Hoang Mai

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that very timely question.

It is precisely to study this issue that the NDP has requested an emergency meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Clearly there has been a lack of consultation. When we asked the government who in fact had been consulted, we found out that it had either invited people to submit their comments, or that they had been consulted online.

However, large organizations that represent the majority of the population, namely those affected by this decision, were not consulted. That goes for municipalities as well. However, they are directly affected, in particular Montreal, Toronto and other large urban centres, where questions continue to be asked on where these mailboxes will be located. There have been no discussions or consultations with the persons affected, whether elected representatives or members of the public. The whole thing has been a fiasco and that is why we are asking the government to reconsider this decision.

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have two comments on what the parliamentary secretary said.

First, 33% of households have home mail delivery, while in 25% of cases, mail is delivered to the entrance of a residential building. In 5% of cases, mail is delivered to a rural mailbox. So then, the numbers are higher. The figures quoted by the parliamentary secretary are not correct.

As for banking transactions, that is a good question. We know that Canada Post has been a profitable corporation over the past 17 years. It posted revenues of about $1.7 billion. Canada Post did not actually post a deficit until a new CEO was appointed in 2011 and the government and the corporation locked out the workers. Last year, it posted earnings of $94 million. It is still turning a profit, so there is no emergency. However, I do agree that there are some challenges to overcome.

To answer the question about banking transactions, why were these options not even considered? Why did the government and Canada Post not carry out any studies, as was done in other countries, instead of arguing that this would be too complicated? We are asking for a clear study to explore all options and the government and Canada Post are refusing to do that. They are unwilling to explore different options and ways of boosting revenues. They simply want to shut the door and cut services. This is unacceptable.

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am so proud of the motion that my colleague from Trinity—Spadina moved that I will read it:

That, in the opinion of the House, door-to-door mail delivery is a valuable service provided by Canada Post, and that this House express its opposition to Canada becoming the only country in the G7 without such a service.

As the deputy critic for transport, I have been following this issue closely from the beginning. I am very proud to have worked on it with my colleague, our transport critic, and with the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. He has also worked very hard on this file and has talked about the adverse effect this change might have on postal workers.

Canada Post made the announcement after the House adjourned. This gave the Conservatives the chance to hide a bit and not talk about this issue.

The government is being criticized for allowing this to happen without any consultation. That is why we asked the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to hold an emergency meeting on this subject. I am very pleased that the committee granted our request. Before the holidays, we had a meeting to discuss some of the issues.

I want to come back to the announcement and its direct consequences. First, the announcement said that Canada Post would stop door-to-door mail delivery. That affects more than 5 million Canadians.

We are told that two-thirds of Canadians do not get their mail delivered at home. However, when we take a close look at the numbers, we see that is not true. Two-thirds of Canadians still get their mail delivered at home. When we are talking about multiple dwelling units or delivery in rural areas, this affect 5 million Canadians, as I explained. This will have a tremendous impact.

The motion says that we will be the only G7 country without a door-to-door mail delivery service. That is disgraceful and it makes no sense.

The government is being guided by Conference Board of Canada studies, one of which shows that Canada Post will ultimately run a deficit. I agree that Canada Post is facing challenges. We know that the mail has changed. The Internet is now part of the scenery, and fewer and fewer letters are delivered to homes. That is a fact.

There are alternatives to slashing services and increasing costs.

A startling increase in postal charges has been announced. I have a small flyer that is now being distributed in the mail. It talks about an increase that would raise the cost of a stamp to a dollar. That is a substantial increase that will have a direct impact on small business and on charities that depend on postal services.

We see that the announcement was made without consultation, even though the government claims that it did consult. Nevertheless, we know that in reality, it was a matter of invitations and online surveys.

I want to get back to the fact that in the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, we put the question to representatives of organizations that advocate on behalf of all people in Canada with a disability. These people are directly affected by this, and they were not consulted. We are talking about people with reduced mobility, people who will have difficulty getting to the new mailboxes. The problem is that organizations that represent all Canadians were unfortunately not consulted.

Seniors were neither consulted nor represented. We know that they are very concerned about the issue. On the very day that Canada Post made its announcement, I received a call from a citizen in my riding of Brossard—La Prairie. He told me that this was a horrible announcement for him and his wife, who are both retired. He used the word “horrible” because he realized the consequences this announcement could have for them.

When the CEO of Canada Post says that this decision will be good for seniors because it will help them to get more exercise, we see that he is truly out of touch with reality and lacks sensitivity.

First, the government must stop blindly supporting this decision by Canada Post. The NDP's proposals must be considered. We know that there are challenges and that Canada Post is facing changes. However, Canada Post does have an advantage with parcels. I will come back to that later.

With respect to our proposals, other ways must be found to modernize the services provided by Canada Post. Online services should be used. Many countries in the world are facing the same difficulties as Canada Post. Not only have they modernized, but they have also turned to online banking transactions. That has enabled them to increase their postal revenues and expand their services.

The Conservative plan seeks to cut services to the public and increase costs. In reality, this will lead to the disappearance of Canada Post. We want to save Canada Post. That is why NDP members are standing firm.

