.
As my colleague said, we have read the Toronto Star and Alain Dubuc's piece in La Presse, and we feel certain that people understand the government's position. As Mr. Dubuc said, “The government has been subjected to unfair and, worse yet, senseless attacks”.
This is yet another reminder that partisan politics is the worst way to address—
The Speaker: Today's question period is now over.
The hon. member for Wascana on a point of order.
Points of OrderRalph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising from question period. 
On at least two occasions in question period, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister used the expression “tar baby”. In addition to being a pejorative term, which might well prove to be unparliamentary, the parliamentary secretary might consider that there are many authorities in this country and in many others that consider the term racist.
While he may want to make his views known in strong and extreme terms, he also might want to take this occasion to withdraw that expression to make it absolutely clear that he was not implying any racist connections.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, that hon. colleague is a man with whom I have had disagreements but for whom I have respect. On this occasion though, I cannot believe that he would attempt to inject that meaning into that expression. He clearly understands that my reference had absolutely nothing to do with the one that he implied. I have worked hard to represent people of all backgrounds and I have always done so in a spirit of tolerance.
My reference to the term “tar baby” was a common reference that refers to issues that stick to one. The leader of the Liberal Party has taken this position, it has stuck to him, and now he is having difficulty explaining himself on that issue.
For him or for his House leader to inject racial politics in order to distract from that is the worst kind of base politics. I would encourage them to apologize for it.
The Speaker: I am going to recognize the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I too want to rise on the same point of order coming out of question period.
I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister to at least understand how that term can be interpreted and why it should not be used. As recently as this past week, Mitt Romney, a former governor in the United States, used the term. He was admonished and he did apologize. 
This is an example of perhaps the use of a term that the parliamentary secretary might not have intended to be used in a certain way. However, that can be interpreted and has been interpreted by many African Americans and others that it is a term that should not be used. 
To benefit us all, I ask the parliamentary secretary to apologize and to not use the term in the future.
[Interjection]
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's point. I am perfectly prepared to assure him that is absolutely not what I was referring to. In fact, I have never even heard that term used in the context that he is suggesting.
If anybody is offended because of the way that someone else might have used the term, I can assure the member that was not my intention and never would be.
[Interjection]
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of laying this issue to rest, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would not more unequivocally follow the example set not only by former governor Mitt Romney in the United States, but also by Senator John McCain, both of whom on various occasions used those expressions. When it came to their attention that they were inappropriate, they withdrew and they apologized. 
Will the parliamentary secretary do the same?
[Interjection]
The Speaker: The matter has been dealt with and I do not believe it is necessary at this point for further interventions from the Chair.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 13 petitions.
Interparliamentary DelegationsJames Bezan: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation in the meeting of the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region and the First Northern Dimension Parliamentary Forum held in Brussels, Belgium on February 25 and February 26, 2009.
Committees of the HouseJacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, two reports of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. I will start with the fourth report, on the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2010. I am pleased to report to the House that the committee has considered all the votes referred to it and reports the same. Next is the fifth report, on the user fee proposal for services relating to the Esquimalt graving dock.
Telecommunications ActCharlie Angus:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-398, An Act to amend the Telecommunications Act (Internet neutrality).
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and, with the help of my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster, introduce this bill that would change section 36 of the Telecommunications Act. 
It is very important as Canadians that we maintain the innovation agenda of the Internet. We have known that the importance of the Internet has been based on the principle that all content that moves along the pipes moves at the same rate and that the innovators and the consumers at the end of the pipes are the ones in charge of deciding what content has priority, not the telecom giants. We need to ensure that we are not dealing with the efforts of throttling, interference of traffic on the Internet.
This is a very simple and straightforward bill that would ensure that the telecommunication service provider shall not engage in network management practices that favour, degrade or prioritize any content, application or service transmitted over a broadband network based on its source, ownership, destination or type.
There are, of course, provisions for proper management of the Internet traffic but I think my colleagues will agree that if we are to maintain a 21st century innovation economy, the principle of net neutrality must be protected.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Main Estimates 2009-10--FinanceThe Speaker: The following motion in the name of the hon. Leader of the Opposition is deemed adopted:
 That, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(b) consideration by the Standing Committee on Finance of Votes 1, 5, L10, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 under FINANCE, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2010, be extended beyond May 31, 2009. 
(Motion agreed to)
Committees of the HouseGordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, there have been the usual discussions among parties and I believe you would find consent for the following travel motions: I move:
 That, in order to attend Australia and New Zealand Scrutiny of Legislation Conference, four members of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations be authorized to travel to Canberra, Australia in July 2009, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee. 

The Speaker:  Does the hon. Chief Government Whip have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker:  Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Gordon O'Connor: (Motion agreed to)
Gordon O'Connor: I move
 That, in relation to its study on correctional services, mental health and addictions, 12 members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security be authorized to travel to Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; Kingston, Ontario; Montreal, Quebec; and Dorchester, New Brunswick, in June 2009, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee. 

The Speaker:  Does the hon. Chief Government Whip have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker:  Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Gordon O'Connor: (Motion agreed to)
Gordon O'Connor: I move:
 That, notwithstanding the motion adopted on Wednesday, May 6, 2009, in relation to its study on Canada-South America trade relations, six members of the Standing Committee on International Trade be authorized to travel to Brasilia and Sao Paulo, Brazil in June 2009, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee. 

The Speaker:  Does the hon. Chief Government Whip have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker:  Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Gordon O'Connor: (Motion agreed to)
PetitionsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition signed by hundreds of citizens from Regina. They are calling upon all parliamentarians to pass legislation for the protection of human life from the time of conception until natural death.
Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition concerning an ongoing issue in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and also in parts of Quebec regarding a tax issue that was unresolved from some years ago. 
In 1998, a lot of people were given misinformation by DFO regarding the Atlantic groundfish licence retirement program. The government settled with 150 of those, but 850 fishermen, some now deceased, have been left out of that calculation, totalling, in some cases, up to $20,000. 
The signatories come primarily from the area of Bonavista, including the mayor of Bonavista, Betty Fitzgerald, as well as Martha Lane, who has worked tirelessly on this campaign. I would also like to thank Elizabeth Harvey and her efforts on the southwest coast of Newfoundland.
Mr. Robert Carrier (Alfred-Pellan, BQ): Madam Speaker, at the request of constituents mainly from my riding, I am presenting this petition calling on Parliament to take upon itself to instruct the Bank of Canada to fund public development projects with new votes, debt free money, specifically designed to reflect the new wealth created by the public.
Mr. Merv Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present petitions from many people joining the thousands who have already written petitions and letters in support for the amendments to the Canada Post Corporation Act, library materials, which would protect and support the library book rate and extend it to include audiovisual materials.
John McKay: Madam Speaker, I have three petitions concerning the Sri Lankan issue, signed by quite a number of people in my riding, again calling upon the UN to intervene so that the hostilities will cease, that it will provide immediate humanitarian relief and that access will be granted to international organizations.
As the House knows, the overt hostilities have ceased but, as of today, the Sri Lankan army is one of the largest standing armies in the world. The Sri Lankan government seems to believe that this issue can be resolved militarily, but it cannot. The people who signed this petition are extremely worried that this will result in some very difficult times for the Tamil population in Sri Lanka.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Madam Speaker, if Question No. 119 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
Mrs. Carol Hughes:  What is the total amount of government funding since fiscal year 1998-1999 up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, listing each department or agency, initiative, and amount?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Madam Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 

Government Orders
Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Peru, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Peru and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Peru, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Claude Guimond (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to take part in today's debate on the implementation of the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Peru. I had the opportunity to examine this matter with other colleagues on the Standing Committee on International Trade. We heard some very interesting evidence, which gave us a good overview of the issues surrounding this bill.
Based on what I learned during those meetings, there is very little that is specific to Peru's situation in particular. The agreement in question seems, instead, to reflect a broader vision of what Canada hopes to adopt as its trade policy in the Americas. In that sense, my criticisms of the agreement with Peru are very similar to the criticisms I might express concerning the free-trade agreement with Colombia, which has also been brought to our attention recently.
First of all, in both cases, there was a flagrant lack of transparency when the Conservative government began negotiations with those two countries. That kind of approach is becoming quite common, and we could very easily imagine that this will unfortunately become the norm when it comes to trade agreements. I find it truly appalling that a government can present Parliament with agreements that have already been negotiated and concluded, presenting parliamentarians with a done deal. That is definitely not the best way to serve democracy.
