Christine Moore

[The Environment, December 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, there is not one Canadian who really trusts the Conservatives to protect our coastal areas in the event of an oil spill. Even though a group of experts demanded better resources for the Canadian Coast Guard and Environment Canada, guess what happened? The Conservatives decided to cut the budgets of both these bodies.

What flawed logic has the minister used to justify cutting budgets for protection and prevention while promoting increased tanker traffic?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, December 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

When we talk about time allocation motions, we normally assume that discussions haven taken place with the government leader. There are supposed to be discussions and negotiations. Why is he incapable of holding these discussions and negotiations? Why did he have to use a time allocation motion for the 58th time?

It seems to me that this undermines the credibility of this government, because a government should be capable of negotiating different agreements with other countries. However, the government is proving that it is incapable of sitting down with the opposition parties and having a reasonable discussion.

When I see the government behaving like this, I have no confidence in its ability to negotiate with other countries, even though that is one of its responsibilities.

I would like to know what discussions the government held and why it is incapable of reaching an agreement.

[Supporting Non-Partisan Agents of Parliament Act, November 20th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I feel that this bill is a real witch hunt. I am pleased to at least be able to speak to the bill.

This witch hunt is unfounded, and the Conservatives are using it for purely political purposes. First of all, there have never been any reports of incidents or actual or apparent conflict in these offices. I would like to add that political activities of public servants are already strictly regulated under part 7 of the Public Service Employment Act, the Political Activities Regulations and the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector. The only two offices not covered by those measures are the Senate Ethics Officer and the Ethics Commissioner. That is because they have their own very strict internal code, because they work in the area of ethics.

The first thing that jumps out at me from this bill is that it applies to agents of Parliament. It also applies to anyone who might want to work in their office ones day. For example, it applies to the Auditor General as well as the person in charge of answering the telephone and saying that you have reached the Office of the Auditor General of Canada.

This is in no way related to how important the desired position is. It is black and white; it applies to everyone. Some people are already subject to strict codes, like translators, who are required to keep their work confidential. It makes absolutely no sense. The Conservatives are looking for problems where there are none. What is even more hypocritical is that they are saying that the problem involves everyone working in the offices of agents of Parliament, when we know that this has never been an issue.

The government is doing this, yet it appointed I do not know how many defeated candidates to nearly all the positions it was able to fill. Every time a position opened up, the government found a partisan candidate who had donated to the Conservative Party or a defeated candidate to fill it.

I find that particularly hypocritical. The Conservatives need to acknowledge that they sometimes went too far in making partisan appointments and that they may not have made the best appointments. For example, Mr. Duffy, Ms. Wallin and Mr. Brazeau were appointed to the Senate. Well done. Talk about putting the right person in the right place.

I think we can all see that the government's judgment is completely disastrous. Perhaps it could admit that it has a problem and it should work toward having less partisan candidates in positions of some importance. I think the position of senator is a fairly important one in Canada. Instead of thinking about itself, looking inward and saying that it could maybe do something intelligent, the government is saying that the problem is the receptionist who works in the agent of Parliament's office, or perhaps even the person who cleans the office. It makes no sense, frankly. No distinction is made and everyone is lumped together.

Moreover, the government does not distinguish between politics, politicians and policy-makers. It seems to me that these concepts are crucial, because they imply different levels of involvement. Generally speaking, we also know that Canadians' apathy toward politics is at an all-time high. Close to 40% of Canadians do not vote. I think citizen involvement should be more highly regarded.

I think it is normal that people who have already been involved in political activities should be interested in the political system and should want to work in that area because they have had a similar job. However, the Conservatives make no distinction with respect to regions, either. In my region, some municipalities have only about 150 voters. On average, one person in 25 in the town could be a councillor or the mayor. Now, all that has to be declared. It is crazy. It is important to note that all that needs to be disclosed.

Everything has to be posted on the website. Therefore the names of all employees in these positions, with their statements, have to be posted regardless of what they do. This makes absolutely no sense.

There is something else that makes no sense and has to be discussed. Indeed, any member of Parliament or senator can ask an agent of Parliament to inquire into the partisan activities of his or her staff members.

