Philip Toone

[Fisheries and Oceans, March 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, eliminating the fleet separation policy will harm independent fishers. The government is only consulting through the Internet. This is of great concern to the coastal communities in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, communities that depend on fishing. Francophones represent 25% of independent fishers. Doing away with the fleet separation policy will have serious repercussions for fishers in Quebec and New Brunswick.

Why are the Conservatives putting the interests of major corporations ahead of those of independent fishers and their families?

[March 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, while I am quite happy that workers' protection will be considered by the environmental review that is being proposed, the real problem is that the CNLOPB only has two reasons to do what it is doing: one, it is there to ensure that the workers will be protected against any possible harm; or two, that there are serious environmental concerns.

There are no workers at the Old Harry site. I do not see how doing what the government is proposing could possibly help workers who simply do not exist. They have not been hired yet. There is nothing there. There is not even exploration that is occurring at this point.

The only thing left for the CNLOPB at this point is to have invoked its own articles and struck this environmental review based on serious environmental concern. I am pleased that the government is actually admitting to the fact that there are serious environmental concerns that must be addressed but they will not be addressed by what is being proposed.

The only real way to address this is to ask the experts. That is why the Environmental Assessment Act actually proposes a serious, credible system to deal with the problems in Old Harry. The problem is to have the commission struck by the environment minister.

[March 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the coastal communities of the five provinces bordering the Gulf of St. Lawrence are concerned about this government's lack of commitment regarding the responsible management of natural resources. Their concern seems justified.

The Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board recently rejected an application from the young oil company Corridor Resources to suspend its drilling permit.

While I applaud the board's decision, I am concerned about the arguments presented by Corridor Resources for the suspension of its permit. The oil company is experiencing financial difficulties. The Gulf of St. Lawrence's ecosystem supports all bordering coastal communities. How is it that a young oil company is authorized to conduct operations in such a fragile area, without adequate financial resources to do so?

I note that the department has approved a Corridor Resources application for a two-year extension of its drilling activities in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and allowed it to dispense with the deposit of a $1 million guarantee. This means that the drilling permit of that oil company was renewed with a two-year rent break, which amounts to $750,000. Normally, that $750,000 would have been paid to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Instead, it will stay in the pockets of an oil company, even if it ends up making a fortune in the gulf.

Is that the government's idea of responsible development, to give money back to oil companies? And what about the very real concerns of Canadians in the five provinces bordering the gulf? It seems to me the department is prepared to deliver permits to any drilling company, regardless of its financial stability.

The government's eagerness to give presents to oil companies does not inspire confidence among Canadians living in the gulf's coastal communities, and nor does its refusal to create an environmental assessment panel, as requested by the board and by Canadians living in the gulf's coastal communities. Even the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers supports the establishment of a federal panel.

Since last summer, the board has had to change its way of assessing the environmental impact of the drilling project several times. The board, which only has the authority to monitor oil and gas development in Newfoundland and Labrador, does not have the power or the resources to deal with our concerns. That does not make sense: the Conservatives seem to show a lack of respect by giving the board such an important mandate without all the necessary powers.

Once again, I am asking the government to establish an environmental assessment panel with the necessary powers to evaluate the impact of all oil and gas development in the gulf. The establishment of this federal panel would reassure Canadians living around the gulf. This is long overdue. We have been asking for it for months now, and we are asking for it again today. I hope the department will agree to this request.

[Criminal Code, February 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-299, which would prescribe a minimum punishment of five years when a kidnap victim is under 16 years of age.

I am appealing to my Conservative colleagues' democratic values and asking them to take a close look at this bill, which has a number of faults that should be corrected. During the debate at second reading of this bill, members said that many children are kidnapped in Canada. The member who just spoke said that this is still a problem in Canada and that it happens often.

In Canada, children are rarely kidnapped by strangers. The RCMP, the Canadian Centre for Child Protection and other experts say that it is very rare. The last time a child was kidnapped by a stranger was 20 years ago. I have to wonder why we need a bill like this, which would impose a minimum sentence and prevent judges from exercising their discretion. This sentence would be imposed regardless of the circumstances of the kidnapping of a child.