That being said, I must also mention that, for the Bloc Québécois, this kind of agreement poses an essential problem, namely, the preference shown for bilateral agreements. In addition to weakening potential multilateral negotiations, we believe that agreements signed in a piecemeal fashion, such as this one, are more likely to tip the scales in favour of the stronger side. Such an imbalance can easily arise when we negotiate with a country whose economic size is so different from ours.
Despite its strong performance in terms of economic growth in recent years, Peru is still considered a developing country. That means that, even though that country shows great potential and is rich in many aspects, it nevertheless still has many shortcomings in the areas of labour and environmental standards. That country does not satisfy the same criteria as Canada in those areas. 
Despite what the government says, we are certain that Peru will not be able to solve its development problems by engaging in free trade with a country like Canada. Increased exports are no guarantee of better wealth distribution or greater well-being for all segments of the population.
In addition, a free trade agreement would have only a minor impact on Quebec's economy. Quebec's exports to Peru account for only 0.14% of its total exports, which is a very small proportion. This is not much incentive for us to want to enter into a trade agreement at any cost, without looking at the other factors involved.
The strong presence of Canadian mining companies in Peru is one of the factors we need to take a close look at. As long as agreements contain no real policy to hold these companies accountable, there will be concerns about their content. A great deal of effort has been made to change this situation. Many stakeholders who are concerned about this issue, including representatives of the extractive industry, have met to find solutions and make recommendations to the government.
They have taken this very seriously.
I would mention the work of the National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries. Unfortunately, the government decided to do what it pleased and rejected all the proposals made by these roundtables.
Once again, we have to realize that the government does not care about the recommendations it receives. The current government rejected out of hand all the recommendations in the roundtables report I mentioned. 
When asked to adopt mandatory social responsibility standards for Canadian mining companies abroad, the government decided to do the opposite and adopt voluntary standards. When asked to create an independent ombudsman who could conduct impartial investigations to validate complaints, the government created the office of the extractive sector corporate social responsibility counsellor, who reports directly to the minister and investigates only if authorized by the mining company. This is completely ridiculous. In other words, the government preferred to ignore all the recommendations it received and, by doing so, to benefit Canadian mining companies. 
The Canadian government wasted a perfectly good opportunity to truly improve the living conditions of Peruvian workers. This same government says that it wants to help developing countries prosper only be selling them more goods at better prices. That does not work.
Therefore, at present, we still cannot rely on a truly independent organization to look into conflicts between workers and their employers. There has never been a truly level playing field between employer and employee and it is quite likely that the ratification of such an agreement between Canada and Peru will once again favour investors to the detriment of workers. That is what we will see, once again, in 2009. These types of agreements are thoroughly unacceptable for workers in developing countries.
In terms of the protection of investments, there are some very significant benefits for Canadian companies doing business in Peru. The provisions that protect their interests are taken straight out of chapter 11 of NAFTA, which has given rise to a number of legal proceedings in which we are involved. In short, these proceedings seek to place the interests of private companies on the same footing as the interest of a state in legislating for the common good. Giving the advantage to investors is completely reprehensible and goes against our very understanding of democracy and fair trade. This is a chapter that should be re-opened and not reproduced. Unfortunately, it has been reproduced too often of late. 
There are other problems, as we are also concerned about the dispute resolution process.
The mechanism provides that a company considering that a government has violated the investment provisions can take direct action against the government before an arbitration tribunal. The tribunals hearing the disputes are set up to hear a specific dispute. The deliberations of the arbitrators and their decisions are secret, unless both parties to the dispute decide otherwise. 
Let us imagine what would happen with workers and a major mining company. The code of silence would apply.
Instead of this mechanism, we would prefer to resolve disputes using a multilateral and centralized method, and not on a case-by-case basis. The Bloc Québécois is proposing constructive solutions. The Bloc is in favour of free trade and is in favour of multilateral agreements.
Furthermore, it really is too bad that the most controversial parts of this agreement are the most difficult to tackle, since they are an integral part of the agreement and unless we can change them, we will have to reject the whole agreement. The parts on which some progress has been made and which should be emphasized more must be treated the same way. This is the case for advances made in terms of labour and the environment. 
To start with, the fact that the measures on these two issues were treated in the same way just shows that they were secondary concerns in this agreement. We would have liked these measures to be included in the body of the text of the agreement. That way, they would have had much greater authority over the agreement. Once again, we have made proposals. It is unfortunate that, for a lot of issues that have a direct impact on people's quality of life, we need to depend on the goodwill of the parties involved. Unfortunately, experience shows that a company's goodwill goes more easily with measures that can help their own investments. Measures to protect the environment and workers can be costly and do not yield instant benefits. That is why the government has a role to play.
We cannot be at the mercy of purely commercial interests. When we trade with another country, we cannot look only at the impact on our balance of trade. There are also lives at stake and the well-being of millions of workers and people who live in these countries. We need to take this into account, think about it, and do something about it.
I would like to tell the House about an interesting proposal put forward recently during a meeting of the Standing Committee on International Trade. This interesting proposal was put forward by the secretary-treasurer of the Canadian Labour Congress. After explaining how the current model of concluding free-trade agreements has failed so far—which he demonstrated very clearly—he talked about a new way of practising trade. I really like this new model, and so does the Bloc Québécois. He proposed the idea of concluding fair-trade agreements as opposed to free-trade agreements based purely on commercial trade. As I was saying, I quite like the idea, in the sense that it is understood that the agreement must be beneficial for both partner countries, for merchants in Canada, Quebec and Peru, for workers in Canada, Quebec and Peru and for farmers in Canada, Quebec and Peru. It must be fair. Such a fair-trade model would serve to reinforce social norms, and protect environmental and labour standards in both countries.
The main difference is this: with fair trade, the focus is on the social aspect and not on lower customs tariffs meant to increase exports. I think this proposal deserves our attention. It deserves our consideration, for this agreement and for all future free-trade agreements with other countries. 
In our current approach, the primary goals of our negotiators are simply to seek out greater diversity in trade partners and expand the list of potential markets for Canadian products in Latin America. Clearly, achieving those objectives could be in the Quebec's economic interest, but the lack of overall vision shown by this government in matters of trade policy is worrisome. 
The Bloc Québécois is effectively seeking a change in Canada's trade priorities. Canada should now shift its focus from trade liberalization to creating a more level playing field. With respect to the agreement with Peru, we believe that, on the one hand, it opens many doors to Canadian investments in mining in Peru but, on the other hand, it does not include adequate provisions to protect workers and preserve the environment. We also believe that, in the absence of any real policy to hold Canadian mining companies operating abroad accountable, it would be morally wrong to approve a free trade agreement with Peru, in light of that country's poor record on mine work.
As I said earlier, it can obviously be interesting for Canada to have an investment protection mechanism, as Canadian companies established in Peru stand to benefit from strong protection for their investments under this free trade agreement. This agreement will allow Canadian companies involved in mining, for instance, and whose human rights record is less than stellar to sue the Peruvian government, should it ever implement legislation that affects their profits. Substantial compensation is provided for in the event of nationalization or expropriation. In other words, the power to legislate as it sees fit within its jurisdiction is taken away from the state.
The Bloc Québécois objects to the Conservative government's strategy of piecemeal trade deals and advocates a multilateral approach. The current economic crisis is proof enough that the market economy cannot run properly without rules. That is what people are finding everywhere, even south of the border, in the United States. The market economy as we know it has to change. For that to happen, we need responsible governments capable of thinking more in fair trade terms than strictly free market terms. 
That is what the Bloc Québécois has been trying to make this House and every committee we sit on understand. 
Peter Julian: Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks of my hon. colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. We work together on the Standing Committee on International Trade, where he is doing very good work.
We have had our differences in the past on issues such the softwood lumber deal, which has caused thousands of jobs to be lost in Quebec and which, sadly, the Bloc Québécois has supported. Another sellout agreement was signed with respect to shipbuilding, in spite of the fact that dozens of workers from shipbuilding plants in Lévis wrote to the Bloc warning that it would cause job losses and that they should not support it. So, we have had our differences. My personal opinion is that the Bloc Québécois made the wrong decision, but it will have to justify the position it took on that issue.
Today, we are on the same page, and I greatly appreciated the remarks made by the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, who has provided a very good critique of the agreement.
My question deals with the comments made earlier today by the parliamentary secretary about labour and environment rights provisions not being important and trade being what matters. Until now, the government always said it was trying to ensure that labour and environmental laws were protected.
Today, however, it has shown a bit more of its true colours, saying it was not important. 
Could my hon. colleague comment on these remarks by the parliamentary secretary?
[Interjection]
Claude Guimond: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his good comments and kind words. I also greatly enjoy working with my colleague on international trade matters. 
