Isabelle Morin

[Canada Post, October 21st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the government is abandoning people with reduced mobility by eliminating home mail delivery. It is forcing them to go to court to assert their rights.

Will the minister finally recognize that she has obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and reverse Canada Post's bad decision to end home delivery of our mail?

[Business of Supply, October 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, my leader said he was open to the possibility of having such a pipeline. Right now, there is a job deficit in Canada and this can create good job opportunities, if the refineries in New Brunswick can provide employment for a lot of people. Right now, many municipalities are opposed. We will have to study the final project once it is submitted. Still, my leader did say he was open to the idea, for now.

[Business of Supply, October 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the hon. member, I believe science and the environment go hand in hand. Here we are talking about job creation. It would be a good thing if the oil from the west could get to Saint John, New Brunswick, in order to create jobs. I did not say I was absolutely opposed to oil. I said I was worried about the millions of tonnes of oil that would be shipped on the St. Lawrence River every day.

In making such comments, the hon. member shows he does not know what ballast waters are. I would be very happy to educate him about ballast waters and their harmful effects on ecosystems like that of the St. Lawrence.

[Business of Supply, October 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I think this is unbelievable.

As one of my colleagues said, unlike the Liberals, our party will certainly not be giving the government a blank cheque. The Liberal member apparently thinks that there is nothing to prove this project is harmful to the environment, since the two-page report from Fisheries and Oceans Canada was not accepted.

Nevertheless, no expert has told us that this project would be good for the environment or for the whales, or that the ballast water would be a positive addition to the St. Lawrence River. According to the hon. member, since no experts have told us this is a bad project, we should not be discussing it here today.

I am proud that my party has introduced a motion to force a debate in this House to discuss the impact of the Gros-Cacouna project, something of great concern to Quebeckers. The St. Lawrence is an important river. I am pleased to learn that the hon. member is concerned about it, but I am worried about what is going to be added to the St. Lawrence's waters. Thus, it is important for us to talk about it today.

[Business of Supply, October 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.

I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the motion moved by my colleague from Drummond. I will read the motion.

That, in the opinion of the House, the proposed Port of Gros-Cacouna oil terminal, which will be used for the sole purpose of exporting unprocessed Canadian oil, will have a negative impact on the Canadian economy through the loss of well-paid jobs, will constitute an unacceptable environmental threat to the St. Lawrence ecosystem, including the beluga whale population, and therefore, is not consistent with the principle of sustainable development, and must be rejected.

Everyone has heard of this issue. It has gotten a lot of media coverage over the past six or seven months. The Port of Gros-Cacouna would become a marine terminal for shipping oil on the St. Lawrence.

I am against this bill for a number of reasons. I am primarily against it because of the beluga nursery in the St. Lawrence. What is more, there will be environmental repercussions. All the ballast water from all those tankers will be discharged into the St. Lawrence.

The ships carrying oil to Asia or India or anywhere else return to the St. Lawrence filled with ballast water for increased weight and stability. When they get close to the Port of Gros-Cacouna, they discharge that water.

Under Canadian law, that water has to be discharged before entering the estuary and the gulf. However, the transporters are certainly not going to waste their money stopping to discharge ballast water before entering the gulf. As a result, it is discharged in the gulf and the estuary on the way to the Port of Gros-Cacouna.

What is more, that ballast water ends up in a completely different ecosystem. It might contain algae or other species when it is discharged into a completely different ecosystem. This may have consequences for the St. Lawrence, such as introducing exotic species. They are called exotic species when they are not normally found in an ecosystem. Unfortunately, that will happen in the St. Lawrence. That is one of my concerns. Increasing tanker traffic on the St. Lawrence, will increase this exchange of water and that will cause problems.

We have also heard a lot about the belugas, a species at risk in Canada. Last week, I read in a report by the World Wildlife Fund that wildlife species have dropped by 50% in the past 40 years. That is very worrisome.

The beluga is species at risk and it is our responsibility, and that of the government, to ensure that the conditions necessary to this species' survival are met.