I was very proud to be there on Sunday, when more than 2,000 people showed up in Ottawa to express their dissatisfaction. We distinctly sensed the people's frustration. Indeed, postal workers were not the only ones there. People had come from everywhere. There were seniors and persons with reduced mobility. They wanted to shout out their dissatisfaction and tell the government to watch out and to reverse course. We still have time.

The decision to increase rates will unfortunately be made very soon, although home delivery will be phased out over five years. The government must reverse that decision and realize it is not considering all the disadvantaged people. When it uses figures indicating that two-thirds of Canadians already have their mail delivered to mailboxes, it knows that is false. The numbers are different. In fact they show instead that two-thirds of Canadians still have home delivery service. Mail delivery to residential buildings is a home service. The decision is therefore premature.

I asked the CEO of Canada Post in committee why he had not considered the option to provide banking services, for example, or financial services, as other countries have done, France and Italy in particular. Those countries faced the same challenges and found solutions that saved certain elements. I am not sure whether I was really surprised by the CEO's answer.

As he himself admitted, he is a volunteer member of the Conference Board of Canada, the same organization that came to this decision. He clearly told us they had not considered that option because postal service was not the same as financial services and because there was already enough competition in banking services.

However, people have no choice but to accept increases in bank fees precisely because there is not enough competition. We launched the "Stop pay-to-pay fees" campaign because we think it is ridiculous to have to pay for the privilege of paying your own bills. That is why we are fighting this. This is all part of the same struggle, as we see it. In the throne speech, the Conservatives said they would be there for consumers. The first thing they did was to abandon consumers.

The Conservatives are also cutting postal service hours. They have cut the business hours of retail postal outlets even in my riding, in Saint-Philippe. People are getting even less service. Privatization is already under way. The government does not want to admit it openly. When we ask whether they want to privatize Canada Post, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport says the decision is up to Canada Post. The truth however, is that it is up to the government.

If you look at the facts, the reality is that more and more postal stations are private and therefore converted. Privatization is therefore already under way. The NDP will continue to fight.

My NDP colleagues and I receive complaints from our constituents, and I know our Conservative colleagues get complaints as well. There is an outcry among people living with disabilities, seniors, small businesses and community organizations, for example. We are asking the government to listen to Canadians and to respond. We are asking it to reverse course and to support the NDP's motion.

[Rail Transportation, January 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is still talking about talking. For 20 years now, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, the TSB, has been saying that DOT-111 cars are not safe. Twenty years. That means that the Conservatives and the Liberals ignored recommendations for improving rail safety. They ignored the warning signs.

Then came the Lac-Mégantic tragedy. The TSB is again recommending that the use of old DOT-111 cars be discontinued.

Can the minister tell us, right now, when these cars will be taken off the tracks?

[Respect for Communities Act, January 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert for her speech.

The Canadian Medical Association is opposed to Bill C-2 and therefore supports the NDP's position. The Canadian Nurses Association also supports the NDP's position. I would like my colleague, who has plenty of experience in the health field, to tell us why it is important to oppose this bill in order to defend public health.

[Respect for Communities Act, January 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Unfortunately, I have not had an opportunity to visit the site. On the other hand, I have read a great deal on the subject. As I explained, people are also talking about it in Montreal. There is interest in setting up four sites. Practical steps are being taken.

This is a debate that affects the whole of Canada. I admire those who struggled to set up the InSite clinic in Vancouver, but I believe that the progress that has been made in this area, and the lives that have been saved, can be beneficial for Canada as a whole.

I believe we have to learn from what has happened, from the experience acquired, and be aware of the problems that exist. We know that we are not going to solve the problem by merely saying, “Say no to drugs”, and everyone will suddenly be able to say no and be cured.

I am not a professional, but I trust those who are on the spot, I have confidence in the fact that there are people who have struggled and gained experience, and that all the experience gained will benefit Canada as a whole.

[Respect for Communities Act, January 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

When he asks his question and says that no one will tell users not to inject themselves, he is mistaken.

We know that InSite exists, and so does OnSite, which is there to try to help people to stop using. It would be wrong to say that the goal of InSite is for everyone to have fun injecting themselves. As I said at the start, it is not a free-for-all. The idea really is to do some prevention.

What the member is saying is equivalent to saying that it would be better not to let people inject themselves at a supervised site and let them do it outdoors. Unfortunately, we know that in that case, people will inject themselves outdoors. That does not solve the problem. We have to realize that there is a problem and determine how we are going to take action. Action includes making sure that the people who go to the site inject themselves safely, but it also includes helping them to get off drugs. That is what the member does not seem to understand.

[Respect for Communities Act, January 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to take part in a debate that we began before the holidays, and are continuing now, on Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Let me recap. People usually cannot take drugs—in this case, we are talking about heroin—but an exception was made for a centre in British Columbia called InSite. People can go there and inject drugs under the supervision of health care professionals. That is why they are called supervised injection sites.

However, for this to happen, an exemption was needed, and the Conservatives decided to take the centre on. The Conservative government clearly intends to close the centre. As a result, it started lengthy legal proceedings that were costly for taxpayers. In the end, the Supreme Court of Canada's decision was unanimous: this kind of centre is permitted. Despite everything, the government is continuing its assault.