As I mentioned in my speech, we completely disagree with what the parliamentary secretary said this morning. We must review the rules of international trade and how we do business. In my speech, I mentioned what the Secretary-Treasurer of the Canadian Labour Congress told us. He said that it was time to change our practices and to include, in our agreements, fair trade provisions. We need forums and organizations with the means to verify and evaluate what takes place when free trade agreements such as this one with Peru are implemented.
We are forced to make decisions about this agreement, and others as well, without examining what will happen in Peru and Canada. We have no statistics. Thus, we are presented with a fait accompli, once again, and that is absolutely deplorable. My NDP colleague and I will work hard to ensure that the House includes such provisions in future agreements in order to ascertain what happens with these agreements.
Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am quite surprised to hear this. I really had no idea that the Bloc Québécois would be against this Canada-Peru free trade agreement, and especially the MPs from ridings on the New Brunswick border.
I will give an example. Not too long ago, a company called Atlantic Yarns shut down in my riding, in the Atholville area in New Brunswick, on the Quebec border, near Pointe-à-la-Croix and Matapédia. Several dozen or even a hundred employees lost their jobs because it took too long to establish this Canada-Peru free trade agreement.
Today, I hear the Bloc member saying that we should not move forward with this agreement. However, to my knowledge, citizens of his province, Quebec, worked for Atlantic Yarns in Atholville. I am surprised, because even the plant union is in favour of the agreement, because it knows this could be one way to save the plant.
We know that the NDP is against it. Nevertheless, I would like my Bloc Québécois colleague to think about what I said. Instead of rejecting this agreement why does he not look at the positive side and the jobs that could have been saved and that could be created? In our case, jobs were lost and people from his own province perhaps also lost their jobs. I would like him to think about that and to comment on what I said.
[Interjection]
Claude Guimond: Madam Speaker, I want to reassure the hon. member from New Brunswick, who represents a riding that neighbours mine. I want to tell him not to worry about all the thinking done by the Bloc Québécois before adopting a stand on current agreements relating to free trade and international trade.
The Bloc Québécois supports free trade agreements. However, we have a lot of issues with bilateral free trade agreements that are concluded without thinking a bit further, without thinking about what is going to happen, without thinking about miners in Peru. Canadian mining companies will come barging in with laws and agreements that will allow them to negotiate a lower quality of life for mine workers. 
I firmly believe that it is unfortunate that workers are losing their jobs. Workers in my riding are losing their jobs and that is very unfortunate, but I believe they really understand what is happening. I am also convinced that these people are in favour of fairer trade.
Mario Laframboise: Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. Before holding the prestigious position of member of Parliament, my colleague was an official with the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec and an expert on supply management. Therefore, he is very familiar with the five products protected by supply management systems in Canada, and particularly in Quebec. These products include milk, poultry and eggs. These are important issues when the time comes to negotiate agreements and treaties. 
The message that the Bloc Québécois wanted to deliver is that we must look at what is happening. As regards agriculture and international agreements, if the government had bothered to look at how important and how well managed that sector is—including in Quebec—it would have realized that Canada should have used it in all its agreements. This is to say that, before presenting such treaties, we must be aware of their long term effects, both here and in the other country that signs them. 
I wonder if my colleague could tell us about his experience as a supply management expert.
[Interjection]
Claude Guimond: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for this opportunity to speak on agriculture, something I am passionate about, being a farmer myself.
I listened to the debate on this agreement this morning. I was somewhat taken aback by comments made during the debate. The member for Malpeque, who is also the agriculture critic, if I am not mistaken, quoted Laurent Pellerin, the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. He said that Mr. Pellerin supported the agreement with Peru and that it was a great deal for the producers in Quebec and Canada. I have my doubts about that.
When he appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade, Mr. Pellerin said about this agreement between Canada and Peru, “Ce n'est pas le Pérou—it's not Peru”, meaning that it was not very significant. Certainly it is an export issue. This morning, the member for Malpeque talked about the potato producers in his riding. There is indeed a great deal of expertise there, but we are also talking about western Canadian wheat and about pork. It might mean only a few containers. We do not even have figures. We have no idea of how much is involved, but much is being made about the importance of exporting a few tons. 
In closing, as a farmer, let me say that what producers in Canada, Quebec or Peru want is to be able to earn a decent living from agriculture, and not be flooded with export products. We want to produce and make a fair living.
Peter Julian: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Peru, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Peru and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Peru.
I would like to start with what is positive. What is positive in this agreement, and obviously most Liberals and Conservatives are completely unaware of this, is that this is an NDP-amended document that is being brought into the House today. Why is that important? It is important because certainly as long as I have been in the House, for five years, we have been hearing a litany, both from the former Liberal government and the current Conservative government that trade agreement implementation bills were unamendable. 
That has been a refrain from the Liberals since time immemorial, saying we cannot touch these agreements. Even though every parliament, congress and legislature elsewhere in the world does it regularly, for five years and even longer, Madam Speaker, as you well know, given your knowledge of parliamentary history, we have had Liberals and Conservatives saying we cannot touch these bills. Most notably and most recently that was with the shipbuilding sellout bill, with EFTA, where the NDP brought forward amendments to carve out our shipbuilding sector so it could survive. With the longest coastline in the world it would be important to have a shipbuilding industry, but Conservatives and Liberals said no, we cannot amend the implementation bill.
We now have a principle today in the House, which will rest for time immemorial, that Parliament does have the right and does have the obligation to look at a trade implementation bill and to make the necessary amendments and changes. For that, I think this is an important precedent. Obviously the Conservatives may not have tried to jib the fact that the bill has been amended with what they have been saying for years, and Liberals obviously did not think about the consequences to changing their particular statements, but the reality is the bill is amended and that establishes a whole new precedent for future bills.
We went through the softwood sellout, and I was told consistently, and our caucus was told consistently, that we cannot change the softwood sellout implementation bill. We knew that it would cost thousands of jobs, hundreds of millions of dollars to Canadians, that it was an appallingly shortsighted and irresponsible bill, but we were told by Liberals and Conservatives that we cannot touch it.
More recently, with the shipbuilding sellout, the EFTA bill, the NDP fought in the House day after day, read letters from hundreds of shipyard workers in Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Quebec and elsewhere, who were writing to members of Parliament to say, do not be irresponsible, do not sell out our shipbuilding industry, please carve out shipbuilding from the agreement. Liberals and Conservative said the same thing again. They said we cannot touch an implementation bill.
Today we have the answer to that. Yes, we can touch an implementation bill, and we can amend it. This will carry forward to all further debates on trade issues. Unfortunately, the Conservatives being Conservatives, and Liberals being Liberals, they did not take all the NDP amendments, including the amendment that asked for a five-year review clause. That is unfortunate. For that and a whole bunch of other reasons, as witnesses before the trade committee said very clearly, this is an inferior bill. It is an inferior treaty for Canada to what the United States negotiated with Peru and what the U.S. Congress did in changing the implementation legislation.
We have an inferior bill. That is the only word that describes it. It is inferior on labour and environmental protections to what the United States Congress put into the U.S.-Peru bill. It is inferior in terms even of access to the Peruvian market for Canadian agricultural exports. We have an inferior bill. The only really good thing we can say about it is that it is NDP-amended, establishing a precedent that will carry on forevermore. Madam Speaker, the next time a Conservative or a Liberal stands in the House and says trade implementation bills are unamendable, we have the answer. We have the precedent, and for that I am thankful.
What do we have in Bill C-24, the inferior Canada-Peru trade deal being put forward? A number of other speakers have already spoken to the inadequacies of any labour or environmental protections that were put in the side agreements. We had testimony before the international trade committee that was very clear on that. What we have is simply an attempt to draft side legislation as a sort of symbolic attempt to look at labour and environmental issues.
It is not included in the agreement. The U.S. Congress took its trade bill, toughened it up, and made it much stronger to actually protect Peruvians from the Peruvian government. It put in place the kind of ILO protections, the International Labour Organization protections, that most Canadians would want to see. We want to look at fair trade agreements that actually raise the quality of life and enhance environment protection, not push them down, for a number of reasons. One is that this is clearly an inferior bill.
Is that a problem? It is because witnesses who came forward even earlier this week to the trade committee, such as Maxwell Cameron from the University of British Columbia, said that currently, Peru is refusing to keep its obligations under the International Labour Organization treaties. 
Even before this bill is implemented, we already have the Peruvian government breaking its word on other issues. It has already broken and refused to keep its commitments under the ILO. We have a government that is putting forward an exceedingly weak labour side agreement, which is essentially nothing but symbolic, and it is doing this knowing that even if it were not tougher, the Peruvian government would not be willing to keep its commitment under the ILO.