Here are some troubling numbers: in 2000, there were approximately 1,000 belugas. That is not very many. There was another census in 2012 and there were 889. In one decade, 10% of the beluga population was decimated. Their numbers are even lower today, and that is cause for concern.

It was reported in the news last week that newborn beluga carcasses were being found on the shoreline of Kamouraska.

In 2012, 16 young beluga carcasses were found on the shoreline. A total of 10 have been found so far this year, and the year is not yet over. That is disturbing.

The reason why the Port of Gros-Cacouna initiative is troubling for the belugas is that the noise of the drilling can seriously harm them. As we know, marine mammals' hearing is far more developed than ours and the noise is amplified. I think we have every reason to be concerned.

In addition, there are all the problems that come with an oil spill. If this project goes ahead, heavy crude will be transported to the port. It will sink to the bottom of the St. Lawrence, unlike other crude, which normally floats. We are very concerned about oil spills.

A number of experts have spoken out against this project. Environmental experts have said that we need to be very careful. They raised concerns about an accident and oil spill in the St. Lawrence. I would like to read a quote from Équiterre from August:

Tar sands oil sinks when it comes into contact with water (unlike light crude, which floats). A spill in the St. Lawrence would have disastrous consequences for the dozens of municipalities that get their drinking water from the river.

That is another concern. There are about 80 waterways connected to the St. Lawrence. Can we really run the risk of that happening in this iconic Quebec river? This is a question we need to ask ourselves. I think this is a reflection of what happens when the Conservatives withdraw protection from waterways.

I want to make an aside to talk about an issue specific to my riding. My riding is home to one of the last uncovered creeks on the Island of Montreal, Bouchard Creek. A number of groups in my riding are trying to clean it up, since it contains a lot of ethylene glycol, the de-icer used by Aéroports de Montréal to de-ice airplanes. These products end up in the creek. It should freeze over in the winter but it does not. I think it is a problem that Canada allows companies to shirk their environmental responsibility to protect waterways. I have already spoken to the minister about this. The creek runs into Lac St-Louis, which is part of the river. The creek is polluted and it goes through my riding. We are talking about the St. Lawrence, the iconic Quebec river, and the government is allowing all kinds of oil tankers travel along it without any real scientific study.

There is currently an injunction. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was to submit a scientific report in order for the work to start, but it was not submitted to Quebec. That is why the work has stalled.

I thank my colleague from Drummond for moving this motion. It is very important.

There is something else that I have not mentioned, and that is the topic of jobs. All of the crude oil in Canada could help to create jobs. The government says that it does not want to do anything in Canada. The energy east project is meant to start in Saint John, New Brunswick, where there are refineries and where we could have created jobs. As of now, we are being told that the crude oil will be exported.

That is another good reason why we should all support this motion. I hope that the government and the other parties will vote with the NDP.

[World Animal Day, October 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, World Animal Day, which was celebrated last Saturday, October 4, provides an excellent opportunity to talk about the well-being and rights of animals.

I rise today to draw attention to the problem of the growing number of animals in Canada on the endangered species list. The economic and industrial development of our country is of course necessary. However, it is also essential to consider the impact of human activities on animal populations, especially endangered species.

I can refer members to many examples, such as the western chorus frog or the woodland caribou. Both populations have suffered a massive decline throughout Canada, mainly caused by habitat loss. Without appropriate government funding and the political will for recovery programs, their future is seriously at risk. On this side of the House, we want to make sure that everything is done to protect these endangered species.

The government has a duty to work actively to protect our wildlife.

[Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, September 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. I did not have time to get to that, but as I mentioned at the end of my speech, if the NDP were to negotiate a free trade agreement with Korea, some of the provisions would not be included. Some aspects would not exist. We would perhaps have spent more time studying the provision mentioned by my colleague.

That said, we have to consider the benefit to Canada at present. When the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association of Canada, the Seafood Producers Association of British Columbia, the Lobster Council of Canada, the Forest Products Association of Canada and others too numerous to mention all say that they support the agreement, we have to ask ourselves whether it will benefit Canada.

I would say to my colleague that we would not have included some elements in the bill. However, I believe that Korea will be a very strong ally. We should have free trade agreements with countries that, as I was saying, have the same values as we do. I think that is part of it.

[Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, September 30th, 2014]

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

Indeed, I based my speech on the NDP's criteria. I know that the Liberals and some Conservatives have attacked us, saying that this is the first time we have voted in favour of a free trade agreement. I explained why we are in favour of this agreement. Canada has had a good relationship with Korea for many years. Last year, or two years ago, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations with Korea. This is very important to us and to my constituents. As I said, there are hundreds of Koreans in my riding. This is a free trade agreement with a democratic country that respects the unions, human rights and workers' rights. That is what our party advocates, and I hope that is what our country advocates. Of course we should be entering into free trade agreements with ally countries that share our values.

[Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, September 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted and very proud to rise in the House today to speak in favour of Bill C-41, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Korea. I would like to congratulate the minister for his work on this file.

The vast majority of Koreans who live in Quebec live in my riding. I speak with them a lot, and I take part in many of their activities. This agreement was a frequent topic of conversation in recent months. They are proud that such a free trade agreement has been concluded with Canada. They are very happy. This Thursday, I will be in Montreal with them to celebrate the Republic of Korea's national day. I am sure that we will have some very rewarding discussions about this agreement.

This will be the first time that the NDP will vote in favour of a free trade agreement because the NDP has a very rigorous position on this. We use three key criteria to support or reject this kind of opening up of markets, which will be the focus of my speech.

First, the proposed partner must have utmost respect for democracy and human rights, as well as adequate environmental and labour standards. The partner must basically share Canadian values. If those criteria are not met, the country must be on its way to meeting them.

Second, we look at whether the proposed partner's economy is of significant or strategic value to Canada. Finally, the terms of the agreement must be satisfactory.

In this case, the NDP feels that this free trade agreement has net benefits for Canada. I will address these benefits sector by sector in my speech.

The reason why we have been opposed to most free trade agreements, whether under the Conservatives or in the past, is that the environmental, human rights and labour law criteria were not met. To me and my party, entering into a free trade agreement with a country is a lever that Canada can use to raise the standard of living of people in the country. South Korea is a very democratic country with a high rate of unionization. It upholds human rights and is quite advanced in green technology.

Since its transition from a dictatorship to civilian rule in 1987, South Korea has become a vibrant, multi-party democracy with a very active trade union movement. South Korea's economy made it possible to industrialize the country and raise the standard of living of the Korean people.

Two years ago, I travelled to Asia with some of my colleagues in the House. We went to Thailand and Cambodia. I found that the standard of living in Asian countries is unfortunately not adequate sometimes. The leaders of those countries must raise the bar, because the world is becoming more industrialized and is developing more and more positively. That is why Canada must do its part on the world stage. I am glad that we are signing an agreement with a country that is well aware of that.

South Korea is currently ranked 15th on the human development index, the highest ranking of all East Asian countries. South Korea has introduced social programs and sound rule of law. It has low levels of corruption and provides high access to quality education. South Korea has the highest level of post-secondary education participation in the OECD. That is quite impressive, and I congratulate them.

Furthermore, Korea has emerged as a world leader in renewable energy and green technology. Canada could increase its trade with Korea in this important sector. Canada should be thinking more about the green economy and renewable resources. Perhaps we could learn from Korea.

The right to unionize is very important to us, and Korea allows that. Here, convenience store owners are going out of business because they are not allowed to unionize. In contrast, Korea is trying to encourage people to unionize and have good working conditions, specifically humane working conditions, and decent wages. We are very proud of that aspect of Korea.

We are still wondering if this proposed partner's economy is of significant and strategic value to Canada. As I said earlier, Korea is Canada's seventh-largest trade partner and its third-largest in Asia, behind China and Japan. Canada already does a great deal of trade with those countries.

In 2013, Canadian exports to South Korea were valued at $3.4 billion, while South Korean exports to Canada were worth $7.3 billion. Canada and Korea already do a fair bit of trade. Canada imports roughly the same amount from Korea as it does from the United Kingdom. Our exports to Korea are about the same as what we export to France. Thus, it is already a reliable market.

