Hoang Mai

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her speech on Bill C-15.

We often hear the Liberals say that, on this issue, we are delaying things a bit. We said—and my colleague stressed that point—that amendments had already been proposed and accepted by all committee members, including the minister. Later on, the government came back with a bill that excludes all these amendments and, somewhat blindly, Liberal members are supporting the government on this issue. As for us, we have taken a different position.

I wonder if my colleague could elaborate on her experience and on our confidence in this government when it comes to accepting our amendments.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, once again I want to commend the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for all the work that he does, but especially for his speech today.

We owe members of the Canadian Forces a great deal of respect. My colleague addressed many procedural aspects, which affect many things.

I would like to know what impact having a criminal record has on the life and future of Canadian Forces members when they return to civilian life.

[Petitions, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to table a petition signed by over 1,600 residents protesting the closure of the Whitehorse Canada Revenue Agency office. I would like to send special thanks to Carol Church for putting this petition together.

Cuts to CRA are affecting northern communities. Closure of the Whitehorse tax office will mean a thousand kilometre trip to the closest CRA point of contact. Seniors, young families and business owners depend on this office for assistance.

The NDP asks the federal government to reconsider its reckless cut. Unlike the Conservatives, we actually listen to Canadians' concerns. That is why Yukoners have entrusted us, the official opposition, with this important task instead of their MP.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, November 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech.

We agree with our colleagues that Bill C-45 is an omnibus bill. However, I would like to set the record straight. The Conservatives tabled in committee a motion to limit debate. In fact, the hon. member is well aware of that since he sits on the Standing Committee on Finance. So, we were allowed to debate until midnight, but afterwards we could no longer discuss the legislation or the amendments. We had to vote.

The hon. member and the Liberals proposed 3,000 amendments. Quite frankly—and my colleague must acknowledge this—these amendments were not all substantial. A number of them were even very superficial. Yet, even those minor amendments were rejected. Later on, the hon. member voted in favour of the clause in question.

He claims we are saying one thing and doing another. However, it should be noted that the Liberals voted 114 times in support of the Conservatives on a confidence vote, and they supported three budgets after rising in the House to voice their opposition.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, November 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we on this side are truly concerned about the environment and we take a long-term view. We are not just thinking about little housekeeping tasks.

I do recognize that some action has been taken, and that is important, but the hon. member does not understand that the environment is not a concern for us alone, but also for our children and grandchildren. Right now, we say that polluters must clean up, but polluters continue to pollute, and future generations will have to pay the price. That is what we are trying to explain to our hon. colleague.

We want to invest, to move forward, and to have a sustainable economy. I hope the hon. member realizes that we will not always be able to depend on fossil fuels. One day we will have to transition to the power sources of the future. Why not do it now, to make sure the change gets made? Why not tell today's polluters that they must pay, rather than saying that if our children want a cleaner environment they will be the ones to pay the price?

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, November 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question, but perhaps not its underlying premise. I will explain, because I know the hon. member was not present at the Standing Committee on Finance, so I do not know if he understands everything that happened.

What happened was that a motion was moved by the Conservatives, who can do whatever they like in this committee with the majority they have. The committee was able to debate until midnight, proposing amendments and discussing them. Then, at midnight, debate was shut down. I recognize that this is a non-transparent government that pushes us around and prevents debate. At that point, all we could do was vote.

The Liberals decided to use all the time to talk about "ridiculous" amendments. There are 3,000 amendments and some are very slight and lacking in substance. Sometimes they proposed amendments, the amendments were rejected, and in the end, they voted in favour of the proposal.

What we wanted to do was to debate these amendments, propose our own, and explain the advantages and disadvantages. There were more advantages. Unfortunately, the Liberals prevented us from having a proper discussion and debate.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, November 29th, 2012]

I would like to point out that I was not referring specifically to what an individual did, but rather about things that were being said in general. It was not an attack on a specific member. I do not, therefore, withdraw what I said—it is entirely true.

If my colleagues opposite were more aware and listened, they would know that there is a difference between a carbon market and a carbon tax.

When I ran in the 2008 election, the Liberals proposed a carbon tax, the Conservatives proposed a carbon market, as did the NDP. The difference with, and the advantage of, a carbon market is that it paves the way for the future. It is important to understand that there is a polluter-pay principle that must be taken into consideration.

