Isabelle Morin

[Offshore Health and Safety Act, March 27th, 2014]

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

I do not know if I can answer it. I cannot read the Conservatives' minds, so I do not know why they did not act sooner. Maybe it is because they want to push their agenda through.

This is the 41st Parliament. We were elected three years ago, and since the beginning, the Conservatives have passed all of the bills that were in line with their values and on their agenda. I guess they wanted to get those things done first.

Since coming to power in 2006—not all Parliaments have lasted four years—maybe they decided to deal with their priorities first. That is a shame, because worker safety is very important.

The fact that it took 12 years is disgraceful. It is important for workers to feel comfortable and safe at work. The Conservatives are not the only ones to blame for the delay, because 12 years ago, the Liberals were in power. This is a sad situation.

The NDP is the party that can do the best job of protecting workers, their health and their safety. Those other two parties have just proven that this issue was not on their agenda or one of their priorities.

[Offshore Health and Safety Act, March 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Brossard—La Prairie.

As everyone knows, the NDP is very concerned about the health and safety of Canadians at work. Bill C-5 is a step in the right direction for offshore workers. Nevertheless, it has some flaws, and that is what I would like to talk about.

The debate on amending the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and other Acts and to provide for certain other measures began in 1999, when an offshore worker died off the coast of Nova Scotia. Negotiations, however, did not get underway until 2001. The issue came up again in 2010 following the report by Justice Robert Wells.

On March 12, 2009, a helicopter crashed off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, killing 17 people. There was one sole survivor. After the accident, an inquiry was launched. It was carried out by Justice Wells. The judge himself stated that the most important part of the report was recommendation number 29, which recommended that:

a new, independent, and stand-alone Safety Regulator be established to regulate safety in the C-NL offshore.

This recommendation from Judge Wells illustrates the first obvious flaw in this bill, even though it has the support of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. This fact has been criticized by Tom Marshall, the Minister of Natural Resources for Newfoundland and Labrador. Judge Wells also proposed a three-point plan in case that recommendation was not adopted. He recommended that the government:

Create a separate and autonomous Safety Division of C-NLOPB, with a separate budget, separate leadership, and an organizational structure designed to deal only with safety matters;

Establish...an Advisory Board composed of mature and experienced persons fully representative of the community and who are unconnected with the oil industry;

Ensure that the Safety Division would have the mandate and ability to engage, either on staff or as consultants, expert advisors to assist it in its regulatory tasks.

I remind members that at the committee stage, the NDP proposed an amendment to Bill C-5 regarding the implementation of this recommendation. The amendment would have required the minister to table a report to Parliament within five years on the enforcement and implementation of the bill and on the need for a separate and autonomous offshore safety regulatory body.

The answer seems to be that the government's top priority is resolving this issue as quickly as possible, despite the fact that negotiations have been under way since 2001. Then, they will not have to worry about it anymore, even though revising this bill could only benefit Canada's offshore workers.

Second, let us talk about relations between the federal and provincial governments. The Conservative government does not co-operate with the provincial governments enough, despite the fact that they have to have the federal government's consent to change their safety regulations for offshore workers.

An NDP federal government would have worked closely with the provincial governments in order to protect the safety of these workers. It would have addressed this issue in 2001, when the negotiations between the federal government and the governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador began.

This is nothing but another blatant case of the Conservative government failing to listen to the provinces' demands. Let us not forget that these negotiations began in 2001 and that the bill still has not been passed.

What excuse do the Conservatives have for dragging their feet on this issue, which was on the table before they even came to power? How, in almost eight years, have the Conservatives not found enough time to resolve this issue?

I could ask the same question of our Liberal colleagues, who could have considered the issue as early as 1999. We cannot waste any more time. We need to pass this bill now, once we have finished with the necessary debate.

Shell and BP are preparing to explore for oil off the coast of Nova Scotia, and I am certain that no one here wants a repeat of the catastrophic Deepwater Horizon spill. On the contrary, I think that everyone here wants to know that offshore workers will be safe and healthy.

