Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe

[Ethics, January 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, the NDP received a response to an access to information request regarding the Privy Council Office's documentation on senators Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau.

The problem is that the response was a series of blank pages. It is not that the Privy Council Office does not have the documentation, but that it does not want to share it.

What is the Privy Council Office hiding, and at whose request?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to categorically voice my opposition to Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. That is what the bill’s title says, but if we read a little further, we see that this bill is really a completely incredible ideological stand against supervised injection sites. In fact, this is not the first time the government has tried to abolish this sort of site.

InSite is one such site that currently exists in Canada. Much has been said about InSite during the course of this debate. In 2008, it was denied, to some extent, the right to exist because of legislation governing drugs and other substances.

The government tried to put InSite out of business. The matter ended up before the Supreme Court, and InSite was ultimately granted the right to operate. The court recognized that it provided valuable services and called on the government to relax the rules to allow sites such as this to operate and provide much-needed services to the public.

Today is a sad day because we are reopening the whole debate. This bill is nothing short of another attempt to shut down facilities such as InSite. By calling for incredible regulations and requirements, it attempts to discourage people who might want to open this kind of site or offer these kinds of services. Instead of making it easier for sites that have proven their worth to operate — and I will talk more about that later — the Conservatives have decided to hold obstinately to a certain ideology and to try once again to shut down this debate and dismiss such options.

I have listened to several of my colleagues’ speeches, and I have heard some rather absurd comments. One Conservative parliamentary secretary expressed concern about the market value of buildings in proximity to any supervised injection sites that could open. If this is the government’s main priority, then we can understand their ideological opposition. Never mind that property values may be affected. We are talking about services that save lives. That is the priority. Quite frankly, if our focus shifts to matters like property values, we are all losers and it is clear that we are not on the same page.

I would like to talk about something that happened in my riding and that is reminiscent of the kinds of arguments I heard from the parliamentary secretary. An agency was providing care for people with intellectual disabilities, and not just care, but supervised apartments. The agency had to rebuild completely after there was a fire and the site was inadequate. It faced opposition from the people in the neighbourhood. When the plan was announced, the neighbours were worried that people with mental health problems would be moving in. They were afraid for the value of their homes and the safety of their children.

The city could very well have cultivated their fear to show them it was on their side and could have banned any initiative to provide supervised apartments for these people.

In politics, of course, the easy option is always to use, foster and inflame people’s fear in order to prove them right and put an end to a plan, without even examining the facts and the benefits.

Instead, these people sat down, they knocked on doors, and they talked to the residents with reservations to try to change their minds, to provide them with the right information and the facts. Finally, after much consultation and consensus building, the Centre Bienvenue opened its doors. It now provides services for dozens of individuals who need care. People were able to work together to implement these essential services.

Surely members can see the parallel I am drawing with this debate on Bill C-2. The Conservatives could have given information to the people who are afraid of having supervised injection sites in their neighbourhood and shared with them the facts, the statistics, the successes and even neighbourhoods’ level of satisfaction with having a supervised injection site close by. Instead, the Conservatives are taking the easy way out, the cowardly way out, if I may say. They are cultivating people’s fear and supporting their ideological opposition by putting forward draft legislation like Bill C-2.

I heard another peculiar argument during this debate: according to many Conservatives, supervised injection sites encourage the use of hard drugs. It is unbelievable that we hear these kinds of comments even though there are many studies, whose validity has been proven, that show the opposite is true. The people who go to these sites will go on to detox and are followed by social workers who try to help them reduce their drug use.

When we help school dropouts by providing them with services, are we encouraging students to drop out of school? Of course not. Nobody would say that, because it has been proven and it has been accepted for a long time that young people have problems in school. Rather than ignoring them and throwing them out of our school system, we involve them and offer them appropriate services.

I could give a number of other examples of agencies in my riding, such as the À ma baie youth centre and the La corde centre, that offer motivation and support programs. They do an exceptional job, and I would like to commend them for it.

I heard another strange comment: that safety would be at risk in these neighbourhoods. Some Conservatives on the other side of this House believe that supervised injection sites jeopardize the safety of children and the safety of the neighbourhood. Once again, the opposite is true and it has been proven.

