Bruce Hyer

[The Environment, December 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is facing two huge challenges: a large and growing gap in income and a total failure to reduce C0₂. The Conservatives have no plans to reduce either C0₂ or poverty.

There is a simple solution. A carbon dividend, as proposed by the Citizens' Climate Lobby, would price fossil fuels at the source, and CRA would pay those carbon fees straight back to every Canadian family on an equal basis. Energy conservers and low-income Canadians would make money on the carbon dividend.

The Liberals have yet to say how they would price carbon. The NDP is stuck on cumbersome cap and trade, and the Conservatives are stuck on exporting low-value crude at a 30% discount. The Green Party supports a carbon dividend.

I call upon all parties to join together to reduce poverty and dangerous climate change through a carbon fee and dividend.

[Petitions, December 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have been working on affordable housing strategies for years, and so it gives me great pleasure to present 200 petitions from across Canada.

The petitioners want to see us work on a national housing strategy where we can end homelessness, increase housing affordability, and provide tax benefits to rental investors for upgrading and creating new housing across Canada.

[Petitions, December 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have received almost a thousand petitions on the issue of storing nuclear waste in northern Ontario by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization.

This is in the watershed of Lake Superior, which supplies water directly or indirectly to 60 million people throughout the Great Lakes. The petitioners feel there is significant risk to either storing or transporting nuclear waste from southern Ontario in northern Ontario, so they are asking that there be a moratorium and better consultation regarding the storage or shipment of nuclear waste in northern Ontario.

[Seniors, November 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, veterans and all seniors in Thunder Bay—Superior North are worried. My constituent, Louise Fisher, laments that, “Nothing is being done federally to ensure that quality services are available across Canada for our seniors.” For example, we have declining health care services and a lack of in-home support for our seniors.

When will the minister ensure that all of Canada's seniors are respected and supported?

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, November 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-40 needs amending but is not getting it. A big part of is that on January 26, 2013, there was a memorandum of agreement between Parks Canada and Ontario, which Ontario has now backed out of. The goal of that agreement was to meet or exceed the following existing protections in the area: the greenbelt plan of 2005, the Oak Ridges Moraine conservation plan, the Rouge north management plan, the federal green space preserve master plan, the International Joint Commission water quality agreement, the Rouge River watershed plan, and the Rouge Park natural heritage action plan.

My question for the hon. member is this. Why are we proceeding with something that instead of meeting or exceeding the present protections would actually degrade and worsen them?

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, November 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood made a superb case that was well stated and well researched. He is right on target.

I was there at the committee meeting reviewing the 18 amendments that the Green Party put forward, supported by the Liberals and the NDP. The hon. member was there and observed the absolutely unbelievable behaviour of all of the Conservative members at that session. Particularly dreadful was the performance by the member for Oak Ridges—Markham, who did not even pay attention to the amendments. Members were playing with their BlackBerrys, mindlessly voting no to everything, and declaring things inadmissible that were clearly relevant.

I wonder if the member would like to comment on the behaviour that he saw and whether that is appropriate behaviour for parliamentarians in committee.

[Employment Insurance, November 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, how are we supposed to believe anything the Conservatives say when it comes to EI, really? After years of bad policies, the government has forced workers and small business owners to pay for Conservative economic mismanagement, killing jobs left and centre, and especially right.

The Conservative government is inefficient, pure and simple. It hiked El premiums for three consecutive years, then it froze premiums, and now it is trying to roll back its mistakes, but every job it creates will cost taxpayers $687,000. That is two-thirds of a million dollars per job.

Canada needs a strong EI system to protect workers and generate economic growth. It certainly does not need this job-killing tax on workers and small businesses.

El should be helping those who need it, not boosting the government's own revenues. Will the Conservatives admit to their past poor El approach and commit to some reforms that actually support Canadian workers and our economy?

