Raymond Côté

[Health, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak about a very serious matter that I discussed with the Minister of Transport on November 29.

Unfortunately, even though the situation is serious and the concerns are shared by a majority of the population, the Minister of Transport gave an unsatisfactory answer. I spoke about it to groups working on this issue, that is the people who are really concerned about and directly affected by the red dust and contamination by various heavy metals, as proven by analyses.

I will not repeat in the House the comments I received because it would be too easy to accuse me of using unparliamentary language. However, that gives an idea of the tenor of the issue and the indignation of the people of Quebec City with regard to the response by the Minister of Transport.

I will distill the minister's response. He clearly said that the Port of Quebec is an independent organization that assumes its responsibilities. Whether the Minister of Transport likes it or not, the reality, as the Department of Transport clearly stated, is that the Port of Quebec is one of the Canadian port authorities under the supervision of Transport Canada, which is also responsible for compliance with environmental laws, in particular the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

According to Transport Canada, the department also oversees the environmental management of leased facilities. Port authorities have a certain amount of autonomy, but they are accountable, and the Minister of Transport must take responsibility for them.

There is something very disturbing about this whole situation. Since I raised this question, Véronique Lalande, the woman who warned the public, received her lab results and was able to take a closer look. The samples she sent for analysis contained potentially dangerous metals such as arsenic, copper, lead, zinc and nickel.

I will focus on nickel, which is a potentially highly toxic metal. It was present in very high concentrations and could be quite dangerous.

For the benefit of the Minister of Transport, I simply want to remind the House that nickel dust can be carcinogenic. It can cause lung and throat cancer.

In addition, the skin reacts to varying degrees after coming into contact with nickel. A significant percentage of the population is potentially allergic to nickel—some studies say as much as 12%. In Limoilou, thousands of people were affected.

First, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport again if he was aware of the problem. Second, I would like to ask him if he has really taken any action on this issue, instead of simply waiting for the situation to deteriorate.

[Criminal Code, February 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-444.

I will not keep you in suspense and I will tell you right off the bat that I will support this bill at second reading. As for the other stages, we will see, but there is a very good chance that I will continue to support this bill after it is examined in committee.

As my colleagues from all the parties have said, although this bill addresses very specific and relatively rare cases, it still proposes a positive amendment to the Criminal Code. The bill seeks to address a number of needs that have been expressed, particularly by my esteemed colleague from Red Deer. He has legitimate reasons for introducing this bill and I congratulate him for doing so. I congratulate him in particular for choosing to introduce a bill that adds a provision to section 130 of the Criminal Code.

The bill is somewhat based on the notion of making the offence an aggravating circumstance, instead of creating, as some of his colleagues tried to do, a mandatory minimum sentence. This took away the court's freedom to act and even undermined the desired objective of some of my Conservative colleagues.

I had the pleasure of working on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I will use the example of a bill that my Conservative colleague from Kootenay—Columbia introduced. That bill also had legitimate goals, but the effects were rather worrisome. There were even fears that the purpose intended by my colleague from Kootenay—Columbia would be overridden and that we could end up taking a step backwards because of how the bill was presented. Unfortunately, the bill passed and we hope that it will not have any devastating consequences.

I am pleased to reiterate that I will support Bill C-444. I am so pleased because I have a vested interest in this bill—I will not hide it and want to disclose it in the House. I have a loved one who is an active member of a police force.

I want to mention what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and member for Saint-Boniface said during another debate, regarding the public's view of and lack of trust in police forces. It is not true that the public no longer trusts police forces. What we are saying is that because of certain situations, this trust may be wavering, may be fragile, and as elected members of the House, we have a duty to protect it.

Of course, I feel a direct link to this, because I have a loved one who works for a police force. More than anything, I do not want him to become a victim, either of the misconduct of some of his colleagues on the force or another police force in the country, or of any perception, whether legitimate or false, on the part of the public because of problems related to the involvement of police forces.

Although I do not wish to dwell on the issue, I would quickly like to mention the unfortunate case of the now famous Robert Pickton. It is not something that we would have liked to achieve such notoriety. However, as they say, the damage is done. What is important is finding solutions, rather than just pointing the finger. That is what is most important, which is why I am very pleased to see that all members of the House plan to support this bill.

I wish to explore the importance of the authority enjoyed by anyone who wears a uniform or appears to be in a position of authority, that is, when someone steals an identity and takes it on as their own. This is an aggravating factor, so it is very important. Although things change completely whenever a firearm is involved, there is no denying that the authority held by someone in uniform or with a certain title can very easily intimidate and frighten some people who are sensitive to such authority. That is a fact.

The bill introduced by the hon. member for Red Deer sends a clear message to Canadians and builds some level of confidence. The 308 members of this House all have an opportunity to send this message. The level of trust will depend on the means that are developed.

