Philip Toone

[Iran, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Chair, I have a question for the member opposite.

The government recently announced that Rights & Democracy would be closing. Rights & Democracy was a very important and valuable tool for networking with overseas agencies. It worked with non-governmental organizations and individuals in Iran. Rights & Democracy was a very important tool for creating these relationships.

Now that Rights & Democracy is closing, what tool is the hon. member proposing we use to continue to connect with non-governmental organizations, which, I might add, are important allies in advancing human rights around the world?

[Iran, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Chair, no one can question the member for Mount Royal's credibility on the human rights file.

I also would like to congratulate him on all the work he has done in his riding. I do not think anyone can question his determination and devotion to his parliamentary responsibilities and his privileges. It is important that the member be able to express his parliamentary privileges on every occasion possible. What he has done with the Interparliamentary Union that he has set up is commendable. It is an excellent example of non-partisanship that we could all learn from.

Iran has a terrible record when it comes to executions. It is second to none after China. Our country and the Conservative government have not done quite enough in my opinion to condemn executions. Could the member address that? Are we doing enough? Are we sending a mixed message where we actually say in some cases executions are permissible and in other cases they are not? What would the member say about our policy regarding executions in foreign countries?

[Iran, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Chair, I wish to thank my colleague for speaking tonight. His speech was very thoughtful.

I would like to ask him a question about the right to abortion in Iran. In Iran, according to the law, anyone who causes an abortion must pay a fine.

Does he think that this is an appropriate way to deal with people who participate in abortions?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 8th, 2012]

With respect to maritime rescue centres: (a) how many requests for assistance were handled by the Quebec City Rescue Centre between 2006 and 2011, broken down by (i) year, (ii) language of response requested, (iii) degree of danger (or classification of incident); (b) what is the current annual call capacity of the Rescue Coordination Centre in Trenton; (c) how many requests for assistance were handled by the Trenton Rescue Coordination Centre between 2006 and 2011, broken down by (i) year, (ii) language of response requested,(iii) degree of danger; (d) how many maritime coordinators are located at the Trenton Rescue Coordination Centre and how many of them are bilingual; (e) what is the annual call capacity of the Halifax Joint Rescue Coordination Centre; (f) how many requests for assistance were handled by the Halifax Joint Rescue Coordination Centre between 2006 and 2011, broken down by (i) year, (ii) language of response requested, (iii) degree of danger; (g) how many maritime coordinators are at the Halifax Joint Rescue Coordination Centre and how many of them are bilingual; and (h) what standards and criteria are used to determine the level of bilingualism of maritime/air coordinators at the rescue coordination centres?

[May 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I again thank the parliamentary secretary. His words are certainly well considered.

I appreciate the efforts of the government to seek out and consult with local populations. However, I would like to know specifically what form those consultations have taken and to whom they have spoken, because the people with whom I have been speaking consider that the changes being proposed and circulated at this point would hinder local communities, not help them.

I have not heard any fishing association at this point tell me that it is looking forward to the elimination of fleet separation policies. I have heard from larger companies, such as those who do fish processing, that they would like to see a leveling out of the platform so they can access these fishing permits and transform the product afterward. For them it would be very economical and profitable.

However, the economic spinoff of spreading that wealth among all the communities on the Atlantic coast would certainly seem to be much more beneficial for local communities and for the federal government because we would actually raise more revenues this way.

[May 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for staying at this later hour and attending these proceedings. It is appreciated.

Commercial fishing and the fish processing sector are an economic engine not only in my riding, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, but also in neighbouring ridings.

The people in the coastal communities of the Gaspé in the Magdalen Islands make their living from fishing and have done so for hundreds of years. As a result of the policies on fleet separation and owner-operators, fishers in the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands continue to use their own fishing boats and have licences issued in their name. They can earn a living from fishing. They invest their profits in the coastal regions where they live.

These policies protect the fishery economy, which in return creates thousands of secondary jobs in the fisheries sector and in adjacent sectors within the region. The elimination of independent fishing would be harmful to the coastal communities of the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands, as well as to other adjacent ridings, and towns and villages that have existed for hundreds of years would be at risk of disappearing.