For example, if a person is unhappy with someone else for any reason, that person can ask for an investigation of that someone else. Agents of Parliament will therefore be conducting investigations. I hope there will not be too many of them, but with the Conservatives, you never know.

Agents of Parliament have a specific job to do. We all agree that the Commissioner of Official Languages, for example, is overworked because of all the cuts and mismanagement of the Conservative government. Therefore what will he be doing? He will not be doing his job, as he will be busy investigating certain employees who may or may not be engaging in partisan activities.

Neither members nor Conservatives are even required to make a valid complaint. They can file a complaint without having any idea of whether it is valid or not. There will be no consequences. Whenever people have any doubts about employees, they will simply make a complaint and an agent of Parliament will investigate these employees instead of doing his or her job.

Worse, any member of Parliament or senator may request an investigation, but agents of Parliament will not be able to investigate the activities of the Senate. The Senate may ask for an investigation of agents of Parliament, but agents of Parliament will not be able to investigate senators. They will have to obtain a special warrant. Not even the Auditor General can decide on his own to investigate certain senators.

Of course, we do not know of any senators with strange spending habits, do we? No, we have never heard of such a thing. None of this makes any sense, especially given the huge scandal in the Senate right now.

It is clear that senators could ask for investigations into agents of Parliament, but agents of Parliament could not investigate senators. However, it is quite obvious that the Senate warrants far more investigation than the agents of Parliament.

This really is a bill that is totally useless. It is a witch hunt that shows a total lack of respect for the public service.

I think the bill tells Canadians to avoid getting involved in any way, because if they do, they will never be able to get a job with the government, which will shut them out. It makes absolutely no sense.

This can happen at all levels. This can include people who were involved in partisan activities not only at the federal level, but also at the provincial or municipal level. I do not know if this will also apply to people who work for a union. This is really just a witch hunt that shows contempt for workers in general.

What is even more ironic is that the Conservatives are doing this while refusing to look in the mirror and failing to realize that the partisanship problem is not among the staff of our agents of Parliament, but rather in this government. The problem is within the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister's Office. The Conservatives refuse to see that.

That is why I find it completely hypocritical of them to introduce a bill like this, when for months the Conservatives have been refusing to take any action within their own government. I find that completely hypocritical. I think this shows a complete lack of respect for all the people who work hard for the public service and within the offices of our agents of Parliament.

The Conservatives are showing just how utterly incapable they are of respecting a job well done. They are incapable of respecting people who really want to improve our Parliament and our country, like the staff at the office of the Commissioner of Official Languages who are fighting so that francophones like me can continue to enjoy the progress we have made. The government is laughing in their faces. This makes absolutely no sense.

I urge all members to vote against this bill.

[Afghan Veterans Monument, November 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion, which I will support of course.

Unfortunately, I must mention a rather important point, namely that we were supposed to debate the motion on November 6. However, that debate did not take place because on that day the Leader of the Government in the House preferred to table a time allocation motion on a government bill. Therefore, at the end of the day, we did not have time to discuss this issue, because of the time required to vote.

We could have discussed this motion during the week preceding Remembrance Day. I think it would have been a very appropriate time. However, because of undemocratic tactics designed to cut off debate, we are discussing the motion two weeks later.

Knowing that veterans and troops in Afghanistan are fighting for democracy, I find it rather ironic that the Leader of the Government in the House would propose undemocratic measures and try to muzzle members. I find it particularly sad that we were not able to debate the motion during the week preceding Remembrance Day.

I am now going to talk about what the war in Afghanistan means to me. I enlisted in the Canadian Forces shortly after September 11. In fact, I joined the forces on May 11, 2002. The mission in Afghanistan had just begun.

After basic training, we are often asked for what mission we want to sign up. I wrote very clearly that if I was asked, I would volunteer for Afghanistan. However, I was not asked to go.

I wanted to make that clear because I want to point out something rather important. CF members have political opinions and some of them did not necessarily agree with the mission in Afghanistan. Nonetheless, and despite the risks involved, many of them participated in the mission. They did so with honour and incredible dedication. They decided to serve their country and to wear the uniform. I think we should remember that.

