Élaine Michaud

[Respect for Communities Act, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the Conservatives have finally decided to join today's debate in the House. Unfortunately, I also feel as though my remarks and intentions have been misjudged.

In the comment I just made, I clearly mentioned that I am completely open to consultation. What the hon. member for Langley has failed to mention is the huge list of conditions that organizations seeking to open new supervised injection sites will have to meet.

The member also failed to mention that, even if the applications submitted by organizations meet all the criteria, the minister can still refuse to allow these sites to open. Clearly, the criteria for opening new sites are excessively restrictive.

My colleague also seems to forget that some of his constituents may be struggling with drug addictions and may need the help provided by facilities such as InSite. We must not think only about the most fortunate people in our ridings. We also have to think about the most vulnerable. However, this government forgets and neglects these people, which I find extremely unfortunate.

We all have vulnerable people in our ridings who need our help and who gave us the mandate to represent them and stand up for their interests. However, unfortunately, these are the people who are being neglected in the Conservative ridings.

[Respect for Communities Act, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent question.

I fact, as I mentioned earlier, InSite has managed to reduce overdose mortality in Vancouver by 35%. That is very significant. It shows the positive impact that a supervised injection site such as InSite can have.

Earlier, my colleague opposite, the member for Langley, seemed to insinuate that people opposed to this bill also oppose public consultation. If we read between the lines of the bill, we see that the Conservatives are trying to establish a structure to prevent the opening of other sites. I just cannot understand that.

Unfortunately, I do not have the time to read all the criteria that the Conservatives have put in their bill in an attempt to tie the hands of people who would like to open new sites like InSite, which help people dealing with addiction.

However, the statistics that my colleague and I have provided show the direct positive effects of centres such as InSite. I find it unfortunate that, even today, we are debating reducing access to services for those with drug problems.

[Respect for Communities Act, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House to join with my colleagues in opposing Bill C-2.

To be quite honest, I am extremely disappointed that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver East was rejected. It is very unfortunate. She put forward an amendment that was sensible, reasoned and based on scientifically proven facts. Unfortunately, Conservative ideology has once again prevailed over science and reason. We are debating yet another seriously flawed bill that reflects the Conservatives' outdated thinking and prejudices. Falsely touted as legislation that will protect Canadian families, Bill C-2 is designed to violate the Supreme Court's 2011 decision regarding safe injection sites.

I think it is important to note that at the time, the Supreme Court ruled that the minister's decision to close InSite, in Vancouver, violated the rights—as guaranteed in the charter—of InSite's clients and that the minister's decision was arbitrary and undermined the very purposes of the act, which include public health and safety. The Supreme Court also ruled that the minister's violation was very serious. It endangered the health and lives of the clients as well as people in similar situations. The Supreme Court also stated that InSite and other supervised injection sites should be granted an exemption as provided for under section 56 of the act when a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety.

Naturally, this decision contradicted the Conservatives' obvious desire to get rid of anything that could even remotely resemble a supervised injection site. Bill C-2 is another attempt to satisfy this desire, even though many scientific studies have proven that supervised injection sites like InSite are beneficial. Studies have also proven that these sites do not represent any risk to public safety and that they actually tend to enhance public safety in our neighbourhoods.

Scientific evidence has shown that supervised injection sites can effectively reduce the risk of contracting and spreading blood-borne diseases such as HIV and hepatitis C, and also help decrease overdose-related deaths.

Supervised injection sites are consistent with a harm reduction approach, an approach that Canada took until 2007, when the Conservatives decided to impose their abstinence ideals at the expense of the public, even if it risked the lives of people struggling with addictions.

I think it is rather ironic that we are debating Bill C-2 to get rid of supervised injection sites so close to December 1, World AIDS Day. Yesterday, the Canadian AIDS Society was handing out red ribbons, like the one I am wearing proudly today. My Conservative colleagues went to pick up ribbons and wore them proudly, but today they are here in the House continuing to push their partisan agenda. They are still doing everything they can to get rid of supervised injection sites. They are directly undermining the work done by health care professionals to eradicate epidemics of blood-borne diseases like AIDS.