My hon. colleague from Brome—Missisquoi was right to repeat some parts of the speech given by the member for Mount Royal. As the Romans used to say, “dura lex”. The law is strict, indeed—in its existence, in its form and in its message, as well as based on the means put in place to enforce it. These means can take various forms and avenues.

Our esteemed colleague from Mount Royal rightfully raised concerns about the availability of uniforms, for example, and the fact that although a tough law will be on the books, if we do not take certain measures, the law will come too late, which will defeat the purpose. That is very important to recognize.

I want to talk about section 130 of the Criminal Code. To begin, it states:

130. (1) Everyone commits an offence who

(a) falsely represents himself to be a peace officer or a public officer; or

(b) not being a peace officer or public officer, uses a badge or article of uniform...as the case may be.

It goes on to say:

(2) Everyone who commits an offence under subsection (1)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The bill proposes adding section 130.1, which states:

If a person is convicted of an offence under section 130, the court imposing the sentence on the person shall consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the accused personated a peace officer or a public officer, as the case may be, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of another offence.

I think it is a major step forward. Once the bill has passed, it will be interesting to see how the courts and the various stakeholders use it and apply it to different types of offences.

Obviously, the member for Red Deer introduced this bill in response to a truly appalling crime, an extreme case. However, the bill has some potential, and it will be fascinating to follow the work of my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to see how it could be useful.

[Business of Supply, February 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, can we trust the member for Winnipeg North's party on this issue?

I would like to share something that happened during the 2006 campaign in Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. At the time, I met with a couple of public servants at the employment insurance office who described their working conditions to me. They worked six days a week, plus three nights, to deal with the backlog of applications. This is not a new problem. When the Liberal Party was in power, it could have looked into the issue and done something about it.

How can we trust the Liberal Party members who raised this issue?

That is a legitimate question. It is a very good initiative, but still, it comes a little late.

[Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, February 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Keyes said that the best approach is the one that protects the constitutional power of parliamentary oversight and the right of Canadians to have access to the laws that govern them.

For members of the House, that constitutional power is sacred.

I would like to hear the member speak to the potential threat this bill represents.

[Winter Special Olympics, February 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to celebrate the achievements of our athletes during the latest Winter Special Olympics, which were held in Pyeongchang, South Korea, from January 29 to February 5.

The Canadian team finished with an impressive 44 gold, 44 silver and 21 bronze medals in six sports: alpine skiing, cross-country skiing, figure skating, floor hockey, snowshoeing and speed skating.

It is with a genuine surge of pride today that I honour three athletes from Beauport—Limoilou who brought home six of the 109 Canadian medals.

I want to congratulate Stéphanie Savard, who won one silver and two bronze medals in alpine skiing; Matthieu Besnier, who won one gold and one silver; and Jean-François Leclerc, who won bronze. The last two athletes competed in snowshoeing.

Bravo to the Canadian team, and in particular the athletes from Beauport—Limoilou, for their wonderful contributions.

[Business of Supply, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle. We have been working together for nearly two years, and I must say that I would be the first to be surprised if he simplified any debate.

I derive deep satisfaction from the many debates and discussions that my colleague and I have about issues related to the health of our democracy and our shared future.

I think that he has put his finger on something important. Unfortunately, the governing party is oversimplifying, which could end up undermining the health of our democracy.

It is utterly fascinating to take part in everything that happens here in the House, to see how extraordinarily complex it is—much like a human body—and how fragile it can be. In general, however, it is a sturdy institution.

I will continue to discuss issues with my colleague so that we can find solutions for the future and for the common good.

[Business of Supply, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his question.

It is surprising to hear him bring up rearguard fights about a debate that is over and done with. What I am about to say may be mean, but this reminded me of my late father. He was a long-time card-carrying member of the Liberal Party of Canada, and during the sponsorship scandal he tore up his card in anger saying, “they stole my Liberal Party.”

I never forgot that. I make no bones about it. This makes me emotional, because we did not share the same political convictions, but we really had some meaningful debates. I respected my father a great deal for that. So I urge my colleague to continue working on rebuilding his party.

[Business of Supply, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take the floor in support of the motion introduced by my colleague from Parkdale—High Park. I am also happy to follow my colleague from Victoria, with whom I have the pleasure of working on the Standing Committee on Finance.

We had a very productive session this morning, and I must thank all my colleagues on the committee for examining the issues concerning tax havens in such a serious-minded manner.

Now, however, we are focusing on the fate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page. I will now summarize the essential demands set out in our motion.

