Jamie Nicholls

[Conservatives' Management, May 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General's latest report further dispels the myth that the Conservatives are good managers.

The President of the Treasury Board is unable to explain how he spent $3 billion—$3 billion. Like many Canadians, the Auditor General is wondering where that money went.

Where is the money? Usually with boondoggles, one has something tangible to point to, such as gazebos in the Muskokas or Canadian flags plastered across an Indy racetrack in Montreal, but this time the President of the Treasury Board stood with hollow words and empty hands, incapable of saying where the billions went.

In any other industry, he would be fired. In the Conservative land of make-believe, the man is promoted.

Only in Conservative Ottawa is someone rewarded for turning border infrastructure money into a gazebo slush fund.

Canada deserves better, and in 2015 New Democrats will provide exactly that.

[Ethics, May 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I came here to debate the relevance of the Senate in light of the expense abuse. I wanted to highlight that the abuse of expenses was not the only problem with the Senate, that there were other problems involved with it, and that was its relevance.

This is not an old report. It came out in February 2013, one month before the budget.

Why did the government not take the recommendations of the Senate report and lower tariffs so prices could come in line and Canadian consumers could be spared? What the government has prepared is a policy that encourages cross-border shopping. Merchants and salespeople in my area want to promote the Canadian economy, not the U.S. economy.

Why did the government not take the Senate recommendations into account? The report was done a month ago. The member has not addressed the issue at all. He says that he takes Senate recommendations into account, but it appears his government has not done so.

[Ethics, May 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am not here tonight to talk about the abuses of the partisan and patronage dumping ground also known as the Senate. The abuses that have happened are well known, the improper expenses of Senators Duffy, Wallin, Harb and other senators in the past who abused their position. These are the facts, and I am not here to address that.

What I would like to discuss are the arguments that members and people use in defence of the relevance of the Senate. Often, members will refer to the work that Senate committees do and the reports that come out of those committees as a useful use of the Senate.

If members recall, a few years ago the Canadian dollar reached parity with the U.S. dollar. People wondered, if our dollar was worth the same, why we still paid more than American consumers did south of the border. The Senate finance committee had a look at the issue and studied it quite extensively. It wanted to get to the bottom of this question, and it came up with a report called, “The Canada-USA Price Gap”.

Senator Smith participated in this. He lives in the same town as I do, even though he is the senator for Saurel and Vaudreuil-Soulanges is quite far away from there.

I am sure that most Canadians have not heard of this report, but I looked at it with interest. Basically, the Senate looked into the Canada-U.S.A price gap and found some interesting recommendations. It found that higher tariffs were responsible for the price difference, and I will cite from the report. It states:

The officials from the Department of Finance said that, although there are some examples of differences in tariff rates between Canada and the United States that could contribute to price discrepancies for certain products, most tariffs rates are low.

This would seem to confirm the government's present position, although later on it says:

Almost all the other witnesses who appeared before the Committee disagreed with the opinion expressed by the officials from the Department of Finance, according to which tariff differences between Canada and the United States are not a major factor contributing to prices discrepancies between the two countries.

Who disagreed with the department officials? Well, the Retail Council of Canada, Canadian Tire Corporation Ltd., Reebok-CCM Hockey, the Canadian apparel Industry and representatives from Deloitte and Touche, which members may recognize as the firm that did the audit on the Senate and its abuse of expenses.

Basically, the Senate committee told the government that its recommendation was to lower tariffs on products to help Canadian consumers and to bring prices on both sides of the border closer to each other.

What did the government do? It looked at the report and raised tariffs. It did not even listen to the Senate committee. Therefore, all the work that was done to produce this report, all the senators who put hours in and the witnesses who appeared before the committee, resulted in a completely useless report because the government did not take its recommendations. We can multiply this a hundred times where members of the House have not paid attention to the work the Senate has done.

Therefore, I think it is quite clear. Other countries have abolished their upper House when they did not see the relevance of it, and they have been fine. Other countries have Houses that are truly representative. However, our Senate is neither, and it must be abolished.

[Business of Supply, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago I asked a government member a question about the first nations. I would like to ask my colleague that same question.

