Marie-Claude Morin

[Petitions, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition today signed by Canadian citizens from across the country, of all ages and social classes, who are calling on the government to take responsibility once and for all and to pass Bill C-400, which would ensure that all Canadians have access to secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing.

[Violence Against Women, December 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, today I want to honour the 14 women who lost their lives at École Polytechnique in Montreal on this day 23 years ago, simply because they were women. I also want to honour all Canadian women who are victims of gender-based violence every day.

Geneviève Bergeron, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick, Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michèle Richard, Annie St-Arneault, Annie Turcotte.

Let us remember them.

[Asbestos, November 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak today in support of the motion by the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup. My colleague's motion addresses the government's responsibility for the current state of the asbestos industry in Canada.

The motion calls upon the government to implement, in the year following the adoption of this motion, an industrial restructuring plan towards sustainable economic sectors for all communities in which a portion of the economy still depends on asbestos mining.

Industrial restructuring plans should include the mobilization of resources and encourage the involvement of the local work force. That means that we must consult the local people concerned, because they are the leaders and must live with whatever is developed to restart the regional economy. It is essential that the government show leadership that creates enthusiasm. It must also be innovative.

The motion also calls for a public consultation to be held in the six months following the adoption of the motion. First, it should establish measures to be included in the industrial restructuring plan to ensure the creation of alternative employment for workers presently employed in the asbestos sector; second, it should include all organizations concerned and groups of regions still mining asbestos and who ask to participate.

I know that consultative democracy is a problem for our government, but it is essential in these communities and it must be an everyday practice for everyone in politics. When I talk about consultative democracy, of course, I am talking about informing and consulting the people most closely involved. We must work with people in their communities. It is essential to get their consent and that of their community institutions so that they can feel part of a project that affects everyone in their community.

The motion also asks that the government publish, in the year following the adoption of this motion, a comprehensive list of public and quasi-public buildings under federal jurisdiction that contain asbestos. This is a government responsibility. Public Works and Government Services Canada must monitor materials containing asbestos.

The motion also calls upon the government to support the inclusion of chrysotile on the Rotterdam Convention list of dangerous substances. We have learned recently that the government has finally agreed to do so. That is very good news because it obliges exporting countries like Canada to warn importing countries of the dangers to health. Importing countries would be free to choose to accept asbestos imports or to refuse them if they felt unable to handle these products in complete safety.

Finally, the motion calls upon the government to stop financially supporting the asbestos industry within six months following the adoption of the motion. Under the current government, Canada has sponsored and funded some 160 trade missions to 60 countries in order to promote asbestos. Since 1984, before I was even born, the Chrysotile Institute has received over $50 million from the Canadian and Quebec taxpayers.

Canada twice opposed the inclusion of asbestos on the list of dangerous substances, but, as I said, the good news is that the government may have agreed to sign the convention. Since the present Prime Minister took office, Canada has sponsored many trade missions. Thus, we perhaps have an international responsibility. I believe that sponsorship of trade missions should also be eliminated.

In the last three years, the government has given around $150,000 to the Chrysotile Institute, a lobby group working in the asbestos sector to promote asbestos abroad. Not only does it promote asbestos, but it encourages its use internationally. Canada may be an industrialized country, but we have to put international interests ahead of Canada's domestic policy. We are talking about well-being. But this is not only about our own industrial or economic well-being; we must also consider the well-being of people all over the world, in all countries.

In Canada, we know how dangerous a product asbestos is. Parliament has legislated against its use. Entire buildings have been condemned and millions of dollars have been spent because we are aware of the dangers of asbestos. If it is dangerous here, it cannot be safe in another country; that is magical thinking.

Internationally, the World Health Organization and the International Labour Organization agree that there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos. So, there is none. By continuing to export asbestos and sponsor trade missions, the Conservative government continues to damage our international reputation, and I find that especially disturbing. We are opposed to the mining and export of asbestos. I want to praise the hard work my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup has done on this issue. It is greatly appreciated. I congratulate him on his fine work.

In addition, we must consider the massive amount of medical and scientific proof that asbestos damages workers, their families and all residents. The scientific and medical evidence is clear. Internal documents reveal that public servants at Health Canada refuted the Conservatives' statement that chrysotile asbestos was safe, back in 2006. Once again, there is evidence.

