Isabelle Morin

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, November 21st, 2013]

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

It is true that I did not have time to mention all our recommendations and I hardly talked about the environment although the purpose of the bill is to improve the environment and to protect our seas and oceans.

Among other things, we would require the Canadian Coast Guard to work with its American counterparts and conduct a parallel study to examine the risks resulting from additional tanker traffic in Canadian waters. We know how many tankers are in our Canadian waters, so it is absolutely crucial to use this bill before us to improve the situation. I would point out that many people and groups support our positions.

I would like to end with a short quote. Federal Commissioner of the Environment Scott Vaughan stated that, even with the Kitsilano Coast Guard resources, a Suezmax-type supertanker, carrying between one and two million barrels of crude oil, “significantly exceeds Transport Canada's spill-response thresholds”. When our Commissioner of the Environment says that, we must ask ourselves some serious questions.

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, November 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for those two very relevant questions.

I often look to Norway and Greenland for inspiration. We do not necessarily need to follow in their footsteps, but our committee should look closely at the standards they have set. That way, we can weigh the pros and cons and determine whether we should move in the same direction. I hope that we can invite experts from those two countries to our committee or talk to them via video conference, so that we can ask them some questions.

As for his second question, concerning the transportation of dangerous goods, we unfortunately saw what happened in Lac-Mégantic. Today, the minister made an announcement, and the government is using this tragedy to score political points. It is quite appalling, but that is what we must contend with.

I get the impression that we are not concerned enough about the transportation of dangerous goods in this country, even though I know the transport committee will be studying it. Transportation of dangerous goods by land, sea or air must be taken seriously. It does not make sense that there is no law telling companies what to do.

Under this bill, oil carriers will have to submit plans to the transport minister, but is that enough?

It seems as though the price tag for Lac-Mégantic will be quite high, and the company is not even able to pay for the damage it caused. Is that normal? Must the government always pay? We are talking about saving taxpayers' money. Should that company have had the money needed to cover the costs associated with that disaster?

Those are all good questions that need to be answered in committee.

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, November 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to speak to 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.

I will start with some background. This is the former Bill C-57. Unfortunately, it died on the order paper when the government made the wonderful decision to prorogue Parliament. When the bill was introduced, the official opposition's natural resources critic, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, wrote to the Minister of Transport. I would like to begin by reading some excerpts from his letter.

I should say that I have been an MP for just over 30 months now and I sometimes feel disillusioned because I feel that the opposition and the governing party are really not listening to each other. We have come up with good solutions. We are ready to give credit to the government where credit is due, but in our democracy, a majority government could not care less about what we say. That is why I think it is important to mention that my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster went to the trouble of writing to the minister on April 5, 2013. He prefaced his letter by stating that he was writing on behalf of the official opposition.

In the second paragraph of his letter, my colleague pointed out that Bill C-57 had a few good things going for it. He added that the piloting experience required and increased oversight were a step in the right direction, but he noted that there was still a long way to go to make up for the draconian cuts that had been made to oil tanker safety in the previous federal budget.

He started by saying that we supported the bill in principle. In fact, we asked the government to send the bill to committee before second reading in order to address some of our concerns.

For example, my colleague wrote in his letter that, under Bill C-57, authorities would report directly to the Minister of Transport in the event of an accident. The bill also limits liability. That said, accident prevention is barely mentioned. He said that he was certain that the minister understood why British Columbia residents were not satisfied with a simple response plan in the event of an oil spill off the west coast. This is not a trivial matter. They want to ensure that action will be taken.

He closed his letter by saying that we hoped the Conservative government would choose to cancel its decision to cut safety measures and that it would broaden the scope of Bill C-57.

We actually said that Bill C-57 was a good bill, but that we wanted to broaden its scope a bit. In response, we received a self-congratulatory three-page letter from the Minister of Transport.

It said thanks for taking the time to write to me on Bill C-57, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act. I am glad that you recognize the positive aspects of this legislation. Blah, blah, blah.

In those three pages, the government boasted about being good for Canadians. It is rather incredible.

As the official opposition, the NDP did attempt to kickstart the dialogue that unfortunately has broken down in Ottawa. The NDP wanted to work with the government to do more, to better serve Canadians and to better respond to the concerns of people living in coastal areas. Unfortunately, the government was not the slightest bit interested in our proposals. It told us that it did not have to do what we wanted.

I would like to say that in the three-page letter written by the then minister of transport, he never mentioned that our proposals had some potential. He did not apologize for not allowing us to study it in committee; he did not even acknowledge that that was the purpose of the letter. It was so arrogant on his part. It is unfortunate.