South Korea is an important player in Asia's global supply chain. In fact, South Korea is the gateway to Asia. A free trade agreement will allow Canada to potentially discover new markets through this country.

However, there is a caveat. Right now, Canada and South Korea have complementary markets. To date, the two countries have not developed the same specialities.

Many sectors have already indicated that they are in favour of this free trade agreement, including some very significant segments of the manufacturing industry. For example, the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada has indicated that it will benefit from the agreement. Bombardier, in my riding, is also very happy about the agreement. The Aluminum Association of Canada and the Mining Association of Canada, which represent heavy industry, have said that this is a good agreement. The agreement will certainly be good for wood products. By all accounts, Canada will be able to export many forestry products. Canada will also have to expand its agricultural sector. The food processing, seafood and high-tech sectors have already indicated that they support the free trade agreement and that it will be beneficial for them.

The terms of a free trade agreement are the third criterion the NDP uses to determine whether it will support that agreement or not. For example, what will the agreement do for jobs in Canada? It will level the playing field for Canadian workers and Canadian businesses that export their products to South Korea. Ever since the European Union and the United States signed free trade agreements with Korea, Canadian exporters have been losing market share. We are going to try to gain it back.

Every year, Korea's tariffs are reduced for European Union and United States exporters. Right now, tariffs are costing Canadian producers hundreds of millions of dollars a year. We are going to try to recover that money.

Since I only have a minute left, I cannot talk about all of the sectors that I wanted to. Personally, I support the agreement. Had the NDP negotiated this agreement, we would have made some small changes. My colleagues spoke about the automotive industry, which may be affected. Parliamentarians will be responsible for discussing this situation and finding measures to help that industry. The automotive industry provides good jobs, and we must make sure that those jobs are not lost. I admit that I am a bit concerned about that.

I would like to state once again that I will vote in favour of the agreement and that I am proud of it. I am now ready to answer my colleagues' questions.

[Energy Efficiency Program, September 22nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, according to the World Meteorological Organization's annual report, greenhouse gas concentrations reached record levels in 2013.

The question we must ask ourselves today is this: What can we do to tackle this alarming trend? The best solution is to implement a large-scale energy efficiency program.

Motion No. 497 on energy efficiency, which was moved by my colleague, the member for Drummond, puts forward an innovative and important perspective on the climate change debate.

The plan we are suggesting would encourage owners of buildings, both residential and commercial, to decrease their energy consumption.

There are many advantages attached to this program. It would help to preserve the environment, boost our economy by creating a large number of job opportunities, and significantly reduce the energy cost of every Canadian citizen.

Here is a little reminder. Canada already had this type of program, between 2007 and 2012, which was called the ecoENERGY home retrofit program. Its aim was to make housing more energy efficient in order to fight climate change. Back then, one out of every twenty Canadian households was able to benefit from a subvention of, on average, $1,400.

Let us do the math. Based on a five-year period, this investment of $934 million allowed Canadian households to save more than $400 million each year.

However, those days are gone because, once again, the Conservatives put an end to the program since they felt it had fulfilled its purpose, as though the energy issue could be resolved in a few years with the wave of a magic wand.

Now, more than ever, Canada must face two closely related challenges: the environmental challenge and the energy challenge. Our new challenge, which the NDP has vowed to take on, will be to manage this country's vast resources to ensure their long-term viability, not destroy them, which is what has been happening in recent years, unfortunately.

The NDP understands the challenge and intends to meet it. That is why we are strongly in favour of a sweeping greenhouse gas reduction agenda. Not only will this plan help us reduce our environmental footprint, but it will also result in positive social spinoffs.

This would put Canada in a state of mind that is based on long-term action. The country would be able to build an economy for the future, green and sustainable. This plan is the exact opposite of the economic backwardness conducted by the Conservative Party. It would also put a stop to the useless investments in the oil and gas sectors, which are very detrimental to the country.

Canada needs to empower itself with a solid energy efficiency strategy or it will soon be behind other countries in this field. Canada, to the contrary, wants to be a world leader when it comes to energy efficiency.

Climate change is creating a crisis that is forcing leaders to open their eyes to its disastrous consequences. It is imperative that action is taken today to lessen our environmental footprint, if we want to preserve our rich and unique system.