The Conservative government talks about “modernizing” the fisheries. It also talks about modernizing the Fisheries Act by revoking section 35. Apparently, this means getting rid of the independent fishing fleets and leaving the coastal fishery in the hands of large corporations. Indeed, the Conservative government plans to eliminate the policies on fleet separation and owner-operators to allow the large corporations—the processors and others—to take control of the coastal fishery on the east coast.

Many fisheries groups and associations in Atlantic Canada are opposed to these changes. These groups and associations represent fishers in the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Quebec.

Signatories from Quebec include the Alliance des pêcheurs professionnels du Québec, which includes the Association des pêcheurs propriétaires des Îles-de-la-Madeleine, the Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels du sud de la Gaspésie, the Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels de la Haute et de la Moyenne Côte-Nord and the Association des capitaines-propriétaires de la Gaspésie.

These groups of Atlantic fishers represent the vast majority of permit holders and crew members in Atlantic Canada's fishing industry. In 2010, fleets of Atlantic owner-operators harvested $1 billion worth of lobster, snow crab and shrimp, or 63% of the total value of fishing activity in Atlantic Canada for the same year.

By eliminating both the owner-operator and fleet separation policies, the Conservative government will be handing over almost $1 billion in economic spinoffs to major corporations, to the detriment of our coastal communities.

Why is the Conservative government turning its back on Canada's coastal communities?

[Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, May 3rd, 2012]

Madam Speaker, the 425-page bill before us here today deals with complex issues that were not disclosed in advance. I also heard several MPs say that they had heard rumours about major changes to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and huge changes to the Fisheries Act—probably the most significant change to that legislation in 40 years—hidden in the budget implementation bill.

This has nothing to do with the budget and everything to do with coastal communities that will have an incredibly hard time adjusting to such a major change concerning habitat protection. It is inconceivable that this change is not being examined by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. We are talking about just seven days of debate and then the bill will be sent to a special budget committee, even though this will have an enormous impact on Canadians and their communities. They will not be able to maintain the same quality of life.

Why are the Conservatives in such a hurry to send this to a committee that has nothing to do with the budget?

[Safer Railways Act, May 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your intervention, which I found very fair.

With respect to Bill S-4 and rail safety in Canada, this bill is certainly of interest to my constituents. We have a railway that is over 100 years old. It has an unusual history that I will share with my colleagues in a moment or two.

On the one hand, the government says that it wants to improve rail safety in Canada, but on the other, it wants to privatize Canadian railways. I do not know how the government can square those two objectives without considering the fact that Canadians railways have been neglected and have deteriorated to the point that rail service to some of the regions has been cancelled.

We have been waiting quite some time for a bill of this scope that can improve rail safety. However, we must also work together to ensure that our railways do not deteriorate. A railway's safety cannot be assured if the rail line itself has deteriorated to the point where trains can no longer travel on it.

In Canada, for instance, two railways have deteriorated to such an extent that trains no longer use them. I am referring to the Malahat railway on Vancouver Island and the Baie-des-Chaleurs railway, which no longer travel on the rail lines. This is precisely because the railways were left to deteriorate to the point where passenger safety could no longer be guaranteed and commercial goods could no longer be transported on these rail lines.

Some communities are now in a precarious situation because they depended on the railway, the tourism it created and the goods it transported. These communities no longer have access to the railway because the government drags its heels when it comes time to ensure the safety of the railway. The communities affected by these deteriorations are now in dire straits. They are no longer able to do what the Conservative government is proposing that they do and that is to take over. Remote communities are told not to worry because they can restore the railway themselves. There are also told that legislation will be passed once they have finished restoring the railway.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I forgot to mention at the beginning of my speech that I would be sharing my time with the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, if I may.

The bill the Senate is proposing today on improving the safety of our railway is meaningless if the railway has deteriorated and the means are not in place to restore it. By the way, I am a little disappointed in everything the Senate proposes, regardless of the bill, but that is another issue.

The Conservatives would have us believe that privatization is the answer to just about all Canada's problems, but this privatization will not work.

In the Gaspé, a consulting firm was hired to assess the condition of our railway and to determine what it would take to restore it. The cost of upgrading our railway was estimated to be $93 million. The government is saying that the municipalities in the Gaspé are supposed to find $93 million to repair their railway. That does not work. They cannot do it.

