Bruce Hyer

[National Defence, October 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the Conservatives would prefer to distract from their mistakes when it comes to defence instead of considering a new course of action or, heaven forbid, actually supporting democracy here in the House. The facts speak for themselves. The replacement of crucial equipment from search and rescue planes to patrol ships has been mismanaged.

Conservatives like to talk tough, but we would rather see them really stand behind our soldiers and our veterans and provide them with the equipment they need and the missing support they need when they come home. Money would be better spent in areas like that than on needlessly changing the names of our armed forces.

Do we really need to be spending millions to change the buttons on our military uniforms when we could be purchasing much more needed equipment to adequately support our forces?

[National Defence, October 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, we debated one of the most serious issues that has come before the House in many years. We decided whether we would ask our men and women in uniform to join with our allies in the fight against ISIL.

While I appreciated the government bringing the matter before the House at all, it is too bad the motion was just for show. The Prime Minister had already made up his mind about our involvement and brought the issue to Parliament as a formality.

Let us set that aside for a moment. The real issue here, and the broader issue, is often the Conservatives' pattern of limiting debate whenever and wherever they can and silencing their critics at all costs. The government moved its motion on a Monday afternoon; by Tuesday evening, the debate was over. Clearly the government had already decided and had made its commitments.

That day marked the 79th time that the government used time allocation or closure to curtail debate. The Conservatives have set the record for limiting debate in the House. Their use of time allocation and closure is totally unprecedented in the history of Canada.

It used to be the Conservatives who spoke out against this practice. When he was in opposition, the member for Calgary Southeast, now the Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism, gave quite an impassioned speech: “It is regretful...that the government has failed to restrain its liberal use of what really should be a rare lever to limit debate in this place”, he said, calling it “the sledge hammer of debate”.

I wonder if he still feels that way. I know I do, and I know many Canadians do.

These tactics have an especially undemocratic effect for independent MPs and members of small parties. It is difficult to get a chance to speak on time-allocated bills or motions on which closure has been used.

I had planned to speak to the motion about entering the Iraq war when closure was moved. Our role in Iraq is important to me and to my constituents in Thunder Bay—Superior North. I was prepared for that debate, but I was denied the chance to speak on behalf of my constituents.

We are discussing defence here tonight, so perhaps the reason the Conservatives seek to limit debate is to distract from their repeated blunders in this area. The Conservative government promised to provide the light after the Liberals' decade of darkness and revitalize our military, but it failed miserably. We have been waiting over 20 years for replacements for both the Sea King and the fixed wing search and rescue aircraft, and that goal is still not accomplished.

As a former pilot myself, the status of our search and rescue fleet is particularly worrisome to me. Canada is the second-largest country on the planet, and we have the longest coastline in the world. Much of our population is remote and spread across vast regions. This makes our search and rescue planes critically important, but more than 12 years after the planes were supposed to be replaced, we are stuck with the same outdated, underperforming fleet.

The same goes for Canada's Coast Guard. Just this morning, the Parliamentary Budget Officer revealed that the Conservatives have not budgeted enough to pay for Arctic patrol ships, even after they scaled back their plans. So much for our Prime Minister's boasting about Arctic sovereignty.

The Conservatives should stop using time allocation and closure to such incredible excess. They are not succeeding in hiding their mistakes, particularly when it comes to their mismanagement of defence procurement.

Will the government please stop unilaterally shutting down debate, whether on defence or on dozens of other issues crucial to Canada?

[Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, October 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the member say that all free trade is good and that balanced trade deficits are not bad. Now I am hearing the other two main parties in the House drifting over. I guess that it is out of fear that if they do not appear to be pro-business and pro-development, they will lose votes in the next election.

I would like the member to explain how a balance-in-trade deficit, when we get Hyundai cars and kill our auto industry and auto worker jobs here in Canada, is a good thing for Canada. How does that promote the growth of innovation and trade in our country?

[Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, October 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this is a lopsided deal.