First, we ask that the mandate of the present Parliamentary Budget Officer be extended until his replacement is named. If we want to be serious and transparent, we cannot tolerate any interruption in the work of the office that Mr. Page has so brilliantly managed. Second, we are seeking legislation to make the Parliamentary Budget Officer a full, independent officer of Parliament. We believe that aspect is essential, as my colleague from Victoria clearly indicated.

I would like to speak to the House about the role the Parliamentary Budget Officer plays despite the limits placed on him, particularly with regard to his staff and budget.

Under the Federal Accountability Act, the Parliamentary Budget Officer provides independent analysis to the Senate and House of Commons on the state of the nation's finances, the government's estimates and trends in the global economy. The act further provides that the Parliamentary Budget Officer undertake research into the nation's finances and economy and into the estimates of the government and that he estimates the financial cost of any proposal that relates to a matter over which Parliament has jurisdiction.

As some of my colleagues have previously noted, the Parliamentary Budget Officer manages this feat with limited resources, barely 12 full-time employees and two interns, as well as a budget of less than $3 million. Mr. Page and his team have produced more than 150 analytical reports, an extraordinary effort, in the office's brief existence since 2008.

We are making significant demands on Parliament and on our work as representatives of our constituents because, if we do not have independent and appropriate means to acquire sound analyses on which to base our decisions, there will be major interference in our role and that will definitely undermine the serious task we have to perform.

There is another extremely important aspect. In addition to this direct role that the Parliamentary Budget Officer plays with regard to us, his work has indirect consequences for all Canadians. As is said in matters of justice, when a court sits to render justice, there must be the appearance of justice. Regardless of the decision reached, all observers must be satisfied that justice has been rendered.

In a similar way, we must be able to trust in the accountability and transparency of the government's operations. The government must be accountable to the public's legitimate representatives in the House and to the population as a whole. However, that trust can very easily be undermined, as it currently is, and as I have seen over my three election campaigns, from 2006, when I was elected, to 2011. I obviously listen to all the citizens in my riding of Beauport—Limoilou because I want to know what the situation is and what they are thinking.

The appointment of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is a very important issue because becoming an officer of Parliament would afford him much greater leeway and independence than he currently enjoys.

I will simply draw a very brief comparison between an officer of Parliament and a staff member of the Library of Parliament, which is the Parliamentary Budget Officer's current status.

The members of the library's staff report to the speakers of both Houses. However, it is a well-established fact, which no one can dispute, that they do not enjoy the same independence as officers of Parliament. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is appointed by cabinet from a list of three names submitted by the Library of Parliament. That process has a certain value, but not the much greater, much more comprehensive and reassuring value of the process that leads to the appointment of officers of Parliament.

This is really very important. My colleague from Victoria and many of my other colleagues have clearly emphasized the disproportion between the resources available to the Parliamentary Budget Officer and those of the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, which has some 235 professional employees and a budget of more than $45 million. That was for the 2011 fiscal year.

Proportionally, based on Canada's population and economy relative to those of the United States, the Parliamentary Budget Officer and his team have approximately half the resources of their American counterparts. There is no need for complicated calculations to understand that; a simple rule of three is enough.

We could potentially even debate the percentage increase in the budget that would be necessary just to meet the challenges. I do not necessarily think that doubling those resources would be enough. First we would need to do a more detailed study in this House of what is needed. Perhaps we might conclude that additional resources are needed, but I will not be answering that question in my speech.

What is very important, based on these comparisons, on the established facts, is to understand what Mr. Page's sad fate has been during his mandate since 2008.

I cannot help but cite an excerpt from the Rick Mercer Report. He essentially said that Kevin Page did his job on old age security, deficit projections and budget cuts. He always did his job, and he was called every name in the book, often by people who had never even read one. Nobody wants the job. Why? Read the job description: serve your country, tell the truth and get attacked by the government for doing so. That is what was said on the program.

I enjoy comedy programs, and I am a big fan of cartoons. What always surprises me, what amazes me, is the turn of phrase, the way these talented people come up with just the right way to describe political life and the issues that affect our society. I thank Mr. Mercer. I think he really put his finger on something very important. He paid tribute to Mr. Page's tenacity throughout his mandate. Objectively speaking, this is ultimately a difficult and demanding job. I mentioned the lack of resources available to him, but, apart from that, his task was made even more difficult by constant government attacks.

Fortunately, when it comes to objectively assessing the value of his work, Mr. Page has some rather important non-partisan allies.

Take, for example, the debate over the sustainability of old age security. On February 8, 2012, the Minister of Finance called the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report unbelievable, unreliable and incredible, when it concluded that old age security was sustainable in its existing form.

But Mr. Page's report echoed reports produced by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.

In light of all of this evidence showing the value of Mr. Page and the work he accomplished in this position, I think that our motion at least goes far enough to secure the usefulness of this position, to both Parliament and to all Canadians.