Furthermore, the government sold them on a project in 2006 when it told them that their section of the railway would be privatized, the ownership transferred to the municipalities and a co-operative of municipalities would be created and would be responsible for the work to be done. At the time, CN and its allies did not conduct a real assessment of the government's needs and trotted out any old figure.

They said it would cost $19 million to restore our railway. That was not the case. Today, five years later, we see that $93 million is required. There is a $73 million deficit to make up in order to restore our railway. We asked the Conservatives whether they were prepared to help us improve our railway, and the answer we got was total silence. We got no answer.

The communities in the Gaspé, and it is apparently the same on Vancouver Island, depend on their railway. It is a job creator and a wealth generator. It is worth a lot more than the $93 million that has to be found in order to restore it. It creates jobs and it means that tourists can come to our region and spend money. It makes it possible for new businesses to set up and have a safe and effective shipping service. But we do not have the money to restore it.

We want to get serious and enact a bill that says safety is the primary concern. Safety is important, but people still have to be able to use the railway. But it has closed down. I am very happy for this bill to be passed, but the railways outside the major centres are going to be left behind, and that is not going to change. They are going to continue to deteriorate. The government has privatized them. It no longer believes in railways for remote regions and it is abandoning them.

Now it is deciding to focus only on railways in urban areas. I am very happy about that, but even there, the Conservative government is abandoning us. Certainly there is no money in places outside urban areas. The Conservatives are not prepared to give us a hand. We do not have the money to hire people ourselves and buy the resources that are needed to improve our railway.

I would like to give the House an idea of how the railway stands in the Gaspé. The railway network in the Gaspé is a section that is unique in Canada. It is 202 miles long, and it is probably the section with the most bridges anywhere in Canada over the same distance. There are 93 bridges in 202 miles. That is why our railway is so expensive. It has been let go and our bridges have been allowed to deteriorate. That is why we have no VIA Rail service today. We have a “VIA Bus”.

The railway in the Gaspé is supposed to be class 3 track. Trains are not supposed to exceed 45 mph, which is about 70 km/h. At present, trains go over some bridges at 5 mph. That is why VIA Rail no longer wants to go there, because it has become ridiculous. Not only do the trains travel at 5 mph, but they cannot brake on the bridges. If they do, even at 5 mph, the bridge could collapse. This is really very disturbing. It is very important that money be invested so the railway is brought up to standard.

It is all well and good to pass legislation that is, in theory, very useful to Canadians, but if the Conservatives are not prepared to allocate the appropriate resources, at the end of the day, this bill is worthless. This bill is more theoretical than anything else. It needs to go much further than what the Conservatives are proposing. We need a real national transportation plan, a plan that improves transportation for Canadians and that sees it as a given that the environment must be protected, in short, a green plan. That is what we need, a cost-effective plan that generates jobs and wealth.

For the time being, I do see that happening. I am waiting for the Conservatives to propose something appropriate.

[Safer Railways Act, May 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague’s words. I particularly appreciate the last thing he said, when he spoke about something that is of enormous concern to people in my riding: the fact that the railway has deteriorated to the point that it no longer offers its services. The train no longer goes to Gaspé, and that is of enormous concern to us. The federal government is not stepping up to provide us with the assistance and improvements that are needed to get the railway back in service.

I would like to ask my colleague what the government could do and how the bill that is before us could be improved so there would be significant improvement in terms of the deterioration of railway services everywhere in Canada.

[April 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I find the parliamentary secretary's arguments engaging, but they are wrong.

We are saying we are giving people more time to prepare for their incoming poverty, and that is not an acceptable position for any government to take, to give people more time to prepare so they can become poor and unsatisfactorily supported by their government.

The real question here is: Is there any need to do this? If we speak to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the answer to that is no.

We are creating a false argument. The government is trying to spread fear among the Canadian population when none is required. This country is an old country. It is a mature enough country to understand when it is being sold a bill of goods.

The government really needs to speak to real accountants and not just ideologues and see what it can do to help seniors. The NDP has a clear platform on how we want to help seniors. We are looking forward to the day in 2015 when we are going to actually start putting that into effect.