I will continue my speech after question period, and I look forward to it.

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, December 10th, 2013]

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

I understand where her question is coming from. I understand her concern because on the one hand, a host of regulations has been implemented recently by the Conservatives, who boast about having done something tangible, and on the other hand, there are not enough resources to ensure that the new regulations are implemented effectively.

If I may add to the discussion: oil tanker traffic has increased tremendously. In fact, oil tanker traffic tripled between 2005 and 2010. It is supposed to triple again by 2016. You can see how important this is.

I am pleased to support Bill C-3 at second reading stage, but frankly, we must continue in this direction and ensure that our regulations are appropriate for the current situation.

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, December 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question and his community involvement. As a member of Parliament, he does a very good job of representing the people in Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

Yes, there are some concerns. I will explain why I think these concerns are justified. Despite Bill C-3 before us today, we are aware to what extent the Conservatives have gutted, or at least significantly reduced, environmental protection measures. That is the cornerstone of the concerns. When you want to develop natural resources responsibly, you do not lower environmental standards and drop the number of inspections. On the contrary, you increase resources for scientists and inspectors. When you give a natural resources development project the green light, you should have every available credible study and an audit system. That way, you can assure the population that it will be done properly, in a way that respects the environment and sustainable development, and that avoids disasters. Canadians do not trust this government right now. It is understandable when we consider everything that has been done to reduce environmental protection.

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, December 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today 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. That is not my introduction. It is simply the title of the bill, which amends a number of things.

First, I would like to point out that Bill C-3 has already been debated in another form, as Bill C-57. Before supporting that bill at second reading, the NDP asked that it be reviewed to broaden its scope and reverse Conservative cutbacks and closures regarding marine safety and the negative changes to environmental protection. Those topics directly concern the purpose of the bill. That request was refused—no surprise there—but the NDP still moved forward.

I am speaking to this bill today to indicate why I will support it, what reservations I have, and what additional measures I would like to see in order to ensure true protection, much more extensive protection of what this bill is designed to protect.

As I said in my introduction, this bill changes a number of things. I would like to highlight some that I find most important. First, the bill seeks to indemnify air carriers for damage caused by war risks. The intent is simply to make sure that, in dangerous situations, air transportation can continue, come what may. It is quite interesting. The bill also grants powers to investigate aviation incidents or accidents involving civilians, aircraft and aeronautical installations. Put simply, the power of investigation increases when an accident occurs, and that too is very interesting.

The only reservation I have about this measure in Bill C-3—and I hope I will be able to deal with it in committee after this vote at second reading—pertains to the discretionary power being given to the minister. I want to make sure that he is not given too much.

Let me digress a little. As the critic for citizenship and immigration, I have a good deal to say about the discretionary powers that are increasingly being given to ministers in a number of bills, including this one.

In our immigration system, we have seen a number of amendments in bills that have changed the system and given more and more discretionary power to the minister. I find that worrisome. We have a very complex and elaborate system, with very competent officials. Yet the minister is being given more and more discretionary power. That worries me. I am not pointing the finger at any minister in particular. I am simply talking about a principle that opens the door to decisions being made in back rooms, where we have no ability to seek real accountability or point out where mistakes have been made here or there. That is the end of my digression. Making that point made me feel a lot better.

In short, the clause in Bill C-3 that deals with the Aeronautics Act must be examined closely to make sure that the discretionary powers given to the minister do not go too far. I hope that we will hear from a number of people who can give us the benefit of their wise counsel.

Bill C-3 also proposes to amend the Marine Liability Act. The bill seeks to implement an international convention that Canada signed in 2010, the Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea. Canada is a signatory to this very important international convention and today's bill seeks to implement it. The convention defines the liability of vessel owners for the costs incurred when oil or other similar materials are spilled. It is very important to highlight and clarify the liability of companies and vessel owners when a spill like that occurs and when damage is caused.

Finally, the amendment to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, is also very important. It introduces new requirements for operators of oil handling facilities, which is somewhat along the same lines as the amendment I mentioned earlier.

The amendment also proposes the application of new measures and monetary sanctions, with new investigative powers for Transport Canada investigators. Once again, we see the same idea. Those two amendments are the most important.