On the other hand, I think it is important to recognize that many workers in several regions of Quebec have earned a living from asbestos, and that is why we urgently need a plan B. In my opinion, it is the government's responsibility to prepare an industrial restructuring plan and hold public consultations in the affected communities.

On an opposition day in 2011, five Conservatives abstained from a vote on the motion put forward by the hon. member for Nickel Belt, and it appears that more and more Conservative members are opposed to the continued mining and export of asbestos. That is why we are asking all members from all parties to vote in favour of this motion.

Simply put, it is time for a change and time that the government accepted its international responsibilities. Adding asbestos to the list of dangerous substances is a very good first step and an essential one. Workers in other countries must be informed and protected the same way as any Canadian citizen, because a Canadian is not any better or any more important than a citizen of any other country.

Finally, it is important to remember that people must be informed of any risk to their health, as I said earlier. That is essential. It has been done for asbestos. Still, the government must now face up to its responsibilities to other countries and to the communities that need a realistic industrial restructuring plan to revitalize their economies.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, November 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, some people currently spend over 80% of their income on housing. Normally, one should not spend more than 30% of his budget on housing, in order to meet other basic needs such as food, clothing and providing for his children.

If people have adequate housing and if they pay a decent amount for their rent, they will consume more, have a decent standard of living, live in dignity, and they may also be in a better position to study and work. It is a cycle. It pays to invest in social programs.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, November 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals proposed 3,000 amendments to the bill. I am not saying that these 3,000 amendments were superficial, but most of them were. If they did not want to vote on those amendments, they should not have proposed them.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, November 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is funny that my colleague spoke about responsibilities. Being responsible means ensuring that Canada is a place where people want to live, as I said in my closing remarks. Being responsible means protecting the environment and ensuring that Canadians are not caught in the poverty trap. Investing in social programs and the environment is worthwhile. Sustainable development is worthwhile. Having a country of healthy people is worthwhile.

This is how we intend to fund what we are proposing to Canadians.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, November 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I could begin my speech by confidently making a statement about which I am now absolutely certain, to wit: parliamentary democracy is now a thing of the past in Canada's Parliament.

Omnibus bills, reflecting an almost obscene form of grandstanding, have become a habit in the House of Commons, like gag orders, I might add. That is why I am not all that happy about taking the floor in the House for a second time to speak about the second omnibus budget implementation bill, Bill C-45.

On the other hand, I am pleased to be able to stand up for my constituents, because I believe that it is important for them to be aware of the government's sabotage. It is sabotaging our social programs, our regions, our employment insurance, the quality of our food, our environment, and our international reputation. I could go on about its sabotage for the next 10 minutes of my speech. That is more or less what I will do, but in greater detail.

Just as Bill C-38 went beyond implementation of the 2012 budget by making many other previously unannounced changes, we find ourselves once again dealing with a bill that goes far beyond simply implementing a budget. Much too far. We said so in May when the Trojan horse bill was forced through, and we are saying it again today: this is not an acceptable way of doing things in this House, in a democratic system. I will always speak out in this House against such practices.

Bill C-45 is 450 pages long and contains clauses that concern a host of disparate measures. It amends more than 60 acts. Needless to say, the bill also assigns more power to ministers. This worrisome Conservative penchant for concentrating power is proceeding apace. Bill C-45 eliminates some commissions to allow ministers to make more decisions without consultation and without having to answer to anyone.

It is also important to speak out about the weakening of our environmental protection measures, and of our ability to ensure sustainable development for future generations. I am really concerned that they could not care less about the next generation.

Bill C-45 also destroys the Navigable Waterways Protection Act and takes the teeth out of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The Conservatives did not even allow the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to study these changes, even though they will have a major impact on our environment.

The Minister of Transport likes to repeat ad nauseam that navigable waterways and the environment are two different things, but the fact is that there are fish in the water! They need protection because they are part of our ecosystem. And while it may be true that they are two different things, in the end, they go together.

Bill C-45 also proposes major changes to the Canada Grain Act. These changes, made without consulting anyone, will have a major impact on Canadian grain producers.