CF members can disregard political considerations and fight for their country and for democracy. Even if they do not believe in every aspect of the mission, they feel it is extremely important not to let down their brothers in arms.

I remind members that this is an extremely stressful situation. Even if you do not participate in the mission, you always fear losing a friend or an acquaintance. When we were in the cafeteria at Canadian Forces Base Valcartier, we would all stop eating and watch with wrenched hearts as we heard the news that there were deaths in Afghanistan. We all worried about losing a colleague. The names would appear on a screen. I never lost anyone close to me.

For a few seconds, we would be relieved to know that we had not lost a friend, but then we immediately felt unbelievably sick, knowing that there was probably someone in the room who knew that person. We knew that that person had family. We could imagine how difficult it must have been for our own families.

I think we always have to remember that despite what goes on behind the scenes with a mission, the people who decided to go there are able to deal with it.

It had been a long time since the Canadian Forces had participated in such a dangerous mission. Nevertheless, the men and women of our armed forces answered the call. They knew that they might never see their children again after they left for the mission, but they were prepared to do so because it was what their country expected. They were fighting for democracy.

This is what we should remember when we think of Afghanistan.

Considering the sacrifices that these people were willing to make for this mission, it seems only right that the government be willing to commit to and work for our veterans to ensure they really receive adequate medical care, among other things, and that their families also receive the services they need.

Since the mission to Afghanistan, the rate of post-traumatic stress disorder has been incredibly high. This has caused divorces and has had an enormous impact on families. Some people have been scarred for life by these events. In this mission, 158 of our soldiers were killed and more than 2,000 injured. It is estimated that 15% to 20% of our soldiers are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, with varying levels of intensity. These are often the forgotten injuries.

If a monument is erected in memory of the Afghanistan veterans, I hope we will also consider those who are perhaps not physically injured, but whose minds will never be the same for the rest of their lives. They will never be the same. Some may learn to live with this disorder and recover. However, these people will never be the same. It is important to remember this.

Just seeing people get seriously injured, even if you are not the one injured, is traumatizing. These people have nightmares, and I believe that they, too, should be considered wounded. I do not want the government to acknowledge only physical injuries. I think it is important not to forget the psychological injuries that people have experienced on the ground.

I would like to express my hope with respect to this motion. It is just a motion, so it is not binding on the government. However, when we vote on this motion, I sincerely hope that the government will consider it binding and take real action. This motion must not be allowed to fade away. I sincerely hope that, when I stand up to vote in favour of this motion, the government will understand that we want a real commitment. Unfortunately, because it is a motion, there is no firm commitment.

I also hope that this will happen fairly quickly. All of the troops are supposed to be back in 2014. I would like to see the monument soon, and I would like to have the opportunity to attend, along with all of my colleagues, the unveiling of the monument in the national capital region, as specified in the motion. I would like the chance to see that.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that the situation in Afghanistan was unique, especially at the beginning of the mission. People were not ready when they got there, but they adapted as well as they could. Despite everything, they were able to face the challenge.

The Liberals were in power at the time. Who could forget that the soldiers showed up in the desert dressed in green? They looked kind of ridiculous, but that does not matter because they fought anyway. That shows just how unprepared everyone was.

When I began training, we were still being taught to fight an enemy force advancing on another force. We were not being taught that enemies were hiding behind people who had nothing to do with the conflict. The way we were taught to act in a conflict had nothing to do with the new reality on the ground. Despite their fears, people adapted and carried out the mission successfully.

That is why I hope that we never forget what veterans did over there. Lest we forget. N'oublions jamais.

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, November 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, often, when we talk about marine or air safety, we also have to consider people's perceptions.

I know that the hon. member was our deputy critic for the environment. Therefore I would like her to tell us how the people she spoke with perceive the government's ability to ensure the safety of Canadians when it comes to the environment.

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, November 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is indeed a critical point.

When this is studied in committee, I hope that the experts will provide concrete examples of incidents around the world and say how much cleanups have cost in practice. Earlier, I gave the example of an incident where the cleanup cost $3.5 billion. I think this is quite a substantial amount.

Through the testimony of these experts, the committee will be able to determine what the insurance coverage should be, based on past incidents and other potential costs associated with larger ships, to ensure that companies do not fail to pay.