Third, I firmly believe that Bill C-5 is a step in the right direction when it comes to protecting workers. This bill will give workers the right to refuse tasks that they believe are unsafe. In addition, the bill will protect workers from reprisal if they report unsafe situations. In so doing, this bill further ensures the safety of offshore workers.

However, I want to reiterate that this bill would be an even better fit if it implemented Justice Wells' recommendation number 29 or if it would at least call for a review, in five years, of how the bill is being enforced to determine whether the creation of a new, independent and stand-alone organization to regulate safety issues in the offshore is warranted.

In closing, the NDP recognizes the merits of Bill C-5, which is a step in the right direction when it comes to better protecting workers. However, we deplore the fact that it has taken so long to get to this point. The NDP deplores the government's dismal co-operation with the Governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador and the fact that it is ignoring Justice Wells' recommendation 29 on the creation of an independent and stand-alone safety regulator for the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador offshore, which was the most important recommendation in his report.

Before becoming an MP, I took human resources management and occupational health and safety courses. These are critical issues. Safety is paramount when doing one's job and many studies show that we do a better job and we feel better if we feel safe. When we do not have that pressure, we feel happier about going to work and when we feel happy we do a better job. Therefore, it is essential.

A Conservative member asked why we were taking the time to discuss this and why we did not simply want to end debate and vote. The reason is that it is very important to have the opportunity to express our views about a bill in the House. The Conservatives often use time allocation motions to impose closure in order to quickly pass as many bills as possible.

As parliamentarians, our role in the House is to rise and debate these bills. This is a means of communicating with my constituents. I tell them about the speeches I give on various issues. Even if I am in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, which is in Montreal, Quebec, and far from where these issues are centred, these issues are of interest to Canadians across the country. This is about health and safety and it is important to take the time to discuss this issue.

We are nonetheless pleased to support this bill because it is an improvement, even though it does not go far enough.

[Privilege, March 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to raise a question of privilege, pursuant to Standing Order 48. At the end of my speech, I would ask you to determine whether this constitutes a prima facie breach of my privileges as a member of Parliament.

This issue was recently brought to my attention, so I decided to raise it in the House today, at the earliest possible opportunity.

My question of privilege has to do with advertisements that the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie recently put in local newspapers to invite his constituents to come talk to him. These advertisements were clearly paid for out of the member's budget, which comes from the House of Commons, as evidenced by the House logo that appeared in the ads.

There is nothing unusual about inviting constituents to talk to their member of Parliament. In fact, these kinds of discussions are an essential part of the work that we do as MPs. I regularly host events to meet with the people of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and talk to them about issues of concern to them, such as affordable housing.

The problem in this instance is that the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie's advertisement explicitly invites “...people in the riding of Westmount—Ville[-Marie], the borough of NDG and the city of Montreal West”.

Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and all of Montreal West are in my riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. The member for Westmount—Ville-Marie's advertisement implies that he is the MP for the people of NDG and Montreal West, even though that is clearly my role. Why might the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie have done this? I will get to that in a few moments.

Mr. Speaker, I worry that by trying to falsely present himself as the member of Parliament for the people of NDG and Montreal West, the member is interfering with my work as a member of Parliament in my riding.

According to House of Commons Procedure and Practice by O'Brien and Bosc:

Speakers have consistently upheld the right of the House to the services of its Members free from intimidation, obstruction and interference.

It also states that even though it is impossible to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as interference, they must be considered by the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, there have been breaches of MPs' privileges in the past when people falsely claimed to be the MP of a riding when they were not.

For example, in 2004, a question of privilege was raised concerning a leaflet for a fundraiser. It contained an ad showing the former member for Beauharnois—Salaberry as the sitting member. The Chair found that there was a prima facie breach of privilege.

I realize that in the current case, the situation is not so cut and dry. The member for Westmount—Ville-Marie did not write in black and white that he was the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount. However, it seems clear to me that by deliberately and specifically mentioning the people of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and Montreal West, he is trying to present himself as their MP and implicitly suggesting that they can turn to him when they have any concerns or need any help, instead of turning to me, their actual MP.

