Ève Péclet

[Natural Resources, November 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, this government does not understand that in the 21st century, jobs and the environment go hand in hand. That is why two of my colleagues are currently in Washington to pick up the government's slack. The United States has decided to allow more time for studying the Keystone pipeline project because it is concerned about the environmental impact. However, on this side of the border, the Conservatives continue to move forward with blinders on.

Will this government follow the example of our neighbours to the South and take the time to truly assess the environmental and economic impact of the Keystone pipeline project?

[Business of Supply, October 31st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the NDP motion. To clarify certain things, this motion includes a plan to ban the export of asbestos and a plan to retrain workers in that industry and help them recover from the current crisis. In 1991, the asbestos industry employed about 1,500 workers in Thetford Mines. Today, there are only 350, who work three to four months a year. Right now, the asbestos industry is going through a crisis, because more and more countries are banning asbestos. They no longer want it. Indeed, some 50 countries have already banned it, but Canada is not one of them. We are the only country, the only western power, the only western democracy that is dead set against declaring asbestos a hazardous product.

In 1998, Canada banned the use of asbestos in everything, including buildings, but we continue to export it to countries that have less stringent occupational health and safety standards or building codes. If the hon. member thinks this is not the case, then why is the government spending millions of dollars to remove asbestos from buildings if it is not banned and it is not dangerous?

Since this morning, the government has been repeating over and over that its budget is fantastic, that it provides tons of money to create jobs. However, it is totally silent on the asbestos industry. We should talk about it here. The government has subsidized 160 trade delegations to 60 countries to promote asbestos. It has spent money to promote asbestos. Why not use that money to establish a subsidy fund for older workers in that industry and to diversify our economy, so that it is not based on products that kill 100,000 people every year?

Canada has no shortage of natural resources. Our economy is not based only on asbestos. I will not let the government tell Canadians that the NDP is opposed to the mining industry. That is not true. I remind the House of what the hon. member for Newton—North Delta repeated: just because we oppose a product that is dangerous for Canadians and for everyone else in the world does not mean we are necessarily opposed to products that are not dangerous.

I am not going to get technical, but there are alternative materials. The government could take the money that it is spending on lobbyists and on trade missions, not to mention the $250,000 given in each of the past three years to the Chrysotile Institute, and invest it in alternative energies. We know that such alternatives exist and the hon. member should know it too.

In Thetford Mines, 350 people work three to four months per year. It would be very easy to take the millions of dollars that were spent and create a subsidy fund to allow these workers to recover from the crisis and retire in dignity. In doing so, we would also diversify our economy. We know that diversifying the economy is something very important for the Conservatives. Here is a solution for the government: to invest in alternative energies and materials, and to set up a subsidy fund for asbestos workers.

Yet, today I did not hear any Conservative member propose a solution. The government only told us that its economic recovery budget was fantastic and that it had created 600,000 jobs, but it said nothing about asbestos.

NDP members rose on many occasions to call government members to order and tell them that their speeches were not relevant to the motion before the House.

We are not asking the government to merely ban asbestos, but to invest and subsidize people. We are asking the government not only to do that, but to also take the money that it gives to large corporations and lobbyists, the money it uses to send delegations abroad. The government is spending millions of dollars annually. It should take that money and give it to Canadians rather than to large corporations. It should take that money and give it to those Canadians who need it.

I am going to conclude by saying that even Health Canada has refuted the claim made by the Conservatives to the effect that asbestos can be used safely. That is absolutely false. Even the official opposition in Quebec is asking the provincial government to set up a parliamentary committee to look at the effects of asbestos on health, because it is worried.

[Business of Supply, October 31st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind the hon. member that today the debate is on the asbestos industry and not on the government's economic action plan. I have been listening since the beginning of his speech, and the first two or three minutes were on today's debate on asbestos. However, for the past five or six minutes, I have heard him talk about the government's economic action plan and the 650,000 jobs that have been created. This has nothing to do with the debate we are having today in this House on the asbestos industry.

[Business of Supply, October 31st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the part of the motion that talks about support for workers and the industry.