Therefore, reducing our dependence upon fossil fuel is fundamental. It is unacceptable that our resources are exploited in the way they are currently, recklessly and thoughtlessly, only to satisfy the economic interest of a minuscule part of the population while the majority of Canadians are seeing their future compromised.

The NDP is not alone in thinking this way and has received strong support from many associations, such as Equiterre and Blue Green Canada, which also want to address this issue.

This action plan will provide security in terms of public health. According to the WHO, climate change related to excessive greenhouse gas emissions affects the determinants of health of our constituents, particularly the most vulnerable. It is therefore our duty to ensure a safe and healthy environment. This is yet another factor that the Conservatives often seem to forget about.

This plan will benefit the entire economy and Canadians themselves by creating jobs, many of them in the construction sector. The spinoffs of this plan will be truly enormous. A new report by Blue Green Canada shows that investing in clean energy projects could create 18,000 new jobs in Canada, strengthen the economy, reduce pollution and make for a healthier environment.

Instead, all the government can talk about is budget cuts, again and again. For example, it used the 2014-15 budget to cut $25 million in funding from clean air programs and the fight against climate change. It overlooked the indisputable merits of such a program. My colleague's motion will help reduce energy bills and household debt for all Canadians. Canada currently has one of the highest household debt levels in the world, and Canadians will benefit from financial assistance enabling them to renovate their homes or buildings, which will help revitalize neighbourhoods in Canadian communities. The government must provide Canadians with the support they need to get through this crisis.

The Conservative Party turned its back on the environmental issue by withdrawing Canada from the Kyoto Protocol, in 2001, during the United Nations conference. As well, the cuts from the 2014-15 budget affect Natural Resources Canada, which will see a decrease of $232 million, nearly half of which are directed toward the clean energy fund.

There is more, or I should say that there is less. There is less money for programs, such as the forest industry transformation program. The ecoENERGY for biofuels program will also be affected by budget cuts.

Needless to say, the Conservative Party has put aside environmental and clean energy concerns.

Conversely, the NDP would end the multi-billion-dollar subsidies to the fossil fuel industry and invest in a sustainable, green economy. The NDP would allocate Canada's resources in the best possible way and put a stop to investments that prevent our country from building its future on a sound, solid foundation.

According to Roger Lanoue and Normand Mousseau, co-chairs of the Commission sur les enjeux énergétiques du Québec, every dollar invested in an energy efficiency program generates economic spinoffs that are equal to, if not greater than, the construction of new energy production facilities.

Instead of offering billions of dollars in tax breaks to the oil industry, which is one of the biggest polluters, our government should recognize that its energy policy is destructive for our country. We need to focus on more than just the short term. We cannot put off resolving environmental issues, nor can we ignore them. Federal investments must be methodical and well thought out.

The NDP has already created an action plan and is ready to implement it. That will begin when we pass Motion No. 497.

I would like to mention that yesterday I went to the people's climate march in Montreal. Two of my colleagues also came with me: the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard and the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie. Hundreds of people took part, including a large NDP contingent. I was disappointed to see no representatives from any other federal party at the march. During the four-hour event, we had many rewarding discussions with people who came to talk to us about their concerns regarding the climate. Many activists came and asked us what is happening in western Canada, how people are reacting, and how we can leave future generations with such an environmental burden. I am 29 years old and I worry about my future and that of the next generation, because right now, no one knows where we are headed. We are developing our resources without necessarily thinking about all the possible consequences.

The bill introduced by my hon. colleague from Drummond is an intelligent way to make Canada's economy work by creating jobs in the construction industry. This is an intelligent way to reduce the greenhouse gases that surround us. Right now we are constantly emitting more and more. There was some smog in Montreal this summer. There is no doubt that pollution is a serious concern. I have asthma, so I can assure you this is true. When I am in Montreal, I need my puffers, but in the forest in Mauricie, I do not need them. Specific examples like that can be used to assess these things. Adopting this motion would be a step towards a greener, more prosperous Canada.

In closing, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Drummond on all of his efforts on the environment.