In 1985, during a similar issue, Speaker Bosley said:

It should go without saying that a Member of Parliament needs to perform his functions effectively and that anything tending to cause confusion as to a Member's identity creates the possibility of an impediment to the fulfilment of that Member's functions.

The fact is that the actions of the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, in this particular case, could cause confusion, create an impediment to my work and harm my constituents. For example, imagine that a constituent from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce needed help from her MP on a citizenship matter. After seeing that ad, she might falsely believe that she must turn to the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie. She might go to his office and waste precious hours or days before being referred to her MP. I am very concerned about this situation, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to come back to what motivated the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie. Why would he want the people of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and Montreal West to believe he is their MP? Unfortunately, I think the answer to that question is rather obvious.

As you know, electoral boundaries were recently readjusted across the country to account for new demographic realities.

Accordingly, during the next general election in 2015, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and Montreal West will be in the new riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount. These boroughs will henceforth be part of the riding for which the current member for Westmount—Ville-Marie will surely campaign to represent.

Mr. Speaker, it seems clear that with this deliberate reference to Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and Montreal West in his ad, the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie is trying to target future voters in the riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount.

Working on community relations in one's own riding and outside of it is certainly part of a political representative's job. The problem here is that the member used his House of Commons' advertising budget, funded by taxpayers, to target future voters who are actually in my riding.

I am not an expert and it will be up to you, Mr. Speaker, to decide. However, it seems that using the House of Commons' resources for election purposes—this is definitely a case of preparing for the next election—is a breach of the rules of the House of Commons, which usually allow members to use their budgets to contact constituents in their own ridings.

I believe that there are grounds for raising a question of privilege and that the situation should be studied further in committee. However, should you decide otherwise, Mr. Speaker, I believe that all members would like a clarification of the rules on the use of members' budgets for the purpose of targeting future voters.

Mr. Speaker, if you find this to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 24th, 2014]

With regard to government spending in the constituency of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine: what is the total amount of funding, for each fiscal year from 2010 to 2013 to date, broken down by (i) department or agency, (ii) initiative, (iii) amount?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 24th, 2014]

With regard to the EQuilibrium Communities Initiatives (ECI): (a) what information did the government have concerning the lobbying activities of (i) Groupe Pacific, (ii) Michael Bedzow, (iii) Suzanne Deschamps, (iv) Pacific International Inc., prior to its awarding of a $177,000 grant from the ECI to Groupe Pacific; (b) were the four entities listed in (a) registered as lobbyists with the government prior to the awarding of the ECI grant; (c) what actions has the government taken since certain activities in Quebec of the four entities listed in (a) were recognized as unregistered lobbying; (d) why did the government award a grant to that project; (e) what analysis and research has the government engaged in concerning the Meadowbrook Golf Course area; and (f) what kind of oversight mechanism does the government have over grants such as the ECI to ensure that the government does not provide support and funding to projects that operate contrary to the recommendations of municipal and provincial entities including, but not limited to, the Office de consultation publique de Montréal and the Montreal Urban Agglomeration Council?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 6th, 2014]

With regard to the Bouchard Stream in Dorval, Quebec: (a) what environmental monitoring has been conducted on the health of this waterway; (b) what efforts has the government made to analyze the impact of Trudeau Airport on this waterway; (c) what efforts has the government made to ensure that the operator of the airport, Aéroports de Montréal, is complying with applicable acts and regulations pertaining to environmental issues, including, but not limited to, the Canadian Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act; (d) does the government's policy call for the introduction of (i) enforcement mechanisms, (ii) legislation to address Aéroports de Montréal's impact on this waterway; and (e) has this waterway been designated as protected by the government at any time, (i) if so, under which acts (including the current Navigable Waters Protection Act) and during which years, (ii) if not, why was it not considered to warrant protection by the government?

[Privilege, March 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question because, indeed, Bill C-23 contains many things. When the hon. member rose to speak to this bill, it was to talk about the vouching system. The Conservatives no longer want someone to be able to vouch for a voter's identity.

I have a little anecdote. I used the vouching system in 2008. I was a student in Sherbrooke at the time. I was living in an apartment with eight roommates. The hydro bill, the phone bill and the lease were not in my name. I moved around a lot, so the address on my driver's licence was my parents' address. I had to have someone vouch for me.