Therefore, we really have no mechanism that pushes to increase labour standards in Peru or increase environmental standards. The line of the government, up until today actually, has been, “We are really trying to do something good for the people of Peru, as well as ensure a market for our exports”. The parliamentary secretary came clean today. He said it was not important, that we are not actually looking at labour standards or the environment in this agreement. It is all about trade.
From that standpoint as well, the reason why the NDP is saying no to this inferior agreement is because the government had no intention of raising labour standards or labour rights, or raising environmental standards. The government says it is part of a broader trade strategy.
We then have to look at how our trade strategy is going so far. What has the government done on trade?
We had the egregiously bad softwood sellout, which most Canadians opposed. The Liberals and Conservatives ganged together, and I regret to say my colleagues from the Bloc as well, to vote the softwood sellout through, which instantly triggered the loss of thousands of jobs. Within the first week of implementation, 4,000 jobs were lost in the softwood sector. We immediately slammed the door on any possibility of softwood exports, and that hemorrhaging of softwood jobs continues today with tens of thousands of jobs lost.
In addition, because of the anti-circumvention clause that the NDP warned the trade committee about and warned Conservatives and Liberals about, and we warned them in the House as well, we now are facing, first, penalties of nearly $70 million that Canadian taxpayers have to cough up in fines under this ridiculously bad agreement. We now have, from testimony we heard just a few weeks ago, pending fines of over $1 billion. Assuming that we lose the next two cases, Canadian taxpayers will have to cough up $1 billion for an egregiously bad agreement that cost us thousands of jobs. One does not have to be thick-headed to understand that this was an appallingly bad agreement and that the Conservatives, with Liberal support, rammed it through.
Their first step on trade policy was an appallingly bad step that was taken by David Emerson, the former Liberal minister who crossed over to the Conservatives, and who brought with him the same stupid approach on trade. As a result, thousands of Canadian families have lost breadwinners.
What did the Conservatives bring in next? Next, they brought the shipbuilding sellout through the EFTA. They were told by every single member who participated at the trade committee, from the shipbuilding industry, whether from management or ownership or from the workers, that it would kill our shipbuilding industry, that it would undermine our shipbuilding industry, and that our shipbuilding industry would be unable to live with the clauses that were negotiated when there was no shipbuilding policy in place at all.
It is a shipbuilding sellout. The Conservatives and Liberals, again, despite the fact that there is universal condemnation of the agreement from the shipbuilding industry, rammed it through. That is strike two. On trade policy, the government has absolutely no understanding. We are talking about trade illiterates.
What we have now is what I guess we would all strike three, a clearly inferior agreement to what was negotiated between the U.S. and Peru, and what the U.S. Congress was able to do as well in terms of amending the agreement to actually enforce real and effective labour and environmental standards.
There is more. What the Conservatives want to bring forward now is a privileged trading relationship with the government of Colombia, whose president, according to U.S. defence intelligence briefings, documents that were declassified recently, was a friend of Pablo Escobar and closely linked with the Medellin cartel, drug lords.
That was not all he did. Subsequent to that, according to evidence and testimony presented just a few weeks ago, he has also been involved in the murder and massacre by paramilitaries of civilians in Colombia, and most recently involved in influence peddling scandals and overt surveillance by the secret police in Colombia of opposition leaders and judges.
We are talking about a country that has the worst human rights record on the planet, over four million displaced people, forced displacement by the paramilitaries, and the government wants to roll out the red carpet and give a special privileged trading relationship to an administration that is connected to murderous paramilitary thugs and drug lords. It is unbelievable. It would only be believable if we were to look at how egregiously bad the softwood lumber sellout was and then compare it. Then we would realize it.
We are talking about a government that has absolutely no idea what it is doing and what is worse, the Conservatives are telling their base that they want a privileged trading relationship with an administration connected to drug lords and murderous paramilitary thugs. Does anyone think any Conservative would actually want to do that? Of course not. From the membership of the--
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): Order. On a point of order, the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.
[Interjection]
James Bezan: Madam Speaker, as you know, we are at third reading of Bill C-24. Comments by members have to be relevant and very specific to the matter at hand. We are talking about Peru. The member has gone off on other tangents talking about trading relationships with other countries in Latin America and the United States. I would ask the Speaker to bring the member back to focus on the Peruvian deal that is before the House at this time.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): On that point of order, there is indeed a rule of relevance. Especially at third reading, it is more important to debate the contents of the bill. I would invite my colleague to focus on the bill in his closing remarks.
The hon. member has five minutes remaining in his time.
[Interjection]
Peter Julian: Madam Speaker, it is very relevant trade policy. We will have much time to condemn the links that the government has brought forward. 
In my last few minutes I will come back to the Canada-Peru trade agreement bill. It has also been clearly identified as an inferior agreement, even by those who may give lip service to supporting this deal. We will save Colombia for another time.
What we have is essentially an inferior agreement. It is an agreement that is inferior on labour rights and environmental rights. It does not provide any of the protections that up until today the government purported to provide. We have to look at what the government said was its major reason for putting forward this agreement. It believes in a trade strategy. It obviously has not looked at the evidence.
In most cases, the bilaterals we have signed so far have led to a reduction of exports from Canada. We did increase the imports from those countries with which we signed the bilaterals, but we have to do our homework. If the government has not been able to look at the results of the bilaterals it has signed thus far, it is not doing its homework as it sits down to negotiate what in this case is an inferior agreement.
Exports go down. What is wrong with that picture? It is very simple. Putting aside all of the other issues we have talked about, such as the sellout of our own industries and the complete lack of concern for human rights, the government does not get trade strategy right. We heard testimony just a few weeks ago that the Canadian government provides $3.4 million in Canadian product promotion support for the entire U.S. market. The Australian government provides half a billion dollars.
We provide $3.4 million for our major trading partner. That is ridiculously small. It means that, because there is no overall trade strategy, we will continue to see what we have seen since the government has come to power, even with this inferior agreement, a completely aimless lack of focus on trade and now, as we saw a few months ago, the largest trade deficit in 30 years. That is incompetence. That is simple irresponsibility. That is a lack of understanding of how to put a winning trade strategy in place.
The government seems willing to do the ribbon cutting, even with the government of Colombia, yet it is not willing to do the hard work of actually increasing Canadian exports. What has been the net result? We have seen this over the last 20 years. StatsCan is very clear and tells us what the results have been. Most Canadian families are earning less now than they were 20 years ago. Certainly, it has helped corporate lawyers and CEOs. Their incomes have skyrocketed and now the wealthiest 20% in Canada take more than half of all real income.
However, for everybody else, the middle class, working class and poor Canadians, their real incomes have declined over 20 years. It is in large part due to the Conservatives following the same failed trade strategy that the Liberals put into place. One would think that somebody like DFAIT would actually say, “Hold on. This is not really working too well, is it? We are seeing real income sink. We are seeing exports fall after we signed bilaterals. There has to be a problem here”. 
However, there does not seem to be any change from the ribbon-cutting approach to trade that we have seen with both the former Liberal government and the current Conservative government.
What we have in the Canada-Peru agreement is essentially investor-state provisions. They are the same failed provisions in chapter 11 that are leading to actions as we saw with Ethyl Corporation and as we are now seeing with Quebec and the outlawing of 2,4-D. Corporate CEOs can use those chapter 11 provisions and rights to ensure that they can push and control certain aspects of democratic override—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): Order, please. I would ask for the side bar discussions to occur in the lobby, please.
 The hon. member for Burnaby--New Westminster.
[Interjection]
Peter Julian: Madam Speaker, I am not surprised at the interruptions from Conservatives. It is difficult to have to listen to a trade strategy that they clearly do not seem to grasp. If they had, a lot more Canadians would be at work today.
We have chapter 11 provisions. We have that reinforcement of CEOs. We do not have the labour protections. We do not have the environmental protections. That is why we are voting no to Bill C-24.
Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to what my colleague across the aisle had to say. I found it quite stunning to hear what he said.
I have communities that are very impacted by the softwood lumber agreement. They have said that they are grateful for it, that it has helped save the few jobs that are there.
As we look at opening trade opportunities internationally, my community is very thankful, during these difficult times, that we are looking at opportunities to expand trade and exports.
How can the hon. member possibly face his constituents when he consistently votes against job and trade opportunities that will help service his community?
[Interjection]
Peter Julian: Madam Speaker, I love Kamloops and I will be going there very shortly when the next announcement of penalties levied against Canada under the softwood lumber sell-out are announced. It could be in the range of $400 million.
I will be very glad to go to Kamloops and talk with the member's constituents about why they are coughing up that money because of the irresponsibility of the government.
That is exactly the problem. The hemorrhaging of jobs we have seen and the loss of jobs right across the country is because Conservatives do not understand the connection between a very strong trade strategy and economic growth as opposed to ribbon cutting.