Does the member think there are provisions in the FIPA to protect first nations' rights, and does she not find it disturbing that the rights of the first nations are not being protected?

[Business of Supply, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, let me get this right. My hon. friend has a problem with the opposition having its roots in democratic socialist and social democratic movements but has no problem with providing investor-safe protections for a communist government to come here and do business. I find that incredible.

When we look at the history of that government and its treatment of the Tibetan people and its weaker minorities, there are serious questions to be asked as to how it will conduct business here.

My question is more about the current government's treatment of its minorities, the first peoples of Canada, the first nations. In Canada we have a duty to consult under article 35 of the Constitution, which is protecting the honour of the Crown. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government must consult aboriginal peoples on actions that affect their rights. The FIPA will give Chinese companies operating on traditional first nations territories important new rights.

Why did the government not fulfill its duty to consult the first nations?

[Natural Resources, April 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Natural Resources, who is known for his intellectual laziness, avoided answering questions. We will try again.

The application to participate in the Enbridge public hearings contains the following phrase: ...refer to the Board’s Guidance Document on Section 55.2 and Participation in a Facilities Hearing attached to the Hearing Order OH-002-2013 as Appendix VI, and again as Appendix III of Procedural Update No. 1 for OH-002...

What is that all about?

[Business of Supply, April 16th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has called for a review of this program before, and the Liberals balked.

I have been talking with pilots in my riding since 2011, and they want us to act. They do not want more hot air. They do not want more MPs travelling around the country. They want us to act here in their interests.

Liberals have balked before. They fell asleep at the switch when they were the official opposition. Now that they have flip-flopped on this position, how can Canadians possibly trust them to review this program responsibly?

[Hydroelectric Project, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion moved by the hon. member for Nipissing—Timiskaming. My NDP colleagues and I support this motion.

The environment is a cause that is important to me. I believe it is important to ensure that families and children in our country can live in a healthy and sustainable environment.

Before being elected to the House, I was involved in environmental causes in a number of capacities. I was on the board of directors of the Conseil du bassin versant de Vaudreuil—Soulanges. I also worked as an environmental researcher and as a consultant in ecological development.

I am taking the time to emphasize my commitment to the environment because I think it is important to ensure that the federal government assumes its responsibility to protect the environment by actively encouraging the development of clean energy and a green economy.

By committing to invest in green energy development, the federal government would be contributing to the fight against climate change, while stimulating the economy and cutting energy costs for Canadian families. That is exactly what the NDP wants for Canada. It wants the federal government to make significant investments in green energy development across Canada. We are talking about the future of our environment and our economy.

We need to develop the green energy sector. I think it is particularly important to focus on the state of this sector and the government's investments in it.

The situation is not very impressive. According to a report published by Pew Charitable Trusts, an American non-profit, non-governmental organization, green energy accounted for only 4.3% of Canada's energy production capacity in 2009. Canada ranked 11th, followed by Indonesia, China, the United States and Mexico. We are light years behind countries like Germany and Spain, whose green energy production capacity is close to 30% of their overall energy capacity.

According to another Pew report, the situation is similar for investments in green energy. Canada ranked 11th among G20 countries in 2011. While China and the United States did not have very good records with respect to their capacity to produce clean energy in 2009, these two countries were leading the pack with their investments in developing green energy in 2011.

From 2009 to 2011, the United States almost doubled its overall green energy production capacity from 53.6 gigawatts to 93 gigawatts, and China nearly tripled its capacity from 52.5 gigawatts to 133 gigawatts. Canada has only increased its green energy production capacity by 2 gigawatts over the same period. In short, not only are we lagging behind, but we are being overtaken.

It is not just the countries at the back of the pack that are overtaking us when it comes to green energy investment in recent years. Germany, Spain, India, the United Kingdom and Brazil all invested more than Canada in 2011. All these countries already had a green energy production capacity higher than Canada's.

Now is not the time for talk, but rather for action. The government must do more than move motions, as commendable as they may be. It must commit to getting Canada back into the global green energy race.

Getting back into the green energy race is not a matter of national pride or of political games; it is a matter of ensuring our energy security, of protecting our environment and of stimulating the economic growth of Canada. As stated in a Pembina Institute report published a few months ago, the current government's failure to provide leadership in the green energy sector is undermining this country's competitiveness on the world market.