The Conservatives are telling students in this country that because they are students—students are more or less stable, their address is their parents'—they cannot vote. I am sorry, but in 2008, if I had not used the vouching system, I could not have voted. Voting is a fundamental right. It is important. The government keeps alarming everyone by saying that young people do not vote, but the vouching system was a good way to enable them to vote.

A member of Parliament makes up some story in the House because he wants to get rid of this option. I understand, the Conservatives do nothing for young people. If I were them, I would not want young people to vote either. In Canada, everyone has the right to vote at age 18. The Conservatives are trying to prevent that. That is what Bill C-23 proposes.

What we are talking about here is the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, who made up stories in the House. This case must be referred to committee because it makes no sense. If we let this go, there is no telling what this party will do.

[Privilege, March 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Laurentides—Labelle for his question.

It is not even a matter for debate because, yesterday, the Speaker himself said that the line had been crossed and the three conditions met. A committee should look at the situation to see what happened. Since yesterday, Conservative members have been telling us that the member apologized and all should be forgiven.

If someone comes to my house and steals something, then brings it back 18 days later, apologizes for stealing and says he should not have done it, that does not make it okay. We are giving carte blanche to a member who was fully aware that he was not telling the truth. That is the line. The member did not tell the truth, he apologized, and everyone wants us to say that there is no problem.

I think we need to go further than that.

[Privilege, March 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to take part in this debate. I believe that it will have a significant impact on the future of democracy in this country.

On February 6, during a speech he made in the House of Commons, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville stated that he had personally witnessed voter fraud. That is a serious accusation. He said the following:

I have actually witnessed other people picking up the voter cards, going to the campaign office of whatever candidate they support and handing out these voter cards to other individuals, who then walk into voting stations with friends who vouch for them with no ID.

In my opinion, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville made a very serious accusation. A few weeks later, on February 24, the member came to and changed his story. He stated that, in fact, he had not personally seen what he had previously reported. He said that he heard such stories when working in the rental housing industry. That is why, on February 25, my colleague, the House Leader of the Official Opposition, raised a question of privilege, saying that the member had deliberately misled the House. I believe that that is exactly what the member did.

What are we to think of these contradictions uttered by a member of Parliament? As the representative of his constituents, he should ensure, more than anyone, that his words and actions meet the ethical standards that all Canadians are entitled to expect an elected member of Parliament to meet.

I would not like to be one of his staff right now. I have a duty to my constituents, whom I represent every day in the House. I am here to defend their ideals and values, to inform the House of their views. If I told false stories to the House of Commons, many people would probably call my office, send me emails or write to me on Facebook. It must be mind-boggling for his staff. The member decided that what he had told the House was no longer the truth. He made that decision two and a half weeks later.

I do not know what happened. The allegation was rather serious. He accused some people of election fraud. Perhaps he realized he had gone too far. However, for the past two days, our Conservative colleagues have been saying that it is no big deal. The member did not tell the truth, but because he apologized everything is swept under the rug, forgotten, and we should move on.

Indeed, I would like to talk about important issues, such as the situation in Ukraine and the economy. Yesterday, we were supposed to have a debate on food safety, which is a very important issue, but we now find ourselves talking about this matter. I too feel that we are talking about it a lot, but it is a very important issue. We are talking about our country's democracy and what is going on in the Canadian Parliament.

Yesterday, on March 3, the Speaker of the House ruled in favour of my NDP colleague. He clearly indicated that the member knowingly made false statements with the intention of misleading the House. The member deliberately told the House something that was false.

We must think before we speak. Earlier, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration said that if a member apologizes 18 days later, it is okay.

I would like to share a story. A few weeks ago, I learned of an immigration case in my riding. The lady came from Russia. When she arrived in Canada, she was asked about her status. She was asked whether she was married, in a common-law relationship or single. The common-law relationship does not exist in every country of the world. Therefore, she said she was single. A week later, she realized she was in a common-law relationship. She wanted to correct her mistake but was not able to do so.

