House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2015, with 33% of the vote.
Pensions February 10th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, that is not an answer. They simply refuse to be honest with Canadians. Our seniors worked hard their entire lives in order to leave their children with a better country. Now, under the Conservatives, they are learning that for the first time, their children will live in tougher conditions than they did. It is unacceptable and avoidable.
Those families need to know: will the government increase the age of retirement or not?
Pensions February 10th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, this week, the Conservatives were incredibly transparent with Canadians about the government's priorities when they reopened the abortion debate, condoned torture and fired warning shots into the air. They even made despicable references to the Nazis in their national discourse.
Nevertheless, there is one thing they refuse to be transparent about: does the government plan to raise the age of retirement from 65 to 67 or not?
Sealing Industry February 3rd, 2012
Madam Speaker, this week Canadians learned on a website that Russia has now banned our seal products. This new embargo, in addition to that of the European Union, is a threat to the sealing industry. However, instead of negotiating an agreement for our fishers, the Conservatives are playing political games.
Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans stop playing games and open a dialogue in which stakeholders in the Canadian fishery can participate? Will he finally help them to address the major challenges they face?
Business of Supply February 2nd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the vote on our motion be deferred until Monday, February 6, at the end of government orders.
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns January 30th, 2012
With regard to the Broadband Canada: Connecting Rural Canadians program: (a) as of March 31, 2012, what percentage of Canadians will have access to broadband speeds of at least 1.5 megabytes per second broken down by (i) Geographic Service Area, (ii) year; (b) as of March 31, 2012, how many Canadians are expected to receive broadband access through the program, broken down by (i) Geographic Service Area, (ii) project, (ii) year; (c) from the beginning of the program to this day, how many Canadians were expected to be connected to broadband, broken down by (i) Geographic Service Area, (ii) project, (iii) year; (d) from the beginning of the program until this day, what is the total number of Canadians who have been connected to broadband, and what is the speed of the connection (i) in megabytes per second, (ii) by Geographic Service Area, (iii) by project, (iv) by year; and (e) in order to reach the program’s goal of 98% connectivity, will the program be extended beyond March 2012?
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns January 30th, 2012
With regard to Aboriginal Labour Market Programs, specifically for each of the following, Aboriginal Skills and Employment Partnership and Aboriginal Skills and Employment Fund: (a) which organizations received funding, broken down by province, in (i) 2009, (ii) 2010, (iii) 2011; (b) for each funding recipient, broken down by province, when were the decisions made regarding which organizations would receive funding in (i) 2009, (ii) 2010, (iii) 2011; (c) broken down by province, when was each funding recipient notified that they would receive funding in (i) 2009, (ii) 2010, (iii) 2011; (d)what were the amounts each funding recipient received, broken down by province, in (i) 2009 (ii) 2010, (iii) 2011; (e) broken down by province, when were the funds released to the funding recipients in (i) 2009, (ii) 2010, (iii) 2011; (f) what criteria were used to rank the applications in (i) 2009, (ii) 2010, (iii) 2011; (g) broken down by province, how many organizations that applied for funding have been notified that they will not receive funding in 2011 and when were they notified; (h) how many applicants are still awaiting decisions from 2011, broken down by province; (i) how much funding was used in (i) 2009, (ii) 2010, (iii) 2011 and how much remained in the fund at the end of the each fiscal year, broken down by province; and (j) broken down by province, how many funding recipients had to return funds in (i) 2009, (ii) 2010, (iii) 2011 because they could not complete projects according to the timelines set out by the program?
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns January 30th, 2012
With regard to federal involvement in drug and alcohol treatment programs for First Nations, Inuit and Métis in Canada for each of the last ten years: (a) how many patients were referred to the following types of treatment centres, by province and by year, (i) outpatient treatment centres, (ii) inpatient treatment centres, (iii) outpatient/inpatient treatment centres, (iv) family treatment centres, (v) solvent abuse treatment centres, (vi) treatment centres serving youth; (b) what was the total cost to the government for these services by (i) year, (ii) province; (c) what government organizations have funded these services by (i) year, (ii) province; and (d) what government organizations have referred clients or patients to these services by (i) year, (ii) province?
Questions on the Order Paper January 30th, 2012
With regard to the government's involvement in private, medically-supervised detoxification treatment for First Nations, Inuit and Métis for each of the last ten years: (a) how many patients were referred to private services, by province and year, for treatment related to (i) solvents and inhalants, (ii) illegal drugs, (iii) prescription drugs, (iv) alcohol, (v) other; (b) what was the total cost for these services by (i) year, (ii) province; (c) what government departments and agencies have funded these services, and what was the cost for each such department and agency by (i) year, (ii) province; and (d) what government departments and agencies have referred clients or patients to these services by (i) year, (ii) province?
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member. I do not think the answer is sufficient but at least it is a start.
The minister told us that the government will replace the FRCC with direct links between the industry and scientists, but what assurances do we have that decisions will be made objectively? In addition, how will this government plan long-term conservation, which was one of the main tasks of the FRCC, which no longer exists?
How can Canadians be certain that the department will not make decisions blindly? We need scientists who have the respect and support of the government, fishers and all other industry stakeholders.
How can we ensure that scientists will be there and that they will give us good advice?
Madam Speaker, the government is making cutbacks to fisheries research and management and is claiming that it will not affect us. At the same time, the ocean ecosystem and the fishery industry are facing a very uncertain and worrisome future.
In the past, fishers depended on Fisheries and Oceans Canada for scientific information in order to make well-informed decisions regarding the TAC, the total allowable catch.
Over recent years, the department has made deep cuts to the funding of this essential scientific work. These cutbacks have an adverse affect on the quality and effectiveness of the department's decision-making when it comes to fish stocks that are endangered or vulnerable.
One of the most serious examples is the recent closure of the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council. The FRCC was a science-based organization respected by the industry's fishers. For 10 years, the FRCC conducted an annual review of the TACs for the groundfishery. The FRCC was at the origin of numerous moratoriums imposed since the 1990s.
Only very rarely were its recommendations not accepted or followed. The need for scientific assessment of the fisheries has never been greater or more evident. The closure of the FRCC and the reduction in the number of science programs are quite worrisome.
In my riding, we are still experiencing the collapse of groundfish stocks, such as cod and redfish. Due to this ecological and economic crisis, which has persisted since the 1990s, my region has lost some 30 to 50% of fisheries related jobs.
The fishing industry in the Gulf is in transition because of a trend towards shellfish, such as snow crabs and lobster. The result is paradoxical: the value of the fishery has increased despite the disappearance of a lot of fish stocks, since shellfish sell at a higher price than groundfish. Unfortunately, scientists are unable to fully explain why the shellfish are so plentiful. They do not understand the long-term effects of this fundamental change to the ecosystem.
The shellfish industry is also poorly managed: the snow crab fishery is tanking and scientists are unable to say whether the same fate awaits the lobster fishery. Companies in the Gaspé, such as E. Gagnon & Fils in Sainte-Thérèse-de-Gaspé, employ over 500 people in their fish plants, which includes shellfish.
How do we reassure these people that they will keep their jobs and still be able to earn a living in the future? Scientists are essential to a fishery that is based on the precautionary principle. However, Fisheries and Oceans Canada does not seem to focus on science. Conducting stock inventories every 3 or 5 years is not enough. Clearly, there is a need for a lot more scientific research, not less.
With the cutbacks at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, what guarantee do we have that scientists will be able to continue their work as advisors to fishers and the industry?