Too often, the NDP is wrongfully accused by the Conservatives of being against job creation or being against developing our economy. I think the case of the green energy sector shows exactly the opposite. It shows that we at the NDP understand how the economy works. We understand how to create economic growth. We understand that Canadians want good sustainable jobs. We know that part of the solution is to invest in the green energy sector to give our clean technology companies the support that they need. We also understand that if the government does not act now, no one will, and Canada will keep falling behind.

Although my party and I support the motion, I think that it is slightly ironic for the Conservative government to pat itself on the back in matters of clean energy, while only last year it cancelled the $400 million ecoEnergy retrofit program ahead of schedule and did not renew funding for Sustainable Development Technology Canada. Even in this budget, it only allocated $1 million to SDTC this year. All the funding for that program is years down the line, when the Conservatives might not even be in power.

I do not wish to sound too cynical about the Conservative motion, but I think that it is not an exaggeration to state that the current Conservative government and its Liberal predecessors have overlooked the importance of a green transition for this country's economy and environment.

Nonetheless, I will support the motion. I will support the motion because I think that Canada needs to invest in and develop our clean and renewable energy sector. While other G20 countries are going ahead with massive investments, we are falling behind. Countries such as China and the United States, which are not role models in matters of clean energy, are passing us in terms of stimulus funding for clean energy. We need to catch up and become leaders instead of laggards.

Most of all, I hope the government will walk the walk in matters of clean energy. I hope that the Canadian government will develop a clear and effective strategy of investment in clean energy. I hope that the Conservative government decision to agree to a loan guarantee on the lower Churchill hydroelectric project is more than just a political manoeuvre, because developing a vibrant clean energy sector in Canada is no political game. Developing clean energy would grow the Canadian economy and create good, lasting jobs.

To conclude, I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the House do understand, as the NDP does, that Canada can become a global leader in renewable energy and that it is the role of the government to develop renewable energy to create economic growth and jobs, while building a sustainable economy that decreases our carbon footprint for generations to come.

[CBC and Public Service Disclosure and Transparency Act, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to express my opposition to Bill C-461. People who defend this bill will say that its purpose is to improve the CBC's transparency. My New Democrat colleagues and I want to show that it is actually a sleight of hand designed solely to target our national broadcasting service while weakening it in the face of its private competitors.

It is important to shed light on the Conservatives' real intentions. With this bill, the Conservatives are trying to discredit the CBC through insinuations that are not only unfounded, but also wrong. We wonder why are they doing this. Is it to punish our national broadcaster, whose only crime was apparently being too dedicated in its duty to inform Canadians, especially when it comes to the actions of the Conservative government?

With this bill, the Conservatives want to imply that the CBC operates opaquely and apparently has something to hide from Canadians. For example, the government wants us to believe that the CBC's most senior executives are hiding their salaries from Canadians. That is absolutely not the case. Every Canadian can go to the CBC website and find the executive pay scale. All you have to do is click on the “Reporting to Canadians” tab.

The hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert said that this information is worthless since we are talking about a pay scale and not a specific salary. Since exact salaries constitute private information, I would like to remind hon. members that no Canadian broadcaster is required to provide any information about its executives' salaries. The CBC therefore demonstrated great transparency by providing its executive pay scale.

Next, I would like to draw the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert's attention to the fact that the pay-scale method is necessary in a society that recruits its executives from a competitive market. The Conservatives always like to claim that they are the only ones who understand how the market works. They should therefore understand this basic principle.

What is more, salary amounts are decided by the board of the CBC, whose members are appointed by the Conservative government itself. In that sense, I really do not see how the Conservatives can continue to insinuate that there is any sort of problem with the income of CBC executives.

The Conservatives are also speaking out against a system of exemptions for the CBC. They are suggesting that there is no justification for such a system. Must I remind the government that there is no other public broadcaster in Canada? Is it not then natural for the legislation governing a public broadcaster to make specific reference to the CBC? Clearly, there is a discretionary exemption, as the Conservatives call it, since the CBC is the only company involved.