Now the bill has returned under another name: Bill C-3. As my colleague mentioned, this bill will amend five acts.

Part 1 enacts the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act, which authorizes the Minister of Transport to undertake to indemnify certain airlines for loss, damage or liability caused by events that are commonly referred to in the insurance industry as war risks.

This creates a system under which the government covers the costs of damage in the event of unlawful attacks such as rebellion, hijacking or armed conflict. It is about keeping important air services in operation in Canada in the event of a crisis.

We are seeking clarification on some small points. The government is so afraid of what it is proposing that it is not ready to go to committee to answer our questions. I find that annoying.

Part 2 amends the Aeronautics Act to provide certain persons with powers 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.

We want in-depth consultation on this part with expert witnesses, in particular in terms of the discretionary powers of ministers.

As hon. members are aware, Conservative ministers have been giving themselves a lot of discretionary powers for the past two and a half years. We would like to have a little more information about this.

We would also like to go deeper into the matter of public disclosure of the results of investigations. We are all in favour of transparency.

Part 3 amends the Canada Marine Act in relation to the effective day of the appointment of a director of a port authority. There is no problem with that.

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.

I will quote what that 2010 international convention added:

The Convention covers the following damage resulting from the carriage of [hazardous and noxious substances] by sea: loss of life or personal injury on board or outside the ship carrying HNS; loss of, or damage to, property outside the ship; loss or damage caused by contamination of the environment; and costs of preventive measures taken by any person after an incident has occurred to prevent or mitigate damage.

Part 5 amends the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, to introduce new requirements for the operators of oil handling facilities.

On the whole, this is good, including the requirement to notify the minister of their operations and to submit plans to the minister. I live in hope that the minister will notify Canadians as soon as he is notified.

Part 5 introduces a few points, including a new requirement whereby the operators of oil handling facilities must submit to the minister a response plan, civil and criminal liability for response organizations engaged in response operations, the application of new measures and monetary sanctions, with new investigative powers for Transport Canada investigators.

I see I am almost out of time. Those are the five pieces of legislation that will be affected by this bill. As I said, that is not bad. Overall, I agree with the bill. I would have liked it to go a little further. This is a common problem with our Conservative friends. Basically, I would have liked it to go to committee, but we will have to wait for third reading.

We will be voting in favour of this bill at second reading. That does not mean we will be supporting it at third reading. We will wait and see what the experts have to say.

I wanted to talk a little bit about what this will involve, but I will go directly to what we want to see in this bill.

We came up with about 10 ideas of what we want to be included. Among them, we would like the cancellation of plans to reduce Coast Guard services and close stations, including the Coast Guard station in Kitsilano. We would also like the cancellation of cuts to marine communications and traffic services, including the maritime traffic control communications terminals in Vancouver and St. John's.

The government must cancel the closure of the British Columbia regional office.

I will not have enough time to name all of them. We had about 10 good recommendations. I imagine my colleagues who sit on that committee could list them. It is important that we take the time to do a proper study. I would have liked to refer this to committee before second reading, but since this is where we are, I would be happy to answer questions from my colleagues.

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, November 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we feel that this bill is a step in the right direction. As my colleague pointed out, we will support the bill at second reading so that it can be sent to committee and panels of experts can address some of our concerns.

For example, the federal Commissioner of the Environment's recommendations on the mandate of the Canadian Coast Guard, which is to respond to oil spills from offshore platforms, is not covered under Bill C-3. This is one of the instances where we find that the bill does not go far enough. The bill contains some good measures, but we would like to see more.

I would like my colleague to expand on this point, because it is one of our concerns. People throughout the Atlantic region want to feel safe. The federal Commissioner of the Environment has expressed his concerns about this. I would like my colleague to talk about the improvements that could be made to this bill.

[Respect for Communities Act, November 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very passionate remarks.

What worries me is that the Conservatives have decided to refer this bill to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security instead of to the Standing Committee on Health.

When I read the bill, I felt that it was mostly about the health of patients and victims. We are talking about drug addiction and people who need health care. Safe injection sites are health care sites.

I also see that the Conservatives are trying to scare the public. Sending the bill to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security is like saying that people should really watch out because this is a safety issue.

Could the hon. member comment on this issue? I feel the Conservatives are trying to scare the public about safe injection sites in a backhanded way.

[Universal Children's Day, November 20th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my caucus, I have the honour to talk about Universal Children's Day. History has demonstrated just how important children are in our lives, and we have come a long way since the days when children had practically no rights.