Obviously, there should not be any situations where responses are inadequate, companies are no longer able to bear the costs, there is no compliance with the polluter-pay principle and, ultimately, the federal government and Canadian taxpayers have to foot the bill, all because a Conservative government refused to support legislation to adequately protect our waterways and ensure marine security.

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, November 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, from what I have read, no practical measures are being taken to protect that region.

I would like to come back to what I was saying earlier about the expertise of Quebec City rescue centre employees. They were able to respond to distress calls; however, such calls could also pertain to accidents involving a potential oil spill. That francophone expertise is being lost. The government is telling us that bilingual expertise will be available elsewhere, but such is not the case as of yet. In my opinion, that is cause for concern.

The public has legitimate concerns. The communities are very close and the damage could be significant. The St. Lawrence River's wildlife is rather exceptional.

What is more, the Gaspé Peninsula's economy is mainly based on tourism. Imagine the impact an oil spill would have on tourism in the area. Tourists would stay away for months because many attractions, including beaches, would not be accessible. That could have a major impact not only on the area's wildlife but also on the local economy of a tourism-based region.

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, November 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the current limit of 10,000 tonnes is not enough. One of the proposals we would like to introduce would significantly increase the limit associated with a spill cleanup. Obviously, this change would be based on consultations with experts appearing before the committee. They can tell us what the appropriate limit should be.

We need to keep in mind that the limit is currently 10,000 tonnes. That means that all companies need to be able to handle spills of that size. If they cannot handle the cleanup, the Canadian Coast Guard has the authority to intervene or to give other response organizations the mandate to clean up the spill. If a company cannot cover the cost of cleanup efforts, the Canadian Coast Guard may request funds from the ship-source oil pollution fund. This implies that the government should be responsible for any costs exceeding what the fund can pay.

There is a problem, however. In March 2013, the fund had a balance of $400 million. To illustrate how insufficient that amount is, I would like to use the Exxon Valdez accident as an example. After the disaster, cleanup costs and compensation for damages totalled $3.5 billion. Clearly, there is a problem. The amount available is inadequate. Even the oil pollution fund could not cover the costs resulting from a major spill.

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, November 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, based on my military experience, I can say that the clearer the procedures, the more specific they are and the more suited they are to different scenarios, the better equipped we will be to intervene quickly. The more we work in a vacuum, the vaguer the data, the more questions we have to ask, and the longer it will take to respond.

Therefore, the better the response plan and the greater the collaboration with local authorities, for example with the U.S. authorities in the event of a spill in U.S. and Canadian waters, the better prepared we will be and the more we will be able to intervene.

When we talk about this kind of bill, it is important to take the time to study it properly, ensure that its scope is broad enough to cover all possibilities and ensure that we are ready to take action if necessary.

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, November 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-3.

First, I would like to note that we will support the bill at second reading, but not very enthusiastically. The bill contains slight improvements in marine safety, but the government could have done much better.

I am going to take time to read the title of the bill because I believe it will help people understand: Bill C-3, An Act to enact the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act, to amend the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Marine Liability Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Many people will realize in reading its title that the bill is probably more than two pages long. It obviously addresses many points, and its approach is designed to achieve safety. If we are starting in on a bill that will amend several acts, it is worth expanding its scope to ensure we cover everything.

When you conduct a study, you may realize later on that you could have added a part. That is not efficient. It is important for us to bear that in mind as we begin a study as broad as this one on aviation and marine safety.

That moreover is the reason why the NDP proposed to expand the bill to include more specific measures that would protect Canada's coastlines, for example, and that would neutralize or reverse Conservative cuts and closures associated with marine safety and environmental protection.

I think when we are doing a big study like that, when we have a bill that concerns different laws, we have the responsibility to do the study really seriously and to try to extend the study to every measure that might be concerned. That is why the NDP has proposed to do a good study on the bill that would cover all the files. Unfortunately, the Conservatives say yes and then no.

When we want to try to have a really good study, it is very disappointing when the Conservatives have this attitude and say, “No. This is our bill, and it is what we are studying.” The NDP is really concerned to improve the law. It is not a question of partisanship; it is a question of improving Canadian law, and the Conservatives refuse to do it.