I want to remind the Conservatives that they are in no position to lecture the CBC on transparency. For example, every time the CBC refused to disclose documents in order to preserve journalistic confidentiality, the corporation sent the documents to the Information Commissioner for her to verify their protected nature.

Finally, it is my pleasure to remind the House that the Information Commissioner herself gave an A, the highest grade in access to information, to the CBC. The same cannot be said of the Conservative government, which has been criticized more than once by the same commissioner for its overly high rate of refusal, for its unreasonable response times, and for its excessive tendency to censor information.

Therefore, since we already know the salary grid of the CBC's managers and since it has shown exemplary transparency, what is the real aim of Bill C-461 and what will its consequences be if adopted?

First, it seems clear that the purpose of this bill is to attack our national broadcaster.

Ever since the last election, the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert has been on a crusade against the CBC. He has even gone so far as to say that Canadians do not need a national broadcaster. Fortunately, that is not his party's unanimous position, and the members of the Conservative caucus know that any attempt to suppress the CBC will fail. They know that Canadians treasure the continued presence of an independent information system. They know that Canadians love the CBC.

Noting the opposition to his bill, the same member has tried to attack the CBC's financing. First he suggested removing public subsidies. Realizing that his position was marginal, even within his own caucus, he has now resigned himself to trying to discredit an institution that is considered a model of transparency.

In fact, one of the primary goals of this bill is not to clarify the law, but to set off a spurious debate that will give him an opportunity to suggest that there is something fishy about the CBC's operations. And yet, the truth is that the CBC is already subject to many more transparency rules than its competitors.

What is this if not the Conservatives' mistrust of the CBC? It is no secret that the government sees the CBC as an adversary.

Why is the CBC seen as a threat? It is seen as a threat because it is still at arm's length from political power and the Conservatives have a hard time with that.

This is their logic: if the general public will not allow them to directly hurt the CBC, then they will interfere in how it does business and make it harder for the CBC to be competitive.

That is exactly what will happen when this bill is passed.

As if draconian budget cuts were not enough, the Conservatives now want to add as much of an administrative burden as possible to the disclosure of information.

With the passage of Bill C-461, requests for access to information will increase. These requests are not from Canadians wanting to know more about public spending. They come almost exclusively from certain members of the Conservative caucus and private competitors, their cronies.

Out of all the complaints regarding the CBC's performance in terms of access to information, 80% come from Sun News Network and its owner, Quebecor.

As a result, Bill C-461 seeks only to put the CBC at a disadvantage with respect to its competitors who are under no obligation to disclose information, even though they receive government subsidies.

In short, with this bill, the Conservatives are killing two birds with one stone. They are unfairly discrediting a corporation that continues to be exemplary despite budget cuts while threatening its independence and putting it at a disadvantage with competitors that they see as less of a threat.

We will be voting against this bill. It is nothing more than an ideological attack, another ideological attack, against the CBC, Canada's only public broadcaster.

The Conservatives should be proud of this institution instead of trying to destroy it at all costs.

[Air Passengers’ Bill of Rights, March 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the member for Laval for his bill, which is designed to protect the rights of Canadian families, small businesses and business travellers by creating an air passenger bill of rights. It is an important initiative that would strengthen consumer protection by establishing clear compensation rules and by penalizing companies at fault.

To begin, I should point out that a number of airlines already have good business practices. We acknowledge that and congratulate those companies, but, unfortunately, the same cannot be said of all the airlines, and that is why this bill is so important and so necessary. It is important because it targets carriers that have developed bad practices in order to gouge customers. I am thinking, in particular, about airlines that overbook or deliberately cancel flights.

Basically, this bill is designed to protect consumers by discouraging bad practices and by forcing greater standardization within the airline market. These worthwhile objectives would have a positive impact on both consumers and airlines that already have exemplary practices.

More specifically, the airline passenger bill of rights proposed by this bill would protect passengers in certain situations.

First, when a flight is cancelled, passengers would be entitled to reimbursement or a seat on the next available flight. They would also be entitled to a meal depending on the delay, as well as to compensation, if necessary. Should the airline not meet its obligations, it would have to pay each passenger $500. In addition, companies that voluntarily cancel a flight would be required to compensate all passengers between $250 and $600, an amount that would be determined based on the distance of the flight canceled by the company, not to exceed the total amount paid by the passenger for the flight.