While talking yesterday with representatives from the Canadian AIDS Society, I learned that some parts of Canada are currently facing an actual AIDS epidemic. For example, in Saskatchewan, the HIV infection rate is almost three times higher than the national average. These figures are disturbing. One factor that contributes to the spread of HIV/AIDS in certain parts of Saskatchewan is unfortunately injection drug use.

Having sites like InSite would be a very effective way to reduce the incidence of this disease, in addition to reducing overdose deaths, as I mentioned earlier.

However, rather than directly supporting the efforts being made to eradicate this epidemic, the Conservatives are trying to prevent the opening of new sites and depriving vulnerable Canadians of the services and support they actually need. Rather than helping these vulnerable people, the Conservatives are using them to raise funds from their voter base. Honestly, this is one of the most disgusting things I have seen this government do, while hiding the truth from its base.

The Conservatives tell their voter base that this bill will help keep heroin out of their backyards. This is totally false. In fact, nothing could be farther from the truth. If people no longer have a place where they can go, receive medical care and get the help they need, in addition to having a safe place, inside, to use the drugs they are unfortunately addicted to, where will these people go? They will go into the streets and the parks and near schools.

In recent weeks, we have heard a number of Conservative members say they care about Canadian families and they want to protect mothers, children, widows and orphans. Really, they are simply fearmongering in order to fill their coffers in preparation for the next election and using vulnerable people in our society to do so. Those people really need our help; they certainly do not need the contempt this government is showing them every day.

Frankly, I cannot believe the Conservatives are waging such a fundraising campaign in our society. It is beyond comprehension and furthermore, based on a campaign of fear and prejudice, with no basis in fact. The Conservatives are trying to address some legitimate concerns of the people they represent.

Quite honestly, each and every one of us has people in our riding who are worried about supervised injection sites. These are legitimate concerns that must be addressed. We must not react by fearmongering or encouraging prejudice and scorn towards people with substance abuse problems. Instead, we should be using our resources to try to solve the problem. We need to ensure that people can get the support they need, as well as easy access to resources to help them treat their addiction.

That is exactly what is happening at InSite. People have direct access to health care professionals who are there to help them in case of any problems or to simply provide advice. They have access to social workers and can be referred to detox centres.

Research has shown that in addition to reducing overdose deaths in Vancouver by 35%, which is significant, people who use InSite's services are almost twice as likely to enrol in a detox program. They are also more likely to have access to the resources that will help them turn their lives around and overcome their addiction. However, we have to go to them. To simply say that services exist, without making them easily accessible to the people who need them most, does not guarantee access and will not have the desired effect on public safety.

I do not have any children yet, but I can picture myself taking my children to a park one day and watching them discover discarded needles that might expose them to communicable diseases. I do not want that to happen. No one does.

However, that is what we might see happening in our streets as a result of the Conservatives' decision. People will no longer have a safe place to go to. They will have to go back to what used to be standard practice in neighbourhoods across the country, when people would shoot up here and there in the street, in the lobbies of commercial and residential buildings, near schools and in parks. Unfortunately, that is what we can anticipate if Bill C-2 passes as is. I hope it does not.

I am totally against passing such a bill. I hope that the Conservative Party members will listen to reason and understand the message from social organizations, health professionals and people who work with addicts daily and know their reality.

These people and these organizations dispense with prejudice and false, backward ideology, and focus instead on research and proven clinical trials. That is what we should be basing our decisions as parliamentarians on. The government should rely less on ideology and more on facts. For that reason, I hope that Bill C-2 will be defeated.

[Respect for Communities Act, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord for his excellent remarks and for his excellent work as the NDP's deputy health critic. He knows his stuff.

His arguments as to why Canada should have supervised injection sites are based on facts. I find it unfortunate that the Conservatives' arguments are based on their ideology and prejudices. What is more, they are unable to provide any scientific evidence or point to any scientific studies that show that supervised injection sites are harmful and detrimental to public safety.

I would like my colleague to elaborate on the importance of supervised injection sites. Their importance has been scientifically proven, through various studies. I would like to hear what he has to say about those studies.