It is important to remember why these centres exist. Contrary to what we are hearing from the Conservatives, who ran a fundraising campaign to take on these centres, it is not a free-for-all, where people take drugs and have fun. No, the idea is to protect them. It is a matter of public health and safety. The goal is to ensure that people who use drugs like heroin do so safely. They rarely choose to take drugs; it is an addiction.

The idea is to ensure that they are not injecting drugs in the street and that they are supervised in order to prevent overdoses. Overdose deaths have dropped by 35% since the centre opened. In addition, needles no longer litter the streets. Cases of devastating illnesses like AIDS and hepatitis have also decreased.

Such centres already exist in a number of countries. There are 77 centres around the world: in Europe, in Australia and one in Vancouver. This initiative has also received support from professionals in the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Nurses Association.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives have an ideological vision, illustrated by the slogan of their fundraising campaign, which says that they do not want such centres in their backyards. Despite the Supreme Court ruling, they are holding up the process and drafting legislation to make authorization from the minister a requirement.

Their intention is obvious. Clearly, the government is at odds with what 30 or so serious medical studies have shown: these centres save lives. This is a public health and safety issue. The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia will certainly ask me about the use of heroin in these centres since he has asked all my colleagues that same question. We are well aware that heroin is illegal in Canada. We do not want to promote heroin, quite the opposite. People bring their own heroin to the centre.

Unfortunately, some are addicted.

It is not a question of choice; it is an illness to be addicted to such drugs. What we are trying to do, and what people from InSite are trying to do, is to help people with addictions. They can make sure that their health issues are taken care of and that there are explanations on how to stop and how to get away from addiction.

Ignoring the problem does not work. We have seen it time and time again, with all the lives that were lost. The Conservatives are asking us to just go back, but it means that the lives that were saved might be lost again.

That is why the Supreme Court of Canada was very clear. I find it difficult to accept that the government and the Conservatives do not understand that the Supreme Court rendered a decision on the issue and that the scientific community supports this initiative.

The government is choosing to act based on ideology. We knew that the Conservatives do not believe in science. They are at odds with what scientists are saying. They are using prejudice and fear. That is most unfortunate.

I have tremendous respect for my colleague. I know that he worked in public safety before he became an MP. I do not understand why he is opposed to the centre when we know that the decisions are clear and that the centre saves lives, and we can see the whole process that was followed.

To come back to Quebec, since the Supreme Court of Canada decision, Montreal has decided to develop four injection sites. I know that the members opposite said that there was just one site. They are just trying to remove any possibility of setting up a site; they are trying to ignore the fact that the site works. That means that the Conservatives are not looking at what is actually happening. On the ground, people are still dying.

I am happy that there has been this support from the people of Vancouver. It was a step in the right direction, and unfortunately, instead of helping the site, the government put obstacles in its path. It took the case to court, even as far as the Supreme Court, let me say again. However, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court told the government that what it is doing makes no sense and is against the law, contrary to the charter and unconstitutional.

Sadly, the government is persisting in closing its eyes and, in a purely ideological approach, is continuing in a direction that really is contrary to public health and safety.

I am not the one saying this. If it were me alone, I could understand that the Conservatives might complain. Studies have been done by scientists. However, I am pretty sure that when the question is put to the Conservatives, they will not be able to denigrate that. The facts and the studies are there. Unfortunately, they are coming to us with a bill like this one. According to legal experts, this bill may once again be contrary to the Constitution and thus initiate another legal battle.

I know they are used to doing this, and it is an approach they follow. Having once been a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I know that the Conservatives tend to introduce bills without really studying their impact, despite the recommendations of the Canadian Bar and legal experts. They subsequently find themselves arguing before the Supreme Court. This costs money.

Speaking of saving money or cutting budgets, something the Conservatives are so good at, why do they not bring us more sensible decisions that begin by taking into consideration what is going on in the field, that is, do what is required to save lives, then abide by the Supreme Court’s decision? Why not just move in that direction?

We know that the heart of the problem is that the Conservatives say “not in my backyard”. They use that to stir people up, whereas in reality we know that this saves lives. Certainly, it is not a good thing, in the sense that we would all like to see no more heroin in the streets or in Canada. We would like people to stop using. The reality is different, though. What we are asking is that the Conservatives face facts, make sensible decisions and do, among other things, what the Supreme Court tells them.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, December 9th, 2013]

With regard to funding allocated to the constituency of Brossard—La Prairie from fiscal year 2002-2003 to the fiscal year ending in 2013: (a) what was the total amount of government funding, broken down by department or agency; and (b) what initiatives were funded and, for each, what was (i) the amount awarded, (ii) the date the funding was awarded?

[Rail Transportation, December 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, 1,800 accidents were not reported by CN. These were not minor accidents: 44% were main-track derailments.

All accidents involving trains should be reported because these trains travel through every community in Canada. Canadians deserve to know the truth about CN's safety record. What will the minister do to ensure that CN produces accurate reports?