Nevertheless, it is also important to think about investing in the future, in what is called “the green economy” and in technologies that, later, will ensure that we are less reliant on fossil fuels, such as oil. It is important to think about the future which, quite clearly, is not this Conservative government's intention, nor that of its members.

There is really a lack of vision, and there is a stark difference between what the Conservatives are saying, what we are saying, and even what the Liberals said about their carbon tax, which truly was a tax on carbon.

I would encourage my friends to think carefully about this and to get the information they need. If the issue is too complicated for them, we can explain it in point form and use illustrations. Then they might see the difference. However, they really need to understand these differences from the point of view of people who are interested in standing up for Canadians' interests rather than simply repeating and rehashing idiocies.

Once again, I would like to come back to Bill C-45 because it is important. The Conservatives have made changes and have chipped away at environmental protection provisions. The deputy environment critic has spoken about how the bill will directly affect lakes and navigable waters.

In fact, this bill is called “omnibus bill No. 2”. The government waged war on anything to do with environmental assessment in the first bill. Now that the Conservatives have realized that certain aspects of the environment are still protected, it has turned its attention to lakes and rivers. The Minister of Transport says that the legislation never protected lakes and rivers.

However, we know what we see, and our rivers and lakes must be protected. I come from Quebec and, in my opinion, there is nothing more important than water, and this holds true for Canada, too. It is crucial.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, November 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures. I already had the opportunity to speak to the bill in the House, and we are still talking about it after examining it in the Standing Committee on Finance. The process has been very long. We embarked upon a marathon of votes. Indeed, we voted on amendments for several days in a row.

I do not know whether I should thank my Liberal colleagues for having introduced 3,000 amendments. I understand what they were trying to do—they were trying to talk about the issue at hand—but I am not sure about their approach. We have proposed amendments that are fair, well written, and that are intended to improve the bill.

Basically, this bill is a step backwards when it comes to the environment. My colleagues have said this several times during question period and in the House, in general. A number of measures are very damaging to the environment. I will come back to that.

One thing that I would like to discuss is the fact that the government often boasts that the bill will create jobs. Let us not forget that based on the initial budget and figures from the Department of Finance and the Minister of Finance, we know that the unemployment rate has gone up. If the goal was to make the unemployment rate go up, then I congratulate the Conservatives, because their efforts are paying off.

Several thousands of jobs are being lost as a result of this government's cuts. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that approximately 43,000 jobs will be lost. If this is lumped together with previous cuts, approximately 102,000 jobs will have been lost.

When it comes to job losses, it is important to understand what is happening from an economic standpoint and, especially, in terms of services provided to Canadians. The Minister of Finance said from the outset that there would be no problem, and that services would in no way be affected, that Canadians would not see much of a change because services would not be affected.

In my opinion, it is already clear that services are being affected. In my riding of Brossard—La Prairie, the government closed a Canada Revenue Agency office, which means that persons with reduced mobility, who can normally apply for a disability tax credit, can no longer get information. It is becoming increasingly difficult for people who do not have access to the Internet or who have a hard time understanding what they see on the Internet. Forget about service by phone. It is extremely long and complicated. Once again, services are obviously being lost. This is just one example, but there are many others.

Another thing stood out to me in particular. Two weeks ago, I met with some people when I visited Whitehorse, Yukon.

They were really angry because the government decided to shut down the Canada Revenue Agency office in Whitehorse. That meant people had to drive 1,000 kilometres to the next CRA office. Basically, that means less services for people in Yukon and more cost to them, if they have to drive so far. Also, if they have questions to ask CRA officials, they may now have to go through a private consultant, someone they have to pay, and there will be increased fees in terms of postage.

Again, cutting off services to Canadians and increasing fees that are transferred to them is not the way to go when we talk about a budget, especially in the circumstances where we are right now with Europe being very slow and with the U.S. hopefully not going over a fiscal cliff at the end of this year or the beginning of next year. Things are not certain and what the government is doing is cutting services to Canadians and laying people off.

I want to come back to a subject that is very important to me: the environment. My colleagues often say that the NDP wants to implement a carbon tax. They refer to our plan and I know that they know they are not telling the truth.