I know, having been in Kamloops a number of times, that the people in Kamloops have suffered as much from the softwood lumber sell-out as the people in Burnaby—New Westminster. In our case, three mills have closed and 2,000 jobs have been lost because the government has been incredibly irresponsible in signing trade agreements without any understanding of the implications.
Therefore, I will be very glad to go to Kamloops and talk with her constituents about why they will have to cough up hundreds of millions of dollars in fines, in addition to the jobs they have lost, because the government has been so irresponsible.
John Rafferty: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend continually talked about an inferior trade deal. Was there any possibility at any time to make this a superior trade deal?
[Interjection]
Peter Julian: Madam Speaker, the member is terrific and energetic and one of the top rookies in the House.
Absolutely there was an opportunity to make this a superior trade deal. That takes two things. The first is to put in place a fair trade agenda, rather than this George Bush style free trade agenda. In fact, we have the only government in the western world that still relies on the old George Bush free trade rhetoric. We know how well that went over in the United States. Millions of jobs were lost and there was a strong reaction to what the George Bush Republican administration put in place for free trade. A fair trade agenda would have meant stronger negotiating.
We also have to get New Democrats negotiating these agreements. As the hon. member knows, New Democrats are very tough negotiators. They do not sell out Canada. They do not simply want to sign and cut the ribbon. In any labour negotiations we know full well that we get better deals for ordinary Canadians when the NDP pushes at the table.
If we have an NDP administration pushing for fair trade agreements, we can get superior agreements that lead to economic development, increased trade and a pulling up of labour standards and environmental standards, which is what the vast majority of Canadians want to see, not this old rhetoric from the Conservatives and Liberals of George Bush style Republican free trade.
Mario Laframboise: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois about Bill C-24, an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Peru, the agreement on the environment between Canada and the Republic of Peru and the agreement on labour cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Peru.
The Bloc Québécois is opposed to the Conservative government's strategy, which consists in making piecemeal agreements. Instead, we support a multilateral approach. The current economic crisis clearly shows that a market economy can work properly only if it is regulated and stabilized through an institutional, political and ethical framework. Rather than signing piecemeal agreements, Canada should work within the WTO to ensure that the rules governing international trade are the same for everyone.
The Bloc Québécois believes that trade can contribute to the prosperity of nations and, in that sense, that it can be a major social and economic development tool. However, this can only be the case if trade agreements include measures that will ensure sustainable development and that will promote the development of the populations involved. The Canada-Peru free trade agreement includes a clause to protect investments that is patterned on NAFTA's chapter 11 and that will allow businesses to sue governments. To include a chapter protecting investments could impede Peru's social and economic development. 
Peru is a minor trading partner for Quebec. Quebec's exports to Peru represent 0.14% of total exports from Quebec, and Quebec has a $174 million negative trade balance.
Canada's main business activity in Peru is in the mining sector, and Peru's track record on worker protection in that sector is hardly a glowing one. In the absence of any real policy to hold Canadian mining companies accountable, ratifying this agreement will allow those companies to expand their activities without being subject to any rules or consequences when they pollute or when they flout human rights. Given the provisions of this bill, it should come as no surprise that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to it.
The investment protection agreement in the free trade agreement with Peru is a copy of chapter 11 of NAFTA, which allows investors from member states in the North American Free Trade Zone to claim compensation from governments of another party to NAFTA when they believe they have incurred a loss as a result of the adoption of regulatory measures that modify existing business operating conditions. The regulatory or legislative changes must, however, be such that they can be considered to be direct or indirect expropriation or a measure tantamount to an expropriation. NAFTA is the only major free trade agreement to which Canada is a party that contains such broad provisions regarding the treatment to be granted to investors from other parties.
Because the free trade agreement with Peru contains a similar clause, the Bloc Québécois believes that it is not in Quebec's interests to adhere to the agreement and is opposed to ratifying it. In fact, the free circulation of goods can hardly not go hand in hand with the free circulation of capital. Where specific provisions are not incorporated into free trade agreements, bilateral agreements generally provide for the protection of investments coming from the other party. All such agreements contain substantially similar provisions, that is, a neutral arbitration procedure in the event of disputes between the foreign investor and the host state of the investment. There are currently over 1,800 bilateral agreements of this type in the world.
The provisions of chapter 11 of NAFTA governing investments have been called into question. They are at the root of numerous proceedings that have been brought against various governments in Mexico, the United States and Canada and sometimes result in millions of dollars in compensation being awarded. In a nutshell, chapter 11 defines a complete scheme to govern investments. In addition, the definition of investments is very broad. Some of the provisions of that chapter, including the concept of expropriation, have generated numerous proceedings. In addition, the current trend is toward extending that concept to encompass lost profits.
I can provide a number of examples of litigation related to NAFTA chapter 11. Pope and Talbot, Inc. v. Government of Canada involved softwood lumber quotas. 
The government expropriated the company.
The company claimed that its rights had been violated on five NAFTA provisions: national treatment, most favoured nations treatment, minimum standard of treatment, performance requirements and expropriation.
According to the suit, the government expropriated the company because the allocation of the quotas caused the company to lose profits. The government did not meet performance requirements because the quota system favours the provinces not affected by the system. The government did not meet the minimum standard of treatment because the allocation of quotas was unfair and inequitable, and had been done secretively.
It is clear that in Quebec, for instance, there are lumber quotas for forestry companies. Since a large part of the forest belongs to the state, the Quebec government, the quotas are allocated to the company. Once again, in this case, in an interim award in June, the tribunal determined that Canada was consistent with its obligations respecting performance requirements and expropriation, and the tribunal did not rule on the other issues. 
Madam Speaker, I hear the fire alarm.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): We will suspend the business of the House for a few moments because of the fire alarm. We will resume as soon as possible.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 1:20 p.m.)
[Stage Direction]
(The House resumed at 1:43 p.m.)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): It being 1:43 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper. 

Private Members' Business
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading System for North America[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from April 30, 2009, consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): Before recognizing the next speaker, I would like to inform the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel that he will have 14 minutes remaining when debate on Bill C-24 resumes.
The hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche has the floor.
Jean-Claude D'Amours: Madam Speaker, thank you for enabling us to resume so quickly after the minor incident that took place a few minutes ago. 
I am pleased to speak to the private member's motion on the greenhouse gas emissions trading system for North America. The issue of greenhouse gas emissions is an important one. We have to consider all facets of this matter, have a look at the bigger picture and consider the environment as a whole.
A few years ago, members of the Liberal Party worked very hard and were very proactive in advancing the Kyoto protocol, which seeks to ensure that the environment is a global issue and not just a local one. Whether it is the air we breathe, the water we drink or the food we eat, all these elements and many others are directly related to the environment. As a society, we must ensure that we advance the cause of the environment in order to improve the quality of life of our fellow citizens.
If we look at the environment globally and stop considering it from a local perspective, we see the importance of the idea that each and every individual must make his own small contribution to promote the environmental cause. When I talk about these small contributions, I am thinking locally. Each person can make his personal home and society in general a much healthier environment.
As regards greenhouse gas emissions, many businesses must now use energy sources that may be cleaner in certain areas, but less so in others. However, we must use energy sources to heat our homes, fuel our vehicles and operate industries that are essential to our country. It is important to be careful about our environment.
I am a member who represents a rural riding where natural resources, including forests, fishing and agriculture, play a very significant role. What are we going to eat if our environment is deficient? If this becomes the case, will agriculture suffer? Forests are the primary wealth in my region. This is a natural resource that we cannot completely ignore in the mistaken belief that it will always be there. The fact is that it will not always be there for us. Members who live in rural areas that are rich in natural resources understand very clearly the importance of the environment. Without a sound environment, people often find themselves out of work.
Let me give a concrete example. There is an Atlantic salmon fishery in the Restigouche River. If we are not careful about our environment, and about that river, the economy of Restigouche is going to lose tens of millions of dollars annually. Without this activity, we are not going to be able to attract the tourists from the rest of the country and from abroad who come to fish. Americans often come to fish there, and they spend a lot of money in my riding. So, there is a direct link between greenhouse gases and the way we are going to treat our environment. It is easy to understand the importance that must be given to this link, to ensure that the environment in which we live is the best possible one.
This is not to say that people in urban centres do not understand the reality. However, there is greater awareness in rural areas, given that the people depend on the environment for their employment. If we pay attention to our rural areas and the environment, we will be able to create tens of thousands of jobs across the country. We must look on the positive side. Some people say that investing in the environment costs money. Is that good or bad for the economy? In the case of my riding, it is good for the economy. When we pay attention to the environment, it is a good way to ensure that people will have jobs.