[National Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Heritage Day Act, November 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House today to support Bill C-501, An Act respecting a National Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Heritage Day.

I would like to take a moment to thank my colleague opposite, the member for Northumberland—Quinte West, who introduced this bill, which is designed to recognize and celebrate the importance of these activities and what they bring to Canadian society. This bill speaks to many of the people in my riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

If this bill passes, the third Saturday of September would be designated as National Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Heritage Day all across Canada.

The NDP is proud of this part of Canada's history and heritage. We know that hunting, fishing and trapping—along with all the related activities—have always played an integral role in the economic, social and cultural development of every region in this country.

This is especially true in my riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, where hunting, fishing and trapping have been very important activities for hundreds of years. In fact, very well-known private hunting and fishing clubs existed in my riding as far back as the late 1800s. Among the most prestigious in Quebec are clubs like the Tourili club and the Triton club, located just a few kilometres north of Saint-Raymond de Portneuf.

The vast natural spaces found in my riding have been the envy of many people and have drawn many visitors over the years. These clubs have played host to many well-known people, including Winston Churchill, who visited the clubs in my riding. Many members of the Rockefeller family also enjoyed the hunting and fishing clubs in Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. Even the 25th president of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt, was a fan of these hunting clubs, particularly the Tourili club. He hunted moose there on more than one occasion.

I invite my colleagues to do a little Internet research when they have some time. They will find pictures of Theodore Roosevelt with the antlers of moose he hunted in my riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, which has a long, proud history of hunting, fishing, trapping and all related activities.

Today, we are lucky because the wilderness in my riding is no longer reserved for the English elite, as was the case at the time, in the 1800s. Now we can all enjoy these beautiful spaces in my riding, as my constituents do almost every day. There are many sites reserved for hunting and fishing virtually everywhere in the riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

According to Guy Moisan, one of my constituents and a member of the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs, hunting and fishing are practically a religion for many of the people living in Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

Among the many nature sites in my riding, I can mention the Portneuf wildlife reserve and the Parc national de la Jacques-Cartier, where it is possible to fish in certain areas. People can fish from nearly all the wharves on the banks of the St. Lawrence River in Neuville, Portneuf and Donnacona, as well as on the many lakes and rivers in the riding. People in places such as Sainte-Brigitte-de-Laval, Saint-Basile de Portneuf and Saint-Augustin-de-Desmaures engage in these activities, and it would be very meaningful to them to have a special day dedicated to celebrating the heritage surrounding hunting, fishing and trapping.

These activities bring countless benefits to my riding. Tourism is among the major contributions from activities associated with hunting, fishing and trapping. Other economic benefits include sales of the licences and equipment needed to practise these activities and the trips made throughout the region to enjoy the many hunting and fishing spots. All this promotes the economic development of my region, but most of all, of course, it helps maintain this fine tradition that has existed for hundreds of years in Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, as I mentioned earlier.

One very important thing about hunting and fishing is that, in addition to being leisure activities and livelihoods, these activities teach you to respect nature and animals. That is one thing that Mr. Moisan said when we had a chance to discuss Bill C-501.

These issues are in line with the NDP's concerns, such as the protection of endangered species, the ethical treatment of animals and the protection of our rather fragile ecosystems.

I do have some criticism for the government. Although there are some good bills that acknowledge certain aspects of our heritage, such as hunting, fishing and trapping, we have seen many other bills introduced by this government that jeopardize ecosystems and have an impact on species. For example, I am thinking of species of fish or other animals that could be affected by new natural resource development projects.

Making decisions without any forethought leads to problems, and that is where citizens and hunters and fishers alike will see negative impacts. Mr. Moisan talked to me about that. Every year, in my area, people have to go further and further away to fish and hunt, and they are catching less and less. There are a number of reasons for that, including urban development.

Environmental issues and various factors such as pollution and massive, uncontrolled catches have adversely affected hunting, fishing and trapping.

The bill does not address that issue, but it should be brought to the attention of the House. As I mentioned, the Conservatives have already made decisions with disastrous consequences for the environment.