As another aside, I would like to refer to what happened recently in Lac-Mégantic. I agree that it is not really the same thing, but we are still talking about the same principle of owners and operators being liable.

After the recent Lac-Mégantic tragedy, we saw how the province took action. People on the ground and Quebeckers from across the province joined forces to provide assistance to victims and to raise funds for reconstruction and restitution after this oil-related accident.

It is unacceptable that it is the people who must come together and pay for that damage. People were kept in the dark for so long before finding out whether the company's insurance was going to pay for the damage. In the end, a large part of the cost had to be covered by the province and by generous and compassionate individuals.

That is the link I want to make here. These amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and the Marine Liability Act may provide a solution by ensuring that companies at fault in the case of spills or catastrophes like that one will be a little more liable.

I will now continue with the bill. I said earlier that Canada was a signatory to the 2010 International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea. Yes, I said the 2010 Convention. Well, not so long ago, in the autumn of 2012, two big transport ships sank off the west coast because of the current traffic.

Today, we have the impression that the bill that we are debating is a means for the Conservative government to apologize for its failure to act all these years. By signing the 2010 international convention, perhaps the government was demonstrating goodwill, but too much time went by after that. Catastrophes happened, and spills happened on the west coast, and it is only now that I am debating this bill at second reading. That is much too long.

Yes, Bill C-3 introduces corrective measures, and once again I will be supporting it at second reading. It may be too little, too late, but I just wanted to raise the matter.

What will the next step be? The Conservatives have set up a three-person tanker safety expert panel. In November 2013, the panel was to publish a report on how to reform the oil spill response regime. I am mentioning it because all too often we have seen very interesting reports being tabled without their recommendations being taken seriously or implemented quickly.

I hope the Conservatives will show good faith when this report is tabled and that they will implement meaningful and serious reform measures as recommended by the panel, in order to improve companies’ safety and liability. Oil tanker traffic is increasing and we must ensure that our regulations keep up.

[Ethics, December 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, would it be possible to have a minister respond? After all, this scandal is due to an administrative error on the part of the government. Could a minister confirm whether Benjamin Perrin's emails contain information that incriminates the Prime Minister? Could any information incriminate the Prime Minister, yes or no?

[Ethics, December 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we are wondering what is really in those emails. Do the Conservatives feel so threatened that they are trying to prevent an investigation into the mysterious temporary disappearance of the emails, which reappeared not so long ago? When will the government finally make public the content of the Prime Minister's former legal adviser's emails? When?

[Ethics, December 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, once again, let us continue with the exploits of Senator Dagenais, another senator who does not live in his senate division.

Not only did he oppose the Auditor General's review, but he refused to hear the testimony of Michael Runia, whom Mr. Gerstein tried to influence in the Duffy matter. For a former police officer to refuse to hear from a key witness, now that is really weak.

Does Senator Dagenais have something to hide? Did he refuse that of his own accord, or was he following instructions from the office—

[Ethics, December 9th, 2013]

How ironic, Mr. Speaker. After seeing so many emails demonstrating just how much the Prime Minister's Office is pulling the strings in the Senate, we are trying to determine just how involved the Conservatives were in Senator Dagenais' insulting letter to my colleague, but we cannot get an answer. It is really quite ironic.

Let us continue with Senator Dagenais' exploits. He was the one who publicly opposed having the Auditor General examine Senate expenses. Can the Conservatives confirm that Senator Dagenais' expenses are in order?

[Business of Supply, December 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks. As always, he is well informed. I would also like to comment on a point that he raised.

It is true that the youth savings rate is alarming. However, we must also recognize that there are young people who are concerned about their retirement and are seriously wondering how to save for a secure retirement.

All we hear these days is that nothing is certain anymore and that we can no longer plan for something 30 years down the road. Young people such as myself who want to put money away for a good retirement hear that the performance of RRSPs is not up to expectations and that those who counted on RRSPs are very disappointed now. In addition, they see that employer pension plans are either falling apart or providing much lower benefits.

For young people who want to plan for their retirement and who are giving it some serious thought, could my colleague explain why the Canada pension plan is secure compared to all the other options available? Also, how could this plan be enhanced, given that it is already in place and it seems to be the most effective?