Would it not be possible for the government to stop subsidizing and paying for trade delegations that go to other countries to promote asbestos? Would it not be possible for the government to stop spending hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on the asbestos industry? Would it not be possible for the government to take all that money and invest it in a fund? That way, first, we could diversify the Canadian economy, something we often hear about from the other side, the government side, and second, it could also help the workers so they do not find themselves with no money when asbestos stops being produced and exported.

I would like to hear my colleague’s comments on that.

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, to add insult to injury, all the members are laughing and no one is listening to what my colleague is saying. That shows a complete lack of respect. They are making jokes and laughing about the fact that he is standing up for his constituents. That really shows a total lack of respect. It shows just how little the Conservative government cares about the interests of Canadians right now.

I will get back to the question I have for my colleague from Winnipeg North. We saw what happened in the United States. One, two or three major companies have a monopoly over wheat. I can name a number of documentaries that show interviews with American farmers. They lost their homes and their families because they had no more money. They had to shut down their business.

I would like my friend to tell us how the government can justify the free market. Is it truly free to be at the mercy of huge American companies? Is that what the free market is about?

[Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, October 19th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for the hon. member. The government keeps talking about the strong mandate the public and Prairie farmers gave it to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board. I would like the hon. member to tell me why the government refuses to follow what is written in the law. The law states clearly that the farmers have the right to vote on any changes to the Canadian Wheat Board.

What is the government doing about the 60% of Canadians who did not vote for them? Only 40% of Canadians voted for them. What is this government doing to respect the interests of the 60% of farmers who voted by plebiscite to say they wanted to keep the Canadian Wheat Board?

What does the government have to say about that? Why does it not want to hold a referendum or plebiscite? Why does it not want to obey the law? Why does it not want to respect the interests of 60% of the Canadian public? It only respects the interests of the corporations that give it money because we know full well that those who are going to benefit from this are the government's best friends, the big corporations.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my hon. colleague could enlighten the other members.

Since this parliament began on June 2, the Conservatives keep saying that the NDP wants to raise taxes. That is false. We are simply asking the government to stop lowering taxes for large corporations and to stop giving them billions of dollars in perks and gifts. I wonder if my colleague could explain the NDP's plan so that they understand.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with what my colleague had to say about nurses and doctors in rural areas. That is an excellent measure, but it does not address the doctor shortage.

Since there is absolutely nothing set out in the budget right now, can my colleague tell me what the government will do to increase enrolment in medical schools, decrease student debt and prioritize health care training programs? Professionals are being relocated, but there is still a shortage. Why not recognize the credentials of new Canadian citizens who have settled here? What will the government do about this shortage?

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the government is giving small and medium-sized businesses a temporary tax credit for one year. It is an insult to the intelligence of all Canadians to say that this is going to solve all the problems. The NDP proposed that the government give employers a rebate of $4,500 on Employment Insurance premiums, the full amount of the employer's contribution to the Canada pension plan. This would guarantee that all employers and workers would not have to pay their bills indirectly through higher premiums.

This is a positive proposal, a solution that the NDP is offering to the government, which still refuses to negotiate with us, by gagging us and passing motions to limit debate, while giving $2 billion in tax breaks to large corporations. That is what the government is doing and that is what all Canadians need to remember. The government is trying to lie to them by saying that it has created 600,000 new jobs, but this is not true. As I said in my speech, I have the figures to prove that this is completely false. We are still 250,000 jobs short of the number we had before the recession.

All Canadians must remember that this government does not have their interests at heart. Rather, the government is concerned with the interests of its friends—the oil companies and large corporations that give it money. Today, the government is trying to put the blame on the NDP by saying that all the NDP wants to do is increase taxes, but that is not true.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member maybe does not want me to talk a lot, because his question was pretty much political statements. Therefore, I will take my time to say that the NDP has proposals. The government refused to listen to us and even integrated some of our propositions in its budget saying that it was its idea and that the NDP wanted higher taxes.

I have some proposals. Non-refundable tax credits are not good for most Canadians, but refundable tax credits are. This is one of our propositions. Did the government listen to us? No, not at all.