Let me briefly explain the various acts affected by Bill C-3.

Part 1 enacts the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act. In practical terms, this will authorize the Department of Transport to undertake to indemnify certain airlines for loss, damage or liability caused by war risks. We agree that these are not frequent occurrences.

However, if an airline’s aircraft are damaged in a sudden and unexpected war, the Department of Transport will be able to indemnify it. I do not believe this measure will be used very often, but it appears in the bill.

Part 2 concerns the Aeronautics Act. It will enable certain persons to investigate aviation accidents or incidents involving civilians and aircraft or aeronautical installations operated by or on behalf of the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Forces or a visiting force.

I see this may be useful, particularly in the event of an incident involving visiting forces. For example, it might be more difficult for Canadians to investigate an incident affecting visiting forces, considering the different cultures involved. People might be less responsive.

The fact that the parties co-operate could therefore be useful in some instances. If there is a language barrier, for example, they will be able to give us more information. Questions arise in my mind. Will those people be required to issue a public report on their investigation, as is the case when the Transportation Safety Board of Canada investigates? Some questions have to be asked, and it will be worthwhile exploring them in committee.

Part 3 amends the Canada Marine Act respecting the effective date of the appointment of a director of a port authority. I believe the first three parts are the ones involving the fewest problems. However, it seems to me that parts 4 and 5 raise more questions. I will bear them in mind as I listen carefully and read the committee proceedings so that I can then take a position and decide what I think the NDP should do when this bill reaches third reading. That is why I sincerely hope the Conservatives will be receptive in committee and prepared to really discuss marine safety, for example, when the committee begins its study.

Part 4 amends the Marine Liability Act to implement the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea, 2010. This deals with liability in the event of a spill, for example, and provides that a ship's owner is liable for the costs and expenses incurred by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans if it has to intervene or by another response organization that might have been designated by the department. It also confers powers, duties and functions on the administrator of the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund.

One question is not specifically addressed in the legislation, but it will be interesting to discuss it in committee, even though it falls under another heading, and that is the question of insurance coverage. As we unfortunately saw at the time of the Lac-Mégantic incident, people realized that MMA did not have enough insurance coverage to pay the costs of the accident. I therefore hope the committee will be studying that question as well.

If these people are responsible for paying, adequate insurance coverage must be available. Consequently, a fairly accurate valuation of what a major incident might cost must unfortunately be made. This is essential so that we can be sure that these people have adequate insurance coverage and that no companies will be unable to pay. If that were to happen, spills might continue spreading as no one would take action because no one would know how the bill would be paid. This is a very important question that should be discussed in committee.

Part 5 amends the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and introduces new requirements for operators of oil handling facilities, including the requirement to notify the minister of their operations and to submit plans to the minister. There are a number of parties involved. In this part of the legislation, however, I hope the persons responsible will be compelled to provide an accurate chemical description of the oil being transported. We have realized that the action taken sometimes differs somewhat depending on the type of oil or oil products that may be transported. I hope that will be part of the discussion in committee.

A new requirement in this bill will also compel operators of oil handling facilities to submit their emergency plans to the minister. I hope and trust that if they have an emergency plan, it means they have also consulted local coastal communities. I hope that there will be co-operation and that they will make sure local people who could possibly help them are familiar with how they can respond, and what they can do. I hope they are also trained. This is a question, once again, that will have to be considered in committee.

There is also a question of civil and criminal immunity for organizations involved in response operations. I wonder whether it is really immunity that applies in all cases, or whether it applies in cases where people have acted to the full extent of their knowledge and skill? For example, if a response agency is cutting a lot of corners, will it possibly be covered by such immunity? I believe it would be important to clarify this, because it could give members a better understanding of the bill.

I will now discuss the application of the new enforcement measures and monetary penalties. They also grant new investigative powers to Transport Canada investigators. I believe that when it is a question of monetary penalties, among other things, it is important to give careful consideration to the amount. Is the amount sufficiently large to have a real deterrent effect? If the amount is not sufficient, people will take risks regardless. I believe it is very important to take the time to consider what monetary penalties are appropriate and will actually achieve the desired result.