We must also look at the reality. I would like to thank the hon. member who introduced this bill, because if we do not pay attention to our environment and if we are not aware of the problem, we will end up with even bigger problems.
A few years ago, I met with a group of students from the Forum for Young Canadians in my riding. If I remember correctly, there were 14 students from Madawaska and Restigouche. I took the time to ask them certain questions. We often do not listen to our young people and our students enough. It does not matter whether they have the right to vote or not. What is important is listening to them in order to improve our future and our system. When they step up to take over, if we have listened to them, they will be happy to contribute to the society we are trying to build for them. 
I asked those young people how important they thought the environment was to their everyday lives, how important they thought it was to recycle and so on. By speaking with those students, I leaned that our schools are doing a lot more to raise consciousness about the importance of the environment than other members of society. And it is not a question of experience. Those young people were only 17 or 18 years old, just approaching adulthood. The environment is so important to them that one might wonder where they learned that.
 Along the roadsides, where I am from, I often see garbage that people could have held onto and put into a garbage pail a little later. People need to pay more attention.
 The students told me that the environment was extremely important to them because their future was at stake. They will inherit an environment that smells bad, where the water they want to drink is no longer potable, and where the food they eat makes them sick. 
 I realized just how aware today’s youth are of the environment and I think they are its greatest advocates. We have some great champions of the environment in the House of Commons, of course, but Canadian young people are probably the greatest possible champions of the environment.
 Their objective was clear, and they told me we need to raise awareness and educate people. They talked about their parents and grandparents, their neighbours and their aunts and uncles. I think we need to educate people about greenhouse gases and the environment.
 During another debate on this private member’s bill, someone said the Conservative government had no plan. It is easy to issue press releases and deliver fine speeches, but what do Canadians want? They want something specific. These things are often hard to identify. Sometimes too, the government takes temporary action to look good, only to toss it all out later, through the back door.
 Here is an example. A program was established to give people a tax credit if they bought an energy-efficient hybrid vehicle. The program was introduced but then, in no time at all, the same Conservative government cancelled it. People in my area were asking me what had happened. The Conservatives said the environment was important, but in reality they cancelled their own program as soon as they had a chance. This program certainly did not cost billions of dollars, and it was very good for the environment. So why did they cancel it when Canadians wanted to continue down that path?
 Take the cost of gasoline. We all know it was much higher last year. Canadians had their consciousness raised, but then the government took away the tools they needed to deal with the fossil fuel problem and greenhouse gases.
 There is also the example of the ecoEnergy program. If Canadians want to install a new heating system or build a new house with a really energy-saving heating system, they can check it out with the Government of Canada by dialling 1-800-O-Canada.
 So, people call 1-800-O-Canada but are immediately told to turn to their own province. Why put this on a federal government website when ultimately it does not have a program?
 I could keep talking about this for much longer but am going to let someone else have a chance to speak.
Paul Dewar: Madam Speaker, today we are all seized with solutions when it comes to the issue of climate change. The debate on whether the science is valid and whether climate change is caused by human activity is now over and now we are looking for solutions. I am glad about that. There are still doubters out there who deny that there is credible science for climate change, and that is fine, we are in a democracy and people have different points of view, but I think the consensus is that climate change and what we see happening is the result of human activity and human behaviour.
What is incumbent upon us as legislators is to look at solutions. I will be supporting the bill. The essence of it is to have cap and trade as one of those solutions. It is no surprise that I and my party are supporting the bill. In fact, central to our platform in the last election was to set up a cap and trade system.
It is important to look around the globe right now. Often people talk about globalization and the need for more trade. I would say that we have fallen behind on the cap and trade issue. When we look at global markets and their approach to climate change, there is a consensus among many countries that a price needs to be put on carbon. However, there might be a debate about how to do it. 
If we look at Europe, at what is happening in the United States and what is happening among provinces here in Canada, the consensus is that there should be a carbon market. We need to have a price on carbon that is dealt with through an exchange. 
When we look back to the previous Parliament, Bill C-30, the clean air act, was brought forward by the government. The government at the time allowed it to go to a legislative committee to be amended. One of the things in that bill was to have a cap and trade system, among other changes to ensure we dealt with climate change. Sadly, in a most bizarre outcome, the bill was returned to the House amended but the government would not bring it forward again. That was a missed opportunity.
What is happening in Europe, in the United States and in the provinces in Canada is that people are establishing carbon markets and they are doing it through a cap and trade system.
For those who do not quite understand the essence of this, I would simply point to another environmental irritant that we had to deal with, a catastrophic environmental phenomena known as acid rain, which devastated producers in the fishing industry and the maple syrup industry back in the eighties. 
At that time, many people, including myself, were pushing governments of the day to come up with a solution to solve the acid rain problem. It was dealt with through a similar kind of approach and that was to set limits on industry as to how much it could pollute and to put scrubbers on its factories to ensure the amount of sulphur and other irritants going into the air would be capped.
We were able to deal with acid rain by having a strong regulatory framework, by having what I call big sticks and good carrots. If companies did not comply, they would be fined and they did comply, they would be rewarded.
Cap and trade is similar. If members may recall, there actually was an agreement, which the Conservative government brought forward, to have an acid rain agreement with the United States. We need to do that now. We are losing time. The United States is now moving toward a cap and trade system.
We removed the phenomena of acid rain by bringing in a strong regulatory framework, by ensuring the big polluters paid and ensuring there were rewards for those making the transition.
That is exactly what cap and trade is. It is to ensure that there is a coherent market. Those who produce excess amounts of carbon have to pay a price. Those who reduce it are rewarded. There is a exchange for this and that is why there has to be a carbon market.
 It is that simple, but it requires leadership and legislation. At the national level, it requires a government that believes in this and goes forward. I am very troubled by the fact that we are so far behind.
The foreign affairs committee was recently in Washington. The U.S. is moving ahead. Copenhagen will be in the fall and that will be a follow-up to Kyoto. Where is Canada when it comes to cap and trade? Are we going to be following behind? Are the Americans going to have the leg up? Are we going to come to the table too late to be able to take advantage of this emerging opportunity?
Some provinces have gone ahead with the cap and trade model, such as Ontario and Quebec. The western provinces are looking at getting together as well.
We need a coherent approach at the national level, a national voice for cap and trade to meet where the Americans are going, but we also we need to be coherent. As we know, greenhouse gas does not know borders. It does not have a passport. It is a shared interest with the Americans. In fact, if we go back to the acid rain treaty, it was Canadian leadership.
I recently talked to Joe Clark and I asked how that happened. He said that MPs pushed it and that they had some leadership. He was the external affairs minister of the day. He pushed it and he was allowed to do that. He was given the power to negotiate with the Americans.
Sadly, we are not seeing that with the government. We heard nice things when President Obama was here. We heard about an arrangement was made, but we have not seen the details.
We are about to find ourselves going into the summer without a coherent plan on cap and trade. If we pick up the paper any day, there is a debate about how the Americans will define their cap and trade system.
When we look south of the border, it is worthy to note President Obama's nomination of Steven Chu as his secretary of energy, which is no coincidence. If we look at his approach, he wants to push the cap and trade framework further ahead. That is why President Obama nominated him.
For those who think this is some left-wing conspiracy, there is a consensus on this. People from the business community and people who are entrepreneurial see this as the way to go because it puts a price on carbon that is determined by a market. The last time I checked, I thought the Conservatives were in favour of that. They claim to be, but we have not seen evidence of action.
Cap and trade, simply put, would finally get us to the point where we could start looking at changing and transitioning our economy from one that is based on carbon, which is having negative effects on our economy, and transitioning to an economy that will be based on new solutions that are viable and sustainable.
The first step in any journey is an important one. The first step in this journey to deal with catastrophic climate change is at the national level to have a cap and trade system. That is why we will support the motion.
James Bezan: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Motion No. 287.
As the chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, I have to point out that I will not be supporting the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): Order, please, I apologize, I made an error. I intended to recognize, according to the order of rotation, the hon. member for Trois-Rivières. This hon. member will follow.
 The hon. member for Trois-Rivières has the floor. She has my sincerest apologies.
Paule Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today on Bloc Motion M-287, which reads as follows—it is important to have it in the forefront of our minds:
 That, in the opinion of the House, the government should work with its North American partners to promptly pursue a North American cap-and-trade market with absolute greenhouse gas emission targets based on scientific knowledge, using 1990 as the base year. 
 All the wording of this motion is important, and I will try to explain it during my brief remarks. Since the beginning, the Bloc Québécois has advocated the creation of a cap-and-trade market, or carbon exchange, as an indispensable tool in the fight against greenhouse gases and climate change.