Of course, nobody thinks that the kidnapping of a child is a good thing. That would be ridiculous. Parliament must send a clear message to Canadians and to the world that Canada will not tolerate the kidnapping of a child. The Criminal Code already states that the penalty can be as high as life in prison. Existing penalties are harsh enough; making them harsher would be pointless. It is up to judges to determine appropriate penalties in light of the circumstances. The government is using its legislative power to impose a five-year minimum penalty, thereby undermining judges' expertise and usurping their judicial authority. I do not think that this is a good way to legislate in Canada.

We know that strangers rarely kidnap children. At the beginning of this debate, the member for Kootenay—Columbia, who introduced this bill, said that relatives were not considered “strangers”. Several sections, including section 280 of the Criminal Code, already set out penalties for the kidnapping of a child by a relative, specifically a mother or father.

During the debate, we heard that the bill does not cover close relations; it covers only strangers. However, I would like to quote from a study published by the RCMP in 2003, which I have before me in English.

The Abduction of Children by Strangers in Canada: Nature and Scope , December 1, 2003, is a report that was often cited in the last hour of debate back in November. Certain elements of the study were not raised. I would like to raise them now.

If I could speak to the definition of stranger, I will quote a paragraph:

To elaborate further, not only is the term “abduction” difficult to define, but also the term “stranger”.

Boudreaux et al., 1999, define a stranger as:

Someone who the victim has never come into contact with before the offense; anyone who is not part of the immediate family; and everything in between. Commonly referred to as a “non-family member” this person is someone who is not part of the family, such as a babysitter, family friend, acquaintance, boyfriend, and so on.

I think that the next part of the quote is particularly revealing:

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police's Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) operating data entry guidelines define a “stranger” as someone other than the parent or guardian of the victim. This includes siblings, aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins, as well as the non-family members, neighbours and close friends.

If I can continue the debate on the term “stranger”, the bill does not give a proper definition of the term. The member who introduced the bill gave us his definition of stranger, that is, someone whom the child does not know.

However, the people who will be mandated to enforce this piece of legislation are the RCMP or the police. According to the RCMP's definition, a stranger is not someone whom the child does not know, but rather someone whom the child knows very well. An uncle, a grandparent, a cousin—these are close relations. We have all experienced difficult situations within our families. In a family situation that might be very complicated, I have a serious problem with the fact that someone would remove a child, thinking they are protecting that child.

In such situations, judges are in the best position to determine the punishment, which should definitely apply. Only the parent or legal guardian should be allowed to take the child. However, we need to be aware that there are very difficult and emotional situations and that a minimum sentence completely ignores the reasons for removing a child. It is very important to keep in mind that the RCMP's definition is completely different than the definition the bill before us seems to propose.

The bill clearly needs to be amended. It should define the term “stranger”. One debate in the House is not enough. This needs to be clearly defined.

I would like to continue by addressing the issue raised by the Centre for Child Protection or missingkids.ca, which was mentioned in previous debates on this bill. The organization says that it is very rare for a child to be kidnapped by a stranger, which is defined here as a person whom the child does not know very well or at all. I have a problem with the fact that members are rising in the House and saying that this is a frequent occurrence. I would like to know how they are defining kidnapping by a stranger. In fact, from what I understand from organizations working in this field, such occurrences are rare.

A bill like this that will introduce such harsh sentences is completely intolerable. This bill should not be passed. Once again, this bill clearly needs to be amended. I would like the term “stranger” to be defined in the way that experts in the field define it, rather than in the way the legislator defines it, since the legislator, perhaps by omission, has left things vague and has left judges with the discretion to define the term. If the bill seeks to remove judges' discretion and then creates a situation in which it is impossible to define the term “stranger”, the legislator has truly missed the mark.

Most missing children are not necessarily kidnapped. Many of them, particularly teenagers, have run away from home. The bill, which pertains to children up to the age of 16, ignores the fact that 16-year-old children are not usually kidnapped. When a child is kidnapped by a stranger—someone the child does not know—there are serious consequences. Once again, no one will tolerate a child being kidnapped by anyone. We want kidnappers to be punished but we want the punishment to fit the crime.