One aspect of the bill that should be noted is that there may be some lack of credibility on the part of the Conservatives, particularly with respect to marine safety, aviation safety and their policies in those areas. In some budgets, there have been significant cuts in the area of safety. A marine safety bill has now been introduced. Perhaps the Conservatives would not have lost so much credibility if they had not cut so much in the area of safety.

The member seated near me made a good defence of the Quebec City search and rescue centre, which is essential. The Conservative government has closed the only French-language marine rescue centre in the country. The centre is responsible for rapid action in the case of distress at sea. All at once, the Conservative government wants us to rely on it in matters of marine safety, when it has placed people’s lives in danger. There are people who were able to respond in an emergency. In my opinion, we should be wondering whether response staff will be increased to ensure safety. For example, will there be people able to respond in both official languages and understand people when marine accidents or spills occur? These are questions we have to ask ourselves.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives did not help when they made cuts in the area of marine safety. They also eliminated the positions of people with practical local knowledge. I have seen this regularly. People often use very local expressions when speaking of their location. If the person concerned is not familiar with the waterways, minutes and even hours will go by before there is a response. In the case of a spill, the longer it takes to respond, the bigger the spill will be. I therefore feel there is a real danger.

So far, unfortunately, the Conservatives have failed to impress me in the area of marine safety. I have genuine concerns about this, and I believe we should really make sure that the bill is complete. Unfortunately, if they refuse to expand the scope of the bill, we cannot be reassured and we cannot go as far as we would wish. We tell ourselves that, perhaps, we will have a bill, but eventually we will realize there is something it does not cover, and we will have to introduce another one. In the end, we will realize that the new bill does not cover everything, and another one will therefore be introduced. The process will extend over time, whereas we could have done the right thing, completed the work and made a serious and comprehensive study of marine safety.

It seems that is not the way the Conservatives like to operate, however. One could certainly say that logic is in short supply in their application of proposed legislation.

There is another aspect that is worth looking into. The Coast Guard is very much involved in marine safety. Our defence critic recently put questions to the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Public Works. He asked what had become of the shipbuilding program, because people who recently assessed the program had said that the money allocated to the program would very likely be insufficient to complete it. Naturally, vessels used by National Defence will also be used by the Coast Guard. If we are already short of ships to provide marine safety, I believe there is a serious problem, particularly considering the fairly substantial increase not only in the number of vessels plying our waterways, but also in their size and the potential dangers of a spill.

If the government were really serious about marine safety, it could have taken many other measures. For example, it could have cancelled the Coast Guard closure and service reductions like that in Kitsilano, British Columbia. It could have cancelled the reductions in marine traffic communication services, such as the Marine Communications and Traffic Services Centre in St. John's. Anyone with an elementary knowledge of Canada’s geography can understand that these are two crucial points with respect to marine safety in this country, on the east coast and the west coast. Given current traffic, these two service centres should not only maintain their capacity, they should also be able to increase it. At this time, that is not the case, and their services are in fact being reduced.

It is also important to require the Canadian Coast Guard to work with its U.S. counterparts and conduct a parallel study to examine the risks resulting from additional tanker traffic in Canadian waters. Of course, ships do not simply remain in Canadian waters. They move. That is why it is particularly important to conduct joint studies. We also need to be able to talk to our American counterparts about involving them in response plans. If, unfortunately, a ship has an accident at the edge of Canadian and American waters, we need to be able to respond efficiently as a team and know exactly who is fulfilling what role.

I would like to point out that the NDP's goal is to never have a spill occur. However, given all the Conservative cuts to marine safety, I feel our concerns are legitimate. We would like to know for certain what direction marine safety is headed in. We would like to know who will respond if there is a spill, how quickly they will respond, the target timetables and what our capacity is for controlling a minor or major spill. According to experts, we currently do not have the capacity for containing a major spill. The ships are so large that we do not have what it takes to respond.

I find that extremely worrisome. In committee, we will be able to look at these points more closely and ask questions. I hope that the Conservative government will be truly open to improving Canada's marine and aviation safety, for the benefit of all Canadians.