In 2013, there was an almost $4 billion deficit in trade with Korea. It is going to get worse.

It is great for Korea. It is great for Hyundai. It is bad for Canadian automakers and auto workers, and I am surprised that the NDP is not standing up for auto workers.

My question to the Conservatives is this: why they are making Canada a resource-exporting colony of South Korea?

[Democratic Reform, October 21st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member opposite on his thoughtful comments tonight, which were logical and clear. I do not agree with many of them, but they were a cut above the average we hear sometimes in this House.

I really do not understand why some Liberal, NDP, and Conservative MPs fear supporting the reform act in its current form and want to weaken it further.

As elected representatives of our constituents, who have expressed a clear preference for the current bill, I would hope that all members would think long and hard before trying to water down a bill of this importance.

The current version of the reform act would re-empower MPs and get them once again working for their constituents rather than for unelected back room apparatchiks. It would allow MPs to put the needs of Canadians ahead of narrow party interests.

While I will support the bill in its current form as an important step forward, I will have to think about it if it is significantly watered down as changes are made later.

I ask, will all MPs in this House support the current version of the reform act and restore democracy to the House of Commons?

[Democratic Reform, October 21st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, tonight, I want to talk about the state of this House.

Let us face it, Canadian democracy is in deep trouble, especially since the current government came to power. It is not just the Conservatives, though, that are responsible for this mess we are in. The leaders of the Liberals and the NDP are more interested in crushing dissent within their parties than encouraging debate. MPs are often forced to vote against their consciences and against the will of their constituents. Anti-democratic attitudes abound in party backrooms.

For the past year, we have been discussing the proposed reform act introduced by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. I truly believe that with this reform act, in its current form, we have an opportunity to transform Canadian democracy for the better.

Canadians can imagine my disappointment, but not surprise, when the three main parties waffled on their positions and criticized parts of this important bill. Canadians want change. They want democracy restored. The groundswell of support from ordinary Canadians for this bill is significant. Everyone I have spoken to has told me they are calling on their MPs to support this important legislation.

This reform act makes some long overdue changes that will make Parliament work better for Canadians again, instead of for party leaders. It would make party leaders more accountable to their MPs by establishing a leadership review process. It will end the requirement for a candidate's nomination papers to be signed by the party leader, the anti-democratic but little-known change to the Elections Act made by Pierre Trudeau in 1970.

This reform act will empower MPs to once again stand up for their constituents. It is the primary reason why I am supporting the bill in its current form. I even introduced a similar motion back in 2012. The reform act is important because it scales back the excessive powers of party leaders and restores local control over party nominations. However, recently, changes were proposed, I can only assume to placate the party leaders, that will weaken the most important parts of the bill and hand endorsement power right back to party leaders.

The reform act is only the beginning for democratic reform. Several other changes must be made to make Parliament more productive and less partisan. We must make our voting system more proportional to reflect the actual choices of Canadians. We must increase cross-party co-operation to end mindless partisan tribalism. We must take away the power of the Prime Minister to declare any bill a matter of confidence and to stop him from bullying Parliament, imposing bloated omnibus budget bills, and ignoring his own fixed election date law.

It is time we prevented parties from forcing their MPs to vote with their party. This summer the Green Party unanimously passed a resolution to ensure that their MPs would always be free to vote independently.

We must also restrict the unilateral power of the Prime Minister to appoint, without any oversight, senators, judges, parliamentary officers and many other positions.

The reform act, in its current form, is a step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to recognize that it is time for all MPs who care about democracy to re-empower themselves and support the reform act in its current form, without weakening it further.

Will Conservative MPs, and indeed all MPs in this House, have the courage to vote for the reform act in its current form?

[Business of Supply, October 21st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member, who knows a lot about medicine, and apparently about Ebola as well, would like to comment on what I saw on the media. I do not know the facts, but apparently the Conservative government, which loves to privatize everything in sight and sell off important Canadian assets, has sold Ebola protective gear, which we could really use now in this Ebola fight, worth well over a million dollars, for a few tens of thousands of dollars. I wonder if she is familiar with this issue and would like to comment further.