 Until Quebec becomes an independent country that makes its own economic and environmental choices and participates freely as a sovereign nation in the discussions on climate change, we are left with this environmental millstone around our necks—Canada’s terrible reputation in this area.
 That is why the Bloc Québécois has moved this motion today.
 The Bloc has a clear, credible plan here that includes what Quebec thinks are the four key elements in successfully establishing a carbon market. First, the plan offers absolute greenhouse gas reduction targets and a cap-and-trade system. This system is a carbon exchange located in Montreal. That is what we want. The fourth element is the use of 1990 as the base year for evaluating how far we have come and recognizing the considerable efforts that some companies have made since then. Finally, we want reduction targets based on the most up-to-date scientific knowledge.
 Contrary to the Conservative government, the Bloc Québécois believes that science, innovation, research, development and North American and international cooperation are essential for the establishment of a carbon market. Unfortunately, this government does exactly the opposite. The Conservative Party and its leader, first and foremost, long refused to see the reality. Global warming is a real, scientifically proven phenomenon. The Kyoto protocol is the only method we have on the international level to fight this scourge. It is not a socialist plot, as the Conservative Party claims.
This way of looking at the world—the Conservative way—belongs to the previous century. The states which, in the future, are going to oppose the environment and the economy will be the losers of the future economic growth. For example, unlike the Minister of Natural Resources, who feels she should threaten trading partners who are doing something about energy problems and their impact on climate, the Bloc Québécois supports these initiatives, because oil dependency is unhealthy, harmful and inefficient from an economic and environmental point of view, whether in Quebec or in California, which is the state that the Minister of Natural Resources is threatening.
This government has a truly abominable record as far as climate change is concerned, and it is a shame for all Quebeckers who care about protecting our planet. The more Canada will look at the tar sands, at oil exploration and at polluting industries, in relation to the development of its natural resources, the more Quebec will look at hydroelectricity, renewable energy and a knowledge-based economy, and the more the environment will become the primary argument for Quebec to become independent.
The international community needs players who want to deal with changes and who cooperate with trading partners. It does not need a country like Canada, which threatens progressive states with reprisals, and which disrupts international talks by claiming that it is the world's most vulnerable oil supplier from an environmental point of view.
The Bloc Québécois has a credible plan that is based on four pillars. The first one, which we mentioned earlier, is to set absolute greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. The government prides itself on having set greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, and it wants to reduce emissions by 20% by the year 2020, based on the 2006 levels. However, the Bloc believes that this is just wishful thinking. 
Indeed, the most recent report released by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development is an eloquent reminder of that.
Not only does the government overestimates its ability to reduce greenhouse gases, it is also unable to measure what little progress it has made, if any. This government has obviously failed its test on the economy and the environment.
By stubbornly refusing to set clear absolute greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, the Government of Canada is preventing the market from correcting by itself the increase in greenhouse gases.
I thought the Conservatives supported free market, but here they are refusing to create a carbon exchange based on absolute targets that would allow an environmental financial market to solve, thanks to the invisible hand, part of the problem.
Alas, the Conservatives prefer strong government intervention to help the oil industry and big polluters, while preventing the creation of a carbon free market, both in North America and at the international level. 
The second element of our plan is a cap-and-trade market, commonly known as a carbon exchange. As I just said, setting absolute reduction targets will make it possible to create a carbon exchange.
This market would operate in the same way as a traditional exchange, using permits that represent rights to emit GHGs. There would be buyers, sellers and intermediaries, who in other fields are known as brokers. Instead of buying shares, companies would buy CO2 emission rights and credits.
But for that to work, we have to impose emission quotas on the government, companies and organizations, and those quotas have to be complied with. In a free-market system, good students are rewarded and poor students, penalized. But the Conservative federal government, under pressure from the oil lobbies, is refusing to go this route.
The Conservative government is defending poor students and refusing to penalize companies that do not want to invest in technologies of the future to improve their environmental record.
The federal government is refusing a free-market system for GHG emissions. This government wants to keep on favouring one sector over the others. It wants to keep on favouring big oil at the expense of other sectors of the future.
There is a clear and simple concept in environmental economics and economics in general that is known as negative externalities. In environmental economics, it is clear, except to this government, which is fanatical about economics, that the negative externality is pollution and GHG emissions.
By refusing a carbon exchange based on absolute targets, the government is making the people of Quebec and Canada pay so that the oil industry can get rich at the expense of the environment and health.
Hon. members need to understand that this is really important to us, and especially to our businesses. The manufacturing industry, particularly forestry companies like the ones in my riding, has worked hard to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30% since 1990.
By not recognizing these companies' efforts by setting absolute targets, with 1990 as the base year and a real carbon exchange, the government is hurting these companies and refusing to support economic development.
That is why I invite all our colleagues to vote in favour of this Bloc Québécois initiative.
James Bezan: Madam Speaker, as I said before, it is a pleasure to speak to Motion No. 287. In my role as the chair of the environment committee, I will not be supporting this motion.
First, I have to emphasize that collaborating with the United States is critical for Canada and we have begun important work with the Obama administration to this end. On this side of the House, we recognize and want to build on shared Canadian and U.S. principles on climate change. As the U.S. develops its national climate change policy, Canada will continue to look for opportunities for harmonization to ensure our policies are effective and that Canadian companies are in a strong position to compete in the North American marketplace.
The clean energy dialogue with the United States is a critical step in this collaboration. As everyone probably knows, Canada and the U.S. agreed to establish a clean energy dialogue to collaborate on the development of clean energy science and technologies that will reduce greenhouse gases and combat climate change. The foundations of the clean energy dialogue have been established and concrete steps toward its implementation are being taken. Three joint Canada-U.S. working groups have been formed and are expected to report on their progress this coming August. 
The use of 1990 as a baseline for absolute targets as proposed in Motion No. 287 does not make any sense for Canada. Under the previous Liberal government, no action was taken from 1993 to 2006, making a 1990 base year impossible. As the leader of the Liberal Party admitted, the Liberals did not get the job done.
The important consideration is the real results that are achieved. Our plan will provide the right incentives to drive long-term transformational change. 
Canada is not alone in using a more recent baseline year. The U.S. has signalled that it will use 2005 as a baseline year. Europe has announced that it will also use a 2005 baseline for its target starting at 2013. Australia proposed a 2000 baseline in its greenhouse gas regulations. There are good reasons for this and that is because we have much better information on these later base years.
We are moving forward with a balanced approach that will reduce greenhouse gases from all major sectors and sources of emissions and will seek to ensure environmental progress and economic prosperity. This is a long-term challenge that requires immediate action to reduce emissions and develop cleaner technologies. 
The Government of Canada has made an ambitious yet realistic commitment to reducing Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions by 20% from 2006 levels by 2020, and 60% to 70% by 2050. Our approach is one that makes sense for Canada and we are working closely with the provinces and stakeholders as we move forward.
The Government of Canada's approach will achieve maximum emission reductions while taking into account the economic costs, including potential implications for our competitiveness and costs for Canadians. We want federal climate change regulations to work in tandem with tax policy, tariff policy, technology policy and other related policies to promote timely domestic investment.
We have taken significant action on this front. We have recently launched the clean energy fund, which will invest $1 billion over five years in clean energy research and demonstration projects. A significant portion of this will support large-scale carbon capture and storage demonstration projects. This is a key component of clean energy research and one in which Canada is a world leader.
Cleaner electricity generation is also crucial to achieving our targets. The electricity sector remains the single greatest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada and accounted for approximately 17% of Canada's total GHG emissions in 2006.
To address this, the Government of Canada has made a commitment to ensure that 90% of Canada's electricity needs are provided by non-emitting sources such as hydro, nuclear, clean coal or wind power by 2020. To reach this ambitious goal, our government will continue to provide support for biofuels, biomass, wind and other energy alternatives.
We are also working to reduce emissions from the sector by putting in incentives to phase out coal-fired facilities as they reach the end of their useful life and replace them with cleaner alternatives.
In addition, on April 1, we announced tough new regulations on the automotive sector to increase fuel economy, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing emissions from cars and light trucks will have a significant impact. Transportation accounts for approximately one quarter of Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions. Passenger cars and light duty trucks account for nearly half of that, contributing 12% of Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions.
I would also note that on May 18, President Obama adopted a similar approach to reduce automotive emissions in the United States.
We are also working to reduce emissions from a wide range of other industrial sectors, including iron and steel, pulp and paper, cement, oil and gas, and many more, building on the regulatory framework set out in the Turning the Corner plan of March 2008.
As part of our responsible approach, we are refining the regulatory framework in light of the economic downturn and these developments in the United States.