Second, passengers would be entitled to compensation when an airline refuses to let them board because of overbooking. This happens when an airline sells more tickets than it has seats on a flight. This tactic is used by some companies that count on the fact that certain passengers will not show up for the flight. Therefore, they sell more tickets than they have seats available. This dubious practice does not cause problems when certain passengers do not show up, but when enough passengers do, the company must refuse to allow certain passengers to board, passengers who had reserved and paid for their airline ticket. Under this bill, companies that refuse to allow a passenger to board because the flight is overbooked would have to pay $250 to $600 in compensation. Once again, that amount would be determined based on the distance of the flight the passenger was prevented from boarding.

Third, when a flight is delayed, passengers would be entitled to meals, refreshments and accommodation, based on the length of the delay.

Fourth, passengers would be entitled to compensation in the amount of $500 if their baggage is misplaced by the airline.

This bill obviously goes into much more detail than what I just mentioned. It gives air passengers clear rules about compensation and reimbursement. It prevents Canadian families' vacations from being disrupted as a result of the poor practices of certain airlines. It ensures that entrepreneurs and small and medium-sized business owners who regularly use air transport will be compensated when airlines do not respect their commitments. It standardizes practices in the air industry.

All of these measures work. For almost 10 years now, several countries in Europe have had such measures in place and have proven that they are effective.

How can anyone be against measures that protect consumer rights and that work well?

Some of my colleagues from the other side of the House seem to think that the system we have in place is sufficient to ensure that passengers and families are treated fairly by air carriers. They seem to believe that since it is in the best interest of the companies to treat their customers fairly that they will do so to prevent customers from switching air carriers for their next travel arrangements.

That might be true in some cases, but what happens when things do not work out that way? What happens when an air carrier decides not to compensate passengers adequately for a situation in which the company is responsible? What happens when passengers and families are stuck at the airport for hours without any help or services from the air carrier?

The answer is quite simple. The passengers have to pay for the services they need, including food and housing, and if they do not have the means to do so they have to wait and sleep at the airport terminal, which is not nearly as entertaining as Tom Hanks would lead us to believe. Let us not forget that many Canadians, such as a family who has maxed out their credit card for their vacation and are travelling on a limited budget, do not have the financial means to pay for such unexpected expenses, especially in these times where Canadian families are overburdened with debt.

The fact is that passengers who feel they were treated unfairly may receive some compensation through informal facilitation or some form of adjudication by the Canadian Transportation Agency, but that does not solve the problem. It does not provide those passengers and families with the service they need at the time they need it. It is more red tape for a Canadian family to go through to be reimbursed for the trouble they have suffered.

It is easy to say that all they have to do is pay for the food and hotel room since they might receive some compensation many months later. However, as I said, not everyone has the financial means to pay for such unexpected expenses, especially when they know they might not get their money back in the end.

This is one of the reasons that this bill is important for consumer rights. It would make sure that passengers have access to reasonable and free services when they are forced to stay at the airport for an extended period of time. When a flight is cancelled, if the air carrier does not provide those services free of charge, it would have to compensate the passengers with a fixed amount of $500.

This bill of rights for passengers would prevent those air carriers who have developed bad practices from benefiting from them. They would probably abandon practices such as overbooking and voluntary cancellations of flights. As for those carriers who do not use such money-making tactics, they would not be penalized with this new bill.

If an air carrier is not responsible for a flight delay or a flight cancellation, in other words, if the cancellation or delay of a flight is the result of a measure or decision taken by an airport authority, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, Nav Canada, or the Canada Border Services Agency, the air carrier may submit the matter to the Canadian Transportation Agency. If the air carrier was indeed not responsible for the situation, it would be compensated.

In short, this bill would make sure that passengers, families and small business owners are treated fairly by every air carrier. By creating such consistency across the industry, it would also benefit those air carriers that have good practices and do not try to make more money from their customers by overbooking or cancelling flights. In the end, the bill would benefit everyone but those companies who would try to shortchange consumers.