One of the most serious decisions made here, which will directly affect fishers and possibly hunters and trappers in the region and across the country, is the elimination of the protection for thousands of Canadian lakes and rivers. This will have a direct impact on opportunities for hunters, fishers and trappers to contribute to regional economies that rely in part on these activities. It is absolutely deplorable that we are faced with this situation.

The Conservatives often say that they support duck hunters, fishers and hunters of other game. However, when they make decisions like that, they have a direct and harmful impact on the activities of people they say they represent and whose interests they claim to defend.

The Conservatives are somewhat inconsistent, but all the same, the bill before us today meets some of the needs expressed by hunters and fishers in my riding. They think a day that celebrates hunting and fishing can have significant positive impacts. In addition to promoting those activities, it is also a good way to get new people involved and attract more and more young people.

In Quebec, a lot of communities celebrate fishing days, usually in June. In communities in my riding, such as Sainte-Brigitte-de-Laval, Saint-Basile and Shannon, people go out and enjoy those activities. That is when young people make their first catch and get hooked.

Having a national day to celebrate our hunting, fishing and trapping heritage and to encourage more people to take part will be a positive outcome of the bill. That is one of the reasons I am proud to support it.

I hope that people from all parties will do the same so that we can have an annual celebration of the important role that hunting, fishing and trapping have played in Canada's history and in our social, cultural and economic development so far, and of the importance these activities will have to future generations.

[National Defence, November 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is nonsense. According to the Auditor General, the budget for ships “is insufficient to replace Canada's 3 destroyers and 12 frigates with 15 modern warships with similar capabilities”. The Conservatives promised that every shipyard would benefit from this program. However, if they stick to this budget, they will have to reduce the number of ships ordered and therefore the number of jobs promised. What will they choose: ordering fewer ships or spending more money?

[Ethics, November 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, even though the scandal did not make headlines until May 15, the Prime Minister's lawyers had been working on a legal agreement among Duffy, Wright and Gerstein for weeks—months, actually.

Why did the Prime Minister not speak publicly about that agreement until May 15?

[Ethics, November 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives can continue to play the same broken record, but the Prime Minister and his parliamentary secretary lost what little credibility they had left in this scandal a long time ago.

After the $32,000 payment did not go ahead, Senator Gerstein made a deal with Wright to pay him $60,000 of the $90,000 that he gave to Duffy. Was this payment for services rendered? When was the Prime Minister informed of this deal?

[Offshore Health and Safety Act, November 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague for that important question, because it gives me the opportunity to emphasize how troubling it is that no Conservative members are taking part in this debate.

We were elected to come to this House, defend the interests of the people we represent, engage in dialogue and introduce bills, as well as to try to improve the content of those bills through debate and discussion. However, this government prefers to rest on its laurels and simply not participate. Frankly, this attitude is appalling. It is unworthy of the mandate we have been given and unworthy of voters' confidence.

It would be nice if even one Conservative member would rise to take part in the debate for a change. Then at least one member would be taking their responsibilities seriously and fulfilling their duty as an MP, which might make that person deserving of their constituents' trust.

[Offshore Health and Safety Act, November 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

I would like to believe that the Conservatives have had a revelation, a eureka moment. Then they would understand that it is important to protect our workers. Unfortunately, if we look at Bill C-4, which I spoke about and which was introduced just before Bill C-5, and if we consider all of the measures that have been implemented by the Conservatives since they won a majority, I have a hard time believing that is the case.

I am not overly optimistic that this government will protect workers in sectors outside the gas and oil industries. Since the start of the Conservative mandate, workers in the federal public service in particular have become this government's scapegoats for absolutely everything. Measure after measure is being adopted to eliminate positions, reduce the quality of working conditions and so on, all because it is easy to do.

I would really like to see the Conservatives bring in more measures to improve working conditions for workers in all sectors, but that is not what we are accustomed to under this government. Unfortunately, I am afraid that this is just a one-off. However, I will give them the benefit of the doubt. We can only hope that things will improve and that the Conservatives will start listening to the workers in various sectors, the people they represent in their ridings. It will be up to the Conservatives to prove that they really have the best interests of Canadian workers at heart.