One member rose as part of this debate and gave the history of the Magna Carta. I do not want to have to refer to the Magna Carta to explain the reason why I do not support the bill as it stands today; however, it is important to understand that mandatory minimum sentencing completely disregards the purpose of—

[Canada Labour Code, February 17th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in this House, just like my colleague from Hochelaga, to support Bill C-315 introduced in the House by my colleague from Trois-Rivières.

This bill deserves our attention and support. It was a mistake, or at least an accident of Canadian history that a constitution was created in Canada that divides jurisdictions into federal and provincial. Our Constitution of 1867 listed a number of provincial jurisdictions. The intention was very clear in 1867: labour laws would largely fall under provincial jurisdiction. However, there are provincial industries that are completely governed by the federal level. We have to move forward with regulations in those fields. I am talking about fields of work that might have escaped the attention of our hon. colleagues of 1867. Obviously, the Internet did not exist in 1867. That is why telecommunications fall under federal jurisdiction today. The Constitution of 1867 states that anything not listed therein will fall under federal jurisdiction. In 1867, the telephone, the Internet and so forth, obviously did not exist.

That is why today we have workers in Quebec employed by Rogers who do not have the same rights as people employed by smaller, provincially regulated companies in Quebec. It is an inequality that we must resolve. Today, with Bill C-315, we can resolve this matter. We can correct this long-standing mistake, which should have been corrected a long time ago. I am surprised that this House has not done anything about these shortcomings before now.

I believe that my colleague from Hochelaga said that it was a shortcoming to have created a situation in which workers in Quebec are not on equal footing. It is completely unacceptable. We cannot allow an employee at a credit union in Quebec to not have the same rights as an employee who works at a National Bank branch. Even the November 23, 2011, edition of Le Droit raised the fact that “English is quite present at the Banque Nationale”.

Surprisingly, I believe that most Quebeckers may not realize that the people they go to see every day, such as National Bank tellers, do not enjoy the same rights as those who work for provincially regulated companies. That is something we need to address. I believe that the bill before us provides an invaluable opportunity to make changes that have been needed for a long time. We should have addressed this issue a long time ago.

Labour law in Canada is not just about the rights and bills that we debate in the House. Today, we are talking about people's day-to-day lives. People have to feel comfortable in their workplace.

I will repeat the point raised by the member for Hochelaga. She said that labour law in Canada is not the same as labour law in Quebec. Those governed by Quebec's labour legislation enjoy a number of benefits not enjoyed by those governed by Canada's labour code. For example, she spoke about the right, during a strike, to not be replaced by scabs. We have that right in Quebec. This is really something that needs to be fixed, but it is not included in this bill. This bill deals with language. I would like to point out that there are many changes that should be made to Canada's labour law. And that may be one of the most important changes that we should address.

Today, we will discuss language rights. I will point out that there are many people who may not understand today that we are not talking about language rights in Canada.

The Official Languages Act will not be affected by today's bill. All the federally regulated services that are already offered in both official languages will continue to be where needed.

In my riding, many anglophones absolutely want to protect their linguistic rights, their culture and their heritage. These anglophone families have been in my riding for hundreds of years, and we are certainly not casting them aside. We will continue to protect their language. It is not a question here of taking away the rights of anglophones in Quebec. It is a question of giving concrete expression to the rights that francophones should have had a long time ago by virtue of the fact that they work in a federally regulated enterprise.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, it is more by constitutional accident that telecommunications companies, for example, are governed by the federal government rather than the provinces. I am convinced that had the telephone and the Internet existed in 1867, they would have been made a provincial responsibility. However, they did not exist at the time. According to the Constitution, anything not already covered automatically falls under federal jurisdiction.

It may have been a mistake at the time, but what is important is to respect the Constitution and everyone's rights in order for all Canadians to be on an equal footing. In one province in particular, it just does not make sense that workers in one company do not have the same rights as workers in another.

I really want to make sure that people understand that Quebec has different responsibilities than the other provinces. The House has recognized it: Quebec is a nation. There are reasons why we said that. It must not be an empty gesture. If the government recognizes that Quebec is a nation, it must be consistent and put forward bills that prove that the House of Commons respects Quebeckers and the role they have to play in our federal system. Quebec is responsible for promoting the French language within the province, in North America and throughout the world.