Thus, there are times when it is important to be aware of what we say and what we do. We are parliamentarians. We speak on behalf of Canadians. I do not understand why that woman was told that she could not change her status. It was a nightmare trying to change the form. Here we have a member who apologizes, says he did not act deliberately, says he is sorry for coming up with this story to help his party, but it is not true. He apologizes, saying “I misspoke”. The Conservatives want to move on.

I think and I hope that we are more serious than that. I think this is a farce, and it is important to talk about it. It is important to explore this in committee, to see why the member did that.

We have been talking about it since yesterday. The member was in the House yesterday. He never stood up to defend himself, to ask a question, to say that maybe we should investigate further. He did not say anything.

I would remind the House that three conditions must be met in order for someone to be accused of misleading the House. The member met all three conditions. The first is that the individual made a statement that was misleading. The second is that the individual knew at the time that the statement was incorrect. Since it was entirely fabricated, the member knew that it was false at the time. The third condition is that, in making the statement, the member intended to mislead the House. We have seen this in the past. The member rose here to say that it was not true, because he knew that he deliberately misled the House.

Therefore, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville was in contempt since he said he personally saw what he described, when in fact he was fully aware that what he had just said did not reflect reality.

As was mentioned earlier, he did not say it just once. He said a second time that he had witnessed this fraud. Therefore, this member clearly intended to mislead the members of the House. This is an extremely serious matter that goes to the heart of our democracy and has to do with respect for our country's most important institutions.

The member deliberately chose to present as facts information that he knew was false, to justify the passage of a government bill that would deprive some Canadians of their right to vote.

We could talk about much more serious issues. I would much rather talk about the bill and its content, but that is what happened.

Moreover, the Conservatives are accusing us of wasting time. I am sorry, but it is not because of me that we are discussing this matter. It is because of one of their colleagues who rose in the House at the beginning of February and spouted nonsense. If I rose and began talking nonsense, I hope my colleagues would call me to order and remind me that I represent people and must speak the truth.

The member presented information to justify the government's decision to introduce an electoral reform bill that ends the vouching system, which tens of thousands of Canadians use properly. He did that as a member of Parliament. Therefore, initially, we had no reason to think his statement was not true. In making this statement, the member was fully aware that, in the eyes of Canadians, his status as an elected representative in the Parliament of Canada guaranteed that he was telling the truth.

Why did he show such contempt for Canadians? I do not understand.

I think there is a simple reason. The member for Mississauga—Streetsville invented evidence to support the government's plan to use Bill C-23 to eliminate the vouching system. I think it is sad that the government would use such tactics to pass a bill.

I am sure many people have noticed that the Conservatives are prepared to do anything possible to take the next election. That is what is going on here.

The member spoke about one of the aspects of Bill C-23. He wanted to talk about a supposed flaw that was completely manufactured, in order to manipulate what members of Parliament and the Canadian public thought about the Conservatives' Bill C-23.

The member's only goal was to make the Conservatives' plan to abolish the vouching system more relevant. This system enabled more than 100,000 Canadians to vote in the 2011 election.

In conclusion I want to say that it is very important to send this issue to committee so that we can shed some light on this affair and find out what went on during those 18 days.

During the debate, some members argued that we must not create an environment in which members are afraid to rise and apologize. However, the member did not rise the next day. He rose 18 days later, which is the problem. Therefore, I think this issue should be studied in committee.

[Pierre Elliott Trudeau Airport, February 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the financial performance of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Airport is worrisome.

Over the past four years, it has fallen to fourth on the list of Canada's busiest airports, behind Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary. There are currently no direct flights between Montreal and large cities in South America or Asia, even though those are growing markets.

The federal government has not paid enough attention to Trudeau airport in the last few years. Trudeau airport should not be just another transit airport. An economic decision based on the value of opening up connections to these markets must be made.

This means more people flying out of Trudeau airport directly to destinations such as Shanghai, Seoul, Rio de Janeiro, and Buenos Aires.

An increase in the number of such direct flights is absolutely necessary. We can do this while respecting the health of those citizens surrounding the airport.

The Government of Canada must act now.