On November 20, 1959, the United Nations adopted the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, and today we are celebrating the 54th anniversary of that declaration as well as the 24th anniversary of the signing of the Convention on the Rights of the Child by 191 countries.

Respecting the rights of the child is a collective responsibility. Keep in mind that even a child's right to food is not guaranteed everywhere in the world; it is not even guaranteed everywhere in our own country. Children have the right to live in a healthy and safe environment, and it is up to us to make that happen. It is our responsibility to ensure their rights are respected.

Adults across the country, let us take the time today to tell our children that we love them and to ensure that the rights of children everywhere are respected. Speak up when you see a child being mistreated; yell when that same child is a victim of violence, abuse, trafficking or forced labour. Everyone has the right to their childhood.

[BlueWater Seafoods, October 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am saddened and frustrated to rise in the House today to share the news that a plant in Lachine is closing. This is the second one this year.

Old Dutch was brutally closed down in the spring and, on Friday, BlueWater Seafoods announced that it will be closing down. This closure has sent 125 workers and 125 families in my riding into a panic. From what I understand, the employer hopes to help the workers find better jobs. However, it is still a shock, when you have worked at the same place for 25 or 35 years, to learn that you will be at the bottom of the job-search heap.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives are not wondering why manufacturing jobs in Canada are dwindling and being replaced by low-paying jobs. They do not seem to be concerned by the fact that there are 1.4 million unemployed people now, when at the height of the recession there were 1.5 million people without work.

Perhaps they are calculating the number of jobs created but are forgetting about the ones being lost. I will continue to work with CEDEC, the provincial member and the mayor of Lachine to help workers in my riding because, at the end of they day, they are the ones losing out.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, October 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, for her question and the good work she does in her riding.

She asked me whether we had to leave everything in the hands of the minister. That is what I have seen the Conservatives do since I arrived in Parliament: they have tried to grab more and more power. That was the case for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development.

The Conservatives want to have all the power and control what is happening on the ground. That is not what the government should be doing. Instead, it should be creating laws and letting people apply them. I find this to be very dangerous.

As my colleague mentioned, Quebec has a system that works quite well. It is not the minister who decides how to manage everything and I believe that things should stay that way. We have a good system that is working, and I think it is deplorable for the Conservatives to once again try to grab more power.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, October 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

As I was explaining, since the government wants to centralize everything, there will be fewer people on the ground to assess all the risks. Furthermore, the bill significantly weakens employees' ability to refuse to work in dangerous conditions. This means that people working in dangerous conditions cannot refuse to work. That is the problem I have with this bill.

I would like to say this to my hon. colleague: when an omnibus bill containing hundreds of pages is introduced—one that we are forced to debate under a time allocation motion and one that will not even be examined by the appropriate committees—this definitely does not encourage any dialogue.

This bill may have some good things in it, and I mentioned some of them in my speech. I recognize that. I would like to vote in favour of some of the measure in the budget. However, when they are all lumped together in an omnibus bill so that we cannot examine them at the appropriate committee, I am sorry, but I cannot accept that and I cannot vote in favour of such a bill.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, October 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-4 is a sad new piece of legislative art from the Conservatives. What a masterpiece.

Much like the three omnibus bills before it—Bill C-38, Bill C-45 and Bill C-60—this fourth bill includes some 70 legislative measures—why not—most of which have very little to do with the budget. The bill even creates two brand-new laws: the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Act and the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act.

With this bill, the Conservatives are trying once again to force major changes through Parliament, without letting us do our job.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has already pointed out numerous times that members of Parliament do not have access to the information they need to fulfill their critical role and improve our laws. He had to threaten to take the government to court for the Conservatives to finally bother to reveal their budget cut plan. However, here we are again with another omnibus bill.

The Minister of Finance tabled budget 2013 in Parliament on March 21. The budget cuts thousands of public service jobs and makes cuts to program spending. The budget proposes a host of unwarranted economic austerity measures that do not help Canadians.

Bill C-4 to implement certain provisions of the budget undermines the health and safety protections in place for workers. It is a direct attack on public servants and labour unions. It causes irreparable damage to our research system and puts employment insurance firmly under the minister's control.

I am particularly concerned for the Canadian public and especially for the constituents in my riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and Dorval.

This bill removes from our health and safety officers the authority granted to them under the Canada Labour Code. It significantly weakens the ability of employees to refuse to work in dangerous conditions. It grants virtually all health and safety powers to the minister. This concentration of power in the hands of a minister is very dangerous, especially when we are dealing with a Conservative minister.