I will not discuss the proposed amendments to avoid any slips of the tongue, but will say instead that the government's amendments, drawn up without any consultations, make it more difficult for producers to challenge grain classification or weight decisions made by private grain producers. It is clear that this will be very harmful to the grain trade and small producers.

The Conservatives had assured us that Bill C-45 would hold no surprises. And yet, the 2012 budget did not say a thing about this. After reducing the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board and making budget cuts to AgriStability payments, the Conservatives have made it clear that they do not want to help farmers.

My riding is considered the larder of Quebec, and farming is everywhere.

Farmers in my riding are worried about the extent to which the government is ignoring and refusing to help them. And yet, they are the people who feed us all. Could they not be given at least a little recognition? That is the least the government could do for them.

Yet again, the Conservatives are trying to rush legislative measures through Parliament, keeping Canadians in the dark and not allowing them to learn more about them. In this bill, they go so far as to considerably reduce their own responsibilities. But governments have responsibilities. It seems to me that my colleagues across the way still do not know that. We have been working with this government for a year and a half, and I have yet to see them shoulder any responsibility for anything.

The government is also saying that the bill will create jobs. However, I have something to tell the House: according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the budget will lead to the loss of 43,000 jobs. Some job creation! We might return to the topic when some jobs have actually been created.

In reality, the budget would lead to a major hike in the unemployment rate, with fewer and fewer workers eligible for employment insurance. The main job creation measure in the bill is the introduction of a temporary hiring tax credit for small businesses. This is a measure we could support, because it is like motherhood. However, it only gives employers a maximum tax credit of $1,000 on their new employment insurance payments. That is not a lot. Even funnier, or even more ironic, the tax credit is available to employers for the 2012 tax year, even though 2012 has already ended. The 2012 year is ending now.

We just spoke about jobs. We might now talk about how poverty, homelessness and perhaps even housing. According to the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, 4 million Canadians, 750,000 of them children, are coping with pressing housing needs. By this we mean that their housing is too small, dirty and expensive, and that they cannot pay for it. Not only that, but between 150,000 and 300,000 Canadians currently live in the street.

Earlier, I spoke about the fact that the government must assume its responsibilities. The 2012 budget implementation bill does not contain any measures for housing or the fight against poverty. In my opinion, this is completely unacceptable. Yet, major institutions, such as the Wellesley Institute and the Canadian Federation of Municipalities have sounded the alarm several times. In the run up to the last budget, these organizations called on the federal government to invest money in housing. Obviously, nothing was done.

Housing is a crucial issue for families, people without families and seniors, a high-risk group. Seniors occupy one third of social housing units, and a third of them risked losing their housing as a result of the cutbacks the government has made over recent years. A lot of seniors and families are also at risk of losing their affordable housing because the long-term operating agreements between the federal government and housing co-operatives will not be renewed.

Once again, the government is not playing a leadership role. The NDP will focus its efforts on the real priorities of Canadian families: jobs, health care, pensions, environmental protection, the fight against poverty, agriculture, and the protection of workers. We have a plan to improve health care, to better reward those that create jobs, and to strengthen seniors' benefits. We also want to work in a transparent manner.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives are continuing to demonstrate that they are more interested in imposing their agenda than in being accountable to Canadians. Worse still, they have chosen to perpetuate an unsustainable situation. In our northern country, people are living in the streets and families must choose between paying their rent and feeding their children. The country is placing no importance on the environment and is jeopardizing the health of future generations with impunity. Canada is sabotaging assistance programs for people in need and is not at all concerned about the first nations.

It is high time that the government assume its responsibilities and play a leadership role in order to make our nation a land that welcomes people and a place where people want to live.

[Petitions, November 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by many Canadians who are calling on the government to pull up its socks, show some leadership and vote in favour of Bill C-400, which would finally implement a national housing strategy.

[Petitions, November 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I am pleased to rise today to present a petition signed by Canadians of all ages from across the country and from all social classes. The petitioners are calling on the government to take action and adopt a national housing strategy.

[Petitions, November 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition in support of Bill C-400. People from all over Canada, of all ages and backgrounds, are asking the government to take action by adopting a national housing strategy.