I must admit that I am very disappointed to see adult elected officials straight out lying and spreading misinformation. It is sad to see that in the House. They try to be very nice with the Prime Minister; he gives them lines to repeat and they must listen to him.

I find it disappointing to see elected officials rising to read lies. I find it even more disappointing that they even go to the Standing Committee on Finance, where we are supposed to have intelligent discussions and talk about real issues, and they come out with such ridiculous statements.

I know that the members opposite know what a lie is. If they were listening, they would know that there is a difference between—

[Questions on the Order Paper, November 19th, 2012]

With regard to the safety and security of the Champlain Bridge in Montreal: (a) what contingency plan does the government have in case a serious emergency or other factor requires a shut-down of the bridge; (b) were there safety concerns that prompted the Nuns’ Bridge announcement in July and, if so, were these concerns based on a report or study; and (c) at what time in the planning stages of the replacement of the Champlain Bridge was the elaboration of a temporary bridge included?

[Questions on the Order Paper, November 19th, 2012]

With regard to the proposed new bridge on the St. Lawrence River: (a) why did the 2012 budget not include long-term planning for the proposed bridge; (b) have the cost estimates been further refined since initial estimates of between three and five billion dollars were made, and how are these estimated costs broken down, in as much detail as possible; (c) what further factors need to be taken into account to refine the estimates; (d) at what time in the financial analysis process will the Treasury Board of Canada or the Department of Finance be involved and to what extent; (e) has Transport Canada chosen the funding model and, if so, which one, and why; (f) will there be any public consultation concerning the funding model; (g) have any economic models been created to understand the financial impacts of the various options for the project; (h) is public-private partnership (P3) still an option (i) who is involved in making the decision about P3, (ii) have there been concrete steps made in order to finalize a decision, (iii) will there be any public consultation regarding P3; (i) has Transport Canada decided on the type of structure (bridge or tunnel); (j) what are the initial outcomes of the government’s collaboration with the province of Québec to integrate transit onto the new bridge; (k) has Transport Canada been involved in the study of integrating a Light Rail Transit (LRT) onto the bridge, (i) at what stage in the planning process will the government define the parameters of public transportation on the bridge, (ii) how is the government coordinating the planning process with the government of Québec, the Agence métropolitaine de transport and other interested parties, (iii) when are the results of this study expected and will they be made public, (iv) is the LRT the preferred option according to the current status of the study, (v) will the government help fund a project of this calibre if LRT is chosen as the appropriate option; (l) has the number of lanes on the new bridge been established and, if not, (i) what will be the process determining that recommendation, (ii) who is responsible for making the final decision, (iii) are there any plans to include bicycle paths or pedestrian walkways; (m) has the government studied the possibility of a gradual replacement instead of the complete new bridge, such as the proposal brought forward by civil engineer René Therrien, as found at the URL http://solutionpontchamplain.com/la-solution/; (n) will the preliminary design and financial analysis include a team of architects to consider aesthetic aspects of the new structure, (i) what will be the process determining that recommendation, (ii) who is responsible for making the final decision, (iii) will there be an architecture competition; (o) will the name of the new bridge over the St. Lawrence remain the Champlain Bridge, (i) if not, has a name been chosen and by whom, (ii) if no name has been chosen, what will be the process in order to determine the name of the new bridge, (iii) has a timeline been specified to determine the name of the new bridge; (p) regarding the PricewaterhouseCooper-led consortium contract, (i) what type of financial services will it offer, (ii) what type of technical and engineering work will it provide, (iii) what is the total cost of the 18 month contract, (iv) will the PricewaterhouseCooper-led consortium continue to be part of the process, and will the government take into account its recommendations; (q) how will the recommendation for the procurement be accessed by the government and what type of recommendation does the procurement process and construction usually entail; (r) what are the differences between the eight new design options for the initial review, (i) will these be made public, (ii) at what time; and (s) what options are being considered by Transport Canada regarding the implementation of tolls, (i) has the government decided if the new structure will be a toll bridge, (ii) if not, when will the government make a decision on this, (iii) was the PricewaterhouseCooper-led consortium mandated to present the government with financial options that would include a toll bridge, (iv) if the government decides to include a toll on the bridge, what will the profit go towards and how will the price of the toll be decided, (v) will there be different categories of prices and, if so, how will these be determined?