[Petitions, October 21st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me particular pleasure this morning to present these petitions on neonicotinoids from hundreds of people from across Canada.

One reason is that many years ago I played a key role as a regulator in banning DDT in the United States. The other reason is that our Senate is holding hearings on this tonight at five o'clock.

The petitioners are calling for a ban or at least a moratorium on neonicotinoids, as Europe has done, until we know more about whether they are as bad as they seem.

[Employment, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the government, after lots of pressure, finally decided to reverse its worst changes to the temporary foreign worker program, but I have still heard not a single assurance just now that northern Ontario jobs will go to our residents.

The Ring of Fire is a chance for northern Ontarians and many of our first nations people to achieve economic self-sufficiency. The government must stop trying to justify its mismanagement of the program and instead focus its energies on supporting local workers there and across Canada. When northern Ontarians are provided the opportunity to develop their skills, develop that region and other rural areas, and contribute to the economy, everybody will win.

Will the government please take advantage of this chance to support our workers, our youth, our citizens, and ensure that no temporary foreign workers will be brought in to take their jobs in the Ring of Fire?

[Employment, October 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I bring forward an issue that is affecting all Canadian workers, particularly in rural areas, including Thunder Bay—Superior North. Unemployment remains high, and the jobs that are available are often too low-paying to live on.

There are many reasons for the lack of good jobs in my region and across rural Canada. Part of it is the collapse of the forest industry and the effect of the economic downturn. Part of it, though, is the government's mismanagement of our economy, including a neglect of job creation and inflated EI rates, a job killer if there ever was one. Part of it is due to the bungled temporary foreign worker program.

For several years now, we have been hearing stories of abuse of this program. At a Tim Hortons in Alberta, workers were flown in from other countries, and hundreds of qualified Canadians were ignored. A mining company in Murray River, British Columbia, hired 200 temporary Chinese miners after insisting that fluency in Mandarin was a necessary qualification for mining work.

Many people do not know that the temporary foreign worker program has been in place for decades. It can work well in some limited circumstances if it responds to an actual need for truly temporary qualified workers, but the reality since the Conservatives came to power has been quite different. Since 2006, the Conservatives have expanded the temporary worker program, accelerated the application process, and brought in hundreds of thousands of foreign workers. Then the Conservatives inexplicably fast-tracked the program even further and admitted an additional 200,000 foreign workers. The total now, since the Conservatives took office, is over half a million temporary foreign workers.

Then the Conservatives allowed temporary foreign workers to be paid 15% less than Canadian workers. Is that not just an abuse of foreign workers? With that change, the Conservatives started a race to the bottom, driving down Canadian wages as well. It is a lose–lose situation. After an outcry, the government reversed this change and it has started to undo some of the damage caused by the expansion of the temporary foreign worker program. However, this program still poses a threat to jobs for Canadians, especially in remote and rural areas, like my riding.

The Ring of Fire mining development in northern Ontario has huge potential to generate wealth, but the jobs from northern Ontario's resources may not go to northern Ontarians. Instead of hiring or training local people, foreign miners may be brought in to do the work. This is a problem.

Unemployment is particularly high among rural residents and the first nations that overwhelmingly populate the region near the Ring of Fire. The survival of many communities could depend on that development. Local residents must get first crack at local jobs. With proper support for training, especially in conjunction with first nations, the development could help entire communities pull themselves out of the cycle of poverty. It is good for the communities, developers, and the North and is good for Canada.

The Conservatives have been selling off our natural resources in raw, low-value form and have also neglected developing human resources over the past eight years. The Conservatives prefer to outsource as many jobs as possible. We must do more to develop a skilled Canadian workforce.

Will the minister commit to investing in the people of northern Ontario and across rural Canada? Will he assure us that temporary foreign workers will not be brought in to take jobs in the Ring of Fire?