Canada is a bilingual country founded by at least two nations. I would even say that we should go a bit further and include the first nations among the founding peoples, but that is another bill for another day. Today, we must focus on Bill C-315, the purpose of which is to respect the language rights of Quebec workers. It is not right that, in Quebec, people are being refused rights because they are francophone. In Quebec, a province that is made up of a large francophone majority, it is not right for collective agreements to be written in English only. We must address the major shortcomings in the Canada Labour Code. Amendments must be made. We must implement the changes that the hon. member for Trois-Rivières is proposing in this bill.

Today's bill is in agreement with the Conseil du patronat du Québec, the Quebec Employer's Council. Working effectively can only be good for business.

This is not just a matter of language rights or a matter of human rights, it is also a matter of common sense. In Canada, if a company wants to find workers, it is perfectly normal for that company to offer them working conditions that respect their living conditions and make it easier for them to integrate into the company. It is a matter of respect for the individual.

People often see themselves in terms of their work. They want to go to work knowing that their employer respects them. It has been mentioned a number of times that the rate of depression and even the suicide rate increase when people are unemployed. We want to create workplaces where people feel respected so that they can develop and so that we can have a united Canada that respects the language rights of all Canadians.

[Magdalen Islands Airport, February 17th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, the people of the Magdalen Islands, the Premier of Quebec and many others are calling for a runway that is up to standard.

The fact that very large aircraft cannot land at the airport puts the safety of Magdalen Islands residents at risk, but that is not the only issue. The Magdalen Islands have become a destination of choice for tens of thousands of tourists a year. Extending the runway would therefore also be beneficial from an economic standpoint.

If the safety of residents is not a convincing enough argument for the government, will it consider the economic development argument?

[Magdalen Islands Airport, February 17th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, this week, thousands of people in the Magdalen Islands were without power and heat for several days because of an ice storm. The resources needed to rebuild the network were rushed in by boat. This incident once again shows the need to extend the runway at the Magdalen Islands airport, something residents have been demanding for 25 years.

Will the minister take responsibility and ensure the safety of the people of the Magdalen Islands by giving them a runway that can easily accommodate air ambulances and cargo planes?

[Employment Insurance, February 17th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, today, I would like to present a petition to the House on behalf of the people of Sainte-Thérèse-de-Gaspé who gathered signatures from 800 concerned residents. These people are concerned about the plan to abolish the employment insurance transitional measures and pilot projects as of April 2012. Fishers and forestry workers are still having a hard time.

Many people in the Gaspé have difficulty accumulating enough hours of work to even qualify for employment insurance benefits. Those who do qualify have to wait for up to six weeks without any income. We are calling on the government to maintain the transitional measures for at least two more years. The Gaspé cannot afford another exodus of workers with so many promising projects on the horizon.

The petition that I am tabling today shows that the people of the Gaspé are concerned that they will not be able to continue to live with dignity in their community for very long. The Conservative government is making a mistake by cutting employment insurance rather than eliminating subsidies for oil companies—

[Copyright Modernization Act, February 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my colleague had the opportunity to speak today considering the limited time for debate due to time allocation. It is unfortunate that more people will not be able to speak to this legislation because it is important to our artists.

My colleague said that our performers would be properly protected under the bill but I would challenge him on that. Rural performers in my riding are very concerned about the bill because they do not think it will protect them. They believe that it would protect the entertainment industry but not that it would protect the performers.

I wonder if the member could tell me how the bill could be amended in order to properly protect the interests of our performers, especially performers in rural areas.

[Pensions, February 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, there seem to be a few facts missing in that answer. The government is unravelling in front of our eyes. It promised families it would not touch OAS. Now it is doing just that. It said it was unsustainable. Now the independent PBO has shown that it is. The government members attacked the Liberals' secret plan to raise OAS eligibility from 65 to 67 years, but they have become everything they used to oppose.

In the name of all things holy and decent, I ask the government to give seniors and families an answer. What is going to happen to OAS?