As members can tell, the government's approach is the right approach.
Motion No. 287, although well intended, is out of step with the United States, Australia and Europe. As Canadians, we want a global solution that reduces emissions and ensures we have a level playing field so that we protect Canadians jobs and Canadian businesses.
Nicolas Dufour: Madam Speaker, before I begin my speech about Motion No. 287 introduced by my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry, I would like to go back to what the last Conservative speaker just said, which is quite horrendous, in my opinion. The government says it is changing its policies to try to bring them in line with those of the United States, but as we can see, it is not harmonizing its policies, but kowtowing to the Americans.
Canada could have become an international environmental leader after signing the Kyoto protocol. It has not done so, and I find that regrettable, because Quebec has already taken the necessary steps to become an environmental leader. The problem is that every time Quebec speaks up and tries to state its position, it is lumped in with the rest of Canada, which tarnishes our record, destroys what we are trying to do and cuts our funding every time we try to carry out an environmental project.
I would also like to go back to what the member for Madawaska—Restigouche said in this House a few minutes ago about young people and the environment. As a young person, I want to say that my generation is extremely concerned about the environment. It is already an important issue, but in the coming years, it will become increasingly important to all people. People are starting to be very active in protecting the environment and are becoming more and more interested in this issue.
My generation will remember what the Conservative government did when, in a few years' time, our rivers are polluted and our farmland is no longer arable. We will remember that the Conservatives were primarily to blame for our environmental failure. The Liberals were no better. Our generation will also remember what they did after 1993. They were in power for nearly 15 years, yet they were unable to do anything about the environment. They did sign the Kyoto protocol, but they did not comply with it. Like the Conservatives, the Liberals have a dismal environmental record. Quebeckers, particularly my generation, will remember this, especially when the next election takes place.
I want to come back to the Conservatives. I find it interesting to see the behaviour of these people who claim to be right-wing and in favour of the free market and Adam Smith's invisible hand. I am referring to what my colleague from Trois-Rivières said earlier about this right-wing idea of the invisible hand and the free market. The Conservatives are opposed to one of the finest free-market initiatives: the carbon exchange. Would this not be a way to encourage companies to be increasingly environmentally friendly and to make an ongoing effort to be socially responsible? I find it odd that this government, which is constantly boasting about being right-wing and in favour of tax cuts and the invisible hand, sadly drops the ball and makes mistakes at the first opportunity it has to try to do the right thing.
It is unfortunate that we have a great plan but, because of an ideological, stubborn and even dogmatic government, we are going to miss our chance to carry it out. We had a wonderful opportunity to have a very good motion passed, which could have encouraged the government to do more for the environment. Unfortunately, the motion is going to die in the government's hands.
I am not surprised to see the popularity of Conservatives in Quebec declining in pre-election polls. They are so adamantly against the environment that it is bordering on being completely ridiculous. Quebeckers care about the environment.
A number of environmental plans and initiatives have been implemented. I am thinking of hydroelectricity in particular. Quebec is a world leader in hydroelectricity, a clean and renewable energy. Unfortunately, when we look at the rest of Canada's energy plan, it is rather frightening. There are the oil sands, a little, a lot even, of hydroelectricity in Ontario, and nuclear energy. In Quebec, our primary energy sources are hydroelectricity and wind energy. 
I would like to relate this to Quebec sovereignty. My NDP, Conservative and Liberal colleagues in Quebec will understand that if Quebec were an independent country, we could have made choices that were different from the rest of Canada.
We are not against Canada, but our choices and values are different. Instead of spending massive amounts of money or making tax cuts that directly benefit the oil industry, we would have preferred to invest in plans for the future of Quebec, in environmental projects. We would have invested in hydroelectricity and wind energy projects. We would have invested in projects to help us reduce our dependence on oil and nuclear energy.
The Bloc Québécois has been raising the issue of the environment for years, through its outstanding environment critic from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. The Bloc is the only party to have brought that debate to the House of Commons. It is the only one to serve as a watchdog for Quebeckers in Ottawa, to force the federal government, be it Liberal or Conservative, to honour its international commitments with respect to the environment and the Kyoto protocol that it signed. I must say that it hardly surprises me that the Conservatives, like the Liberals, continue to renege on promises they have made and international treaties they have signed. They are unable to honour their own signatures. When it comes to issues like the environment, I am absolutely staggered to see the government not take them more seriously. It does not even have the courage, the presence of mind or the will to honour its own signature on such treaties. 
Coming back to Motion No. 287, I find it very ironic when I think of a carbon market compatible with international markets. I have here a list of seven American states in the northeast and along the Atlantic—namely, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and Vermont—which have launched a regional initiative to fight greenhouse gases. The Conservatives laughed at us when we put that motion forward. Now, I am the one laughing because, all of a sudden, they are having an environmental awakening. They had no plan, but now they suddenly want to put one forward. Unfortunately, this is another improvised plan, as usual. In addition, there is a woeful lack of leadership on the part of the government where environmental policies are concerned. The funny thing is that, since Barack Obama was elected, it has suddenly tried to paint itself green, but a very light shade of green.
The Bloc Québécois is proposing absolute greenhouse gas emission targets, a cap-and-trade market commonly known as a carbon exchange, using 1990 as the base year from which to assess progress, and recognizing the efforts made by businesses.
Members from Quebec, including those from the Bloc, the Liberal Party and the NDP, are aware that a number of Quebec companies have made very impressive efforts. Our paper mills, aluminum smelters and forestry companies have done extraordinary work to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and set reduction targets based on the most up-to-date scientific knowledge.
That is why the Bloc Québécois supports Motion No. 287.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): No other members having risen, the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry has the floor.
Claude DeBellefeuille: Madam Speaker, as I mentioned on April 30, during the first hour of debate on this motion, climate change is one of the biggest challenges that the world has to face. It is imperative to act without delay, and in an efficient and fair manner. The Bloc Québécois is proposing a plan that will enable Canada to get back on track and to move as close as possible to the targets set by the Kyoto protocol. Furthermore, this plan meets the reduction target recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to prevent global warming and its irreversible consequences.
As my colleague mentioned earlier, this plan is primarily based on the establishment of absolute greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, with 1990 as the base year. The plan is also based on a territorial approach, on the creation of a carbon exchange, and on federal measures that the government can implement in its own areas of jurisdiction. Motion No. 287 deals with the implementation of a major component of the Bloc Québécois' plan, namely the establishment of a carbon exchange with absolute emission targets, and with 1990 as the base year. 
I remind the House that a carbon exchange is a tool enabling a company which has brought its greenhouse gas emissions below its reduction objectives to sell the tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions that it would still be entitled to emit. This is a powerful financial incentive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, because the company can cash in on its reductions. However, a carbon exchange can only achieve its full potential if absolute greenhouse gas emission reduction targets are set. I should also point out that the base year, 1990, is a very important part of this motion. 
I want to make all hon. members aware of this: the year 1990 is not only an environmental issue, but also an economic issue. There are hundreds of millions of dollars at stake. Let us imagine that there is a real carbon exchange in place right now. I am predicting that there will be one eventually, despite the unwillingness of the Conservative government. So, let us imagine that there is such a carbon exchange now.
Quebec reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 2.8% between 1990 and 2006. In Quebec, many companies decreased emissions whereas in Alberta and Saskatchewan emissions rose by 36.6% and 33% respectively. By choosing 2005 as the base year, all efforts made between 1990 and 2005 will be invalidated. They will count for nothing. It is important to understand that the more we reduce our emissions, the more difficult it will be to further reduce them.
Meanwhile, the oil companies have been increasing their emissions for 16 years. Thus, they have a significant “cushion”, if you will, of emissions. Their capacity for reductions will be greater since their emissions are already so high. If we establish a carbon exchange with absolute targets and 2005 as the base year, it is possible that companies in Quebec, Ontario and the Maritimes, which have made efforts to cut emissions, may have to buy emissions permits from the oil companies, which racked up their emissions just in time for the 2005 base year. It is as though the oil companies themselves were proposing the 2005 base year.
I would like to remind my colleagues how important the 1990 base year is to my motion. There will be a carbon exchange with absolute targets. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. Even the Conservative government knows it. Many members of this House have companies in their ridings that have already made efforts to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The 1990 base year is the only option that is fair to them. It will ensure that they will not have to turn to oil companies to purchase emissions credits. That would be adding insult to injury.
In closing, I would like to thank the members from all parties who spoke about this motion, especially the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, the Bloc Québécois environment critic who has championed this cause for many years.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):  In my opinion the yeas have it.
  And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 3, 2009, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
It being 2:35 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, June 1, 2009 at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 2:36 p.m.)