When the Conservatives attack the Canada Labour Code, they are attacking something that Canadians worked hard to build over the years to make their working conditions healthier and safer. This is the opposite of progress. This is a step backwards, just like everything else the Conservatives do. They should instead be seeking ways to protect Canadians from having to work in situations that expose them to unacceptable risks. They should protect workers.

I had the opportunity to study occupational health and safety in my university program. I took a course that required students to conduct workplace risk assessments. Therefore, I can say that centralizing everything is exactly the opposite of what companies do to identify risks in order to provide appropriate solutions concerning occupational health and safety.

For all these reasons, the NDP will certainly oppose this proposal, which affects the fundamental rights of workers in terms of occupational health and safety.

Bill C-4 would also make changes that would allow the minister to determine which services are essential in the public service, in such a way that he could well undermine collective bargaining rights.

We know that the Conservatives do not like unions. This is another attack. This is a direct violation of the social dialogue in the public service. By destabilizing the relationship between the negotiating parties, the government is giving itself the means to gag workers in the public service. It is restricting their right to challenge the deterioration of working conditions due to the unjustified cuts imposed by the Conservatives themselves. By slashing jobs, they are creating the conditions for conflict. They now want to ignore the consequences by preventing workers from expressing their frustration and their complaints.

However, some services seem to be less essential than others, particularly when objective scientific results contradict the Conservatives' vision and plans. They fired hundreds of scientists without considering the medium- or long-term consequences of their decision.

Now, Bill C-4 is taking aim at National Research Council Canada and dealing a final blow to our public research system. Well done.

As a final step in their attempt to systematically bleed the labour market dry on the pretense of flexibility, the Conservatives are using Bill C-4 to eliminate the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board and give the Minister of Finance the power to manipulate rates.

Do the Conservatives want to turn their backs on federal responsibility in this area by dumping it onto the provinces or directly onto the public?

Bill C-4 also extends the $1,000 hiring tax credit for small business. I acknowledge that that is a step in the right direction, but it is nowhere near enough. The NDP is looking further ahead and proposing a $2,000 hiring tax credit that would not come out of the employment insurance fund and would help businesses hire and train young workers.

I want to keep talking about small businesses. The Conservatives are going ahead with their $350 million tax hike on labour-sponsored venture capital funds. However, it is well known that venture capital is essential for creating and developing businesses. Just listen to our entrepreneurs. Alain-Jacques Simard, CEO of TeraXion, a Quebec company that specializes in fibre optics, said that the Fonds de solidarité FTQ acted as a catalyst and that since its January 2010 investment, his company's sales have doubled. That is important to remember.

The Conservatives like to remind everybody that they were elected to lower taxes, but not for unions, apparently. That is very strange. Attacking a financing system does not make sense unless it is part of an agenda to do whatever it takes to undermine the economic influence of Canadian workers and unions.

Still on the subject of small businesses, Bill C-4 increases the lifetime capital gains exemption and indexes it. The NDP supports increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption because that will help small business owners. The NDP knows that small businesses create a lot of jobs. However, they create those jobs only in a climate of better economic and regulatory conditions. That is why the NDP would like to see tax incentives to help these businesses hire Canadians.

We can only have a productive debate on these proposals if the Conservatives allow it. The omnibus bill will not make that possible and suggests that the Conservatives are, sadly, not willing to debate. The Conservatives are showing their true colours by attacking workers, public servants, employment insurance and unions. They are not working for Canadian families.

Household debt has reached record levels and is now at 166% of household income. This means that people are spending five months' income every three months, putting them two more months in the hole every five months. The Conservatives have no plan to address the alarming youth unemployment rate.

Bill C-4 is out of touch with what is important to Canadian families. It is a dangerous step backward. This policy is designed to destroy gains made by the middle class. It will force workers and families to pay for services that they have already paid for through their taxes.

This bill, like all of its omnibus predecessors, is a policy instrument designed to systematically destroy the social relationships that Canadians have worked hard to build over the past few decades. It is an intolerable attack on the rights of Canadian workers and Canadian families. The NDP will not stand for it.

The NDP will not support the Conservatives' latest attempt to circumvent parliamentary democracy. We should have the opportunity to debate the many subjects covered in Bill C-4 separately and refer them for study by the relevant committee. The NDP is also opposed to budget 2013 and its implementation bills, including Bill C-4, because they disregard the true priorities of Canadian families: creating good, well-paid jobs, ensuring retirement security, creating job opportunities for youth and creating more affordable living conditions for families.