[Business of Supply, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see that my Liberal colleagues support this motion. It seems they are starting to recognize that they made mistakes in the past. But it will take concrete action to prove that they have truly changed their ways.

Could the member tell me why it is that the Liberals did not attempt to create a similar position during their 13 years in power? I am certain that the government knew that this type of position existed.

The Congressional Budget Office in the United States has a similar role. They could have tried something like that in Canada.

[Pope John Paul II Day Act, February 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will not hide the fact that I am speaking today with a somewhat troubled heart. I want to speak to the proposal from the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville.

I have long admired His Holiness Pope John Paul II. However, as the member for Beauport—Limoilou, I will not be supporting the idea of establishing a day in his honour.

As a devout Roman Catholic, I strive to follow Christ's example in my everyday life. But following that example is sometimes difficult, as evidenced by many events in His Holiness's life. Before I go any further, I would like to remind the House that Christ said that he did not come to bring peace to the world, but a sword.

I feel I can take the liberty of quoting Christ in the House because His Holiness Pope John Paul II came to Canada in 1984, when I was 17. It is no secret that it was an absolutely extraordinary moment. It moved people. Pope John Paul II had a strong personality; he had a real charisma, almost a magnetism, and he thrilled the crowds. It was incredible to see him in action.

However, I was elected to represent my constituents, just as my 307 colleagues represent Canadians across this country. Canada is vast and beautiful. It is multifaceted and its people have various faiths. I think we need to convey the message that we will maintain freedom of conscience for everyone in our country, no matter what they believe, and that includes those of different faiths, agnostics and non-believers.

I believe that establishing a day in Pope John Paul II's honour would send the wrong message. However, I understand why my colleague, who is of Polish descent, would introduce this bill in the House. Pope John Paul II was a hero who lifted the hearts of the Polish people; he was an inspiration. He also freed a people from unbearable oppression.

I think that the Catholic Church certainly has the ability to maintain and promote the work of John Paul II. I do not think it is the role of the Canadian government to do so. I do not want to get into a comparison of every pope in the succession of popes since Saint Peter, but I must admit that I am partial to recent popes. Take the example of John XXIII, who created the Second Vatican Council, and Leo XIII, whose letter, the encyclical Rerum Novarum, was the cornerstone of the Church's social doctrine, which flourished over a good part of the 20th century.

As I said, with a somewhat troubled heart, I had the pleasure of reading a number of encyclicals by His Holiness John Paul II. At the time, I even defended some of the pope's positions to my friends and acquaintances because the pope was very controversial in Quebec at that time. I remember how very divided people were. I remember theologists from Laval University spoke out against positions taken by His Holiness, particularly with respect to contraception.

This obviously had some unfortunate consequences. Regardless, I do not want to dwell on that. Those debates are over. I also do not want to bring up painful memories about His Holiness, because he did some very good work.

As I said, I do not believe it is the role of the government to recognize a specific pope among all of the popes in the 2,000-year history of the Catholic Church.

To support my position, I want to quickly talk about 12 other popes I greatly admire. There is obviously John XXIII, who created the Second Vatican Council, at the very beginning of his pontificate at the end of the 1950s, to the surprise of everyone, including the bishops and the Roman Curia. This council was truly a defining moment for the Catholic Church in the 20th century. It enabled His Holiness John Paul II and Benedict XVI, who was on the council at the time, to shape their ideas, make a name for themselves and make a contribution.

I will go further by saying that the pope that I admire the most is Leo XIII, who wrote and advocated the Rerum Novarum over 120 years ago. The Rerum Novarum was also a turning point for the Catholic Church at the time. This work is so significant that, on its 100th anniversary in 1991, His Holiness John Paul II recognized it in his encyclical, Centesimus Annus. His Holiness John Paul II recognized and supported social and economic justice, values that I share as a politician and a human being.

I will continue to speak about this well-known social doctrine of the Catholic Church, which His Holiness John Paul II also lived by, and to cite its noble tenets.

First, there is human dignity, which the Catholic Church did not necessarily recognize before this encyclical and before the church's social doctrine movement, which took off in the early 20th century.

Second, there is the common good. We are all part of the greater human community. We therefore have to think about all of our brothers. This was one of Christ's teachings. We are all responsible for our brothers and sisters in our society.

Third, is the principle of subsidiarity, according to which we must recognize that every human being on this earth and in our society makes an inalienable contribution that cannot be disputed.

Finally, there is also solidarity.

The fact that His Holiness John Paul II was a strong supporter and defender of these great values is a source of pride for the hon. member.

However, the fact remains that, as elected officials, we must make difficult choices. That is what I am doing. Although it breaks my heart a little, I think I am doing the right thing and I am calling on my colleagues to do the same. We need to think long and hard before moving forward with this.