[Employment Insurance, November 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I represent Thunder Bay—Superior North and more than 85,000 northern Ontarians who have seen high rates of unemployment thanks to NAFTA, the recession of 2008 and the collapse of the forestry industry. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have consistently limited access to EI and residents who are struggling to make ends meet are forced to pay the price.

Sadly, the Conservative attack on EI is nothing new. The Conservatives are simply taking a page from the playbook of the Liberal government that came before them. In 2000, the Liberals were the first to limit access to EI. They established a huge surplus for the government's benefit to pad the government's pockets with workers' money and the money of small businesses. Later, the Supreme Court ruled the Liberals had illegally turned the EI fund into a tax grab.

I had hoped that the Conservatives might be serious about ending the Liberals' excessive premiums for employers and workers, but in 2010, the Conservatives showed their real colours and followed in the footsteps of the Liberals.

The government of the current Prime Minister made it increasingly difficult for EI claimants to access benefits, all while hiking costs to workers and employers. The EI rate was increased 9% between 2008 and 2013. The Conservatives, after three successive years of EI premium hikes, have now elevated rates well above what the program actually costs, with no regard for the consequences the average Canadian will face.

When the Minister of Finance first announced a slight rollback in EI premiums for small-business owners in September, I was somewhat hopeful. As a small-business owner myself, I am keenly aware of how important small businesses are to our economic growth. Under the Conservatives, big businesses get plenty of subsidies. Meanwhile, small and medium-sized businesses are responsible for the lion's share of job creation and economic activity in Canada.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer found just this month that the Conservative approach to the EI will cost Canadian workers an incredible 9,200 jobs, almost 10,000 jobs, through mismanagement. What's more, their small business credit would cost $0.5 million and would only generate 800 jobs over the next three years.

However, the government claimed the credit would create 25 times as many jobs as that. Once again, as is frequently true, the Conservative claims are at odds with the facts. Even conservative economists are slamming the government's bad plan. Jack Mintz, from the University of Calgary, says that EI premiums should be lowered across the board, which would make sense given the years of unnecessary hikes.

The extra EI money could have been used to extend benefits to those who need them. Instead, the Conservatives are slashing benefits. The surplus could have aided an additional 130,000 workers over the next three years, or they could have used it to boost the economy, health care or education, including job training. Keeping unemployed workers from slipping into poverty makes good economic sense. Each dollar dispensed to EI benefits sparks $1.60 in economic growth.

It is incredible to me and to logical Canadians that the Conservatives keep reiterating their blarney about jobs, economic prosperity and long-term solutions, when all they ever seem to do is pad their own government pockets with taxpayers' money.

When and how will the Conservatives end their legacy of carelessness and damaging employment insurance policies?

[Blood Supply, November 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, in the 1980s, the worst preventable health crisis in Canada's history occurred when 30,000 Canadians were infected with HIV and hepatitis C. Thousands died, because profit took precedence over public health. The Krever Commission subsequently reported that blood is a public resource, and donors should never be paid.

The Ontario government is poised to pass the voluntary blood donor act to prevent private companies from paying blood donors. However, the Conservative government is not taking action. For example, in 2012, Thunder Bay lost the only stand-alone blood plasma clinic in Canada, and 30 skilled employees were fired. Now Canada may be forced to import plasma that has been paid for, outsourcing jobs and putting our blood supply at risk.

I call on the government to promise Canadians that it will not license any private pharmaceutical company to pay for plasma or blood.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, October 29th, 2014]

With regard to radioactive material: (a) which national authorities hold electronic records of transports of radioactive material (especially of fissile material) within Canada or those imported, exported and moved in transit; (b) what information (e.g. sender, sender's address, recipient, recipient's address, date of transport, type of cask, quantity of radioactive material) is recorded over what period of time; (c) does the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission compile separate electronic records of transports of radioactive material (especially of fissile material) within Canada or those imported, exported and moved in transit; and (d) what are the details of all non-confidential recorded information related to transports of radioactive material within Canada as well as those imported, exported and moved in transit in the last 10 years?