Massimo Pacetti

[Petitions, December 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition addressed to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. It is signed by about a hundred of my constituents, who say:

We, the undersigned, Canadian residents and persons with reduced mobility, wish to call to the attention of the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities that the Canada Post Corporation has cut an essential service without consultation and without offering another comparable service, by refusing to use the built-in mailboxes between the entrances of 6660 and 6680 Couture Street to collect mail.

Therefore...and with the support of...[our] member of Parliament for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, we, the undersigned, residents of the Gérard-Poitras complex, located at 6660 and 6680 Couture Street in Saint-Léonard, Quebec, are calling on the Canada Post Corporation to install a mailbox directly in front of our complex, since the nearest mailbox to the Gérard-Poitras complex is too far away and is inaccessible for many of us who have reduced mobility.

[Port of Québec, December 6th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today.

This motion is very long and deals with the Port of Québec, but I think it could apply to all ports in the country and not just the Port of Québec. That said, it will be my pleasure to support the motion presented by the member for Beauport—Limoilou.

The Liberal Party of Canada believes that we need more investment in infrastructure to secure the economic development of our municipalities and of our country. In fact, this is one of the key points that our party has always advocated. As I said, all of Canada’s ports are examples of places where infrastructure investment could be multiplied to spur economic growth for a city.

I therefore do not understand why the Conservatives have just said they do not support this motion. I understand that the Conservatives do not believe in the importance of working with municipalities, and so they are perhaps somewhat reluctant to support this motion. The evidence can be seen in the recent Economic Action Plan, which has not worked over the last two years. They should perhaps consider changing their approach.

The Liberal Party also believes that this development must not occur at the expense of our environment. We must therefore be careful to preserve the environment. The Port of Québec is of crucial importance to the economic welfare of Quebec City, Quebec and Canada as a whole.

If I may, I will explain why the Port of Québec, in my opinion, is so important to Quebec and to Canada.

Let us first consider its historical importance. The very foundation of our country rests on the choice made by Samuel de Champlain, the founder of Quebec City, in 1608. That choice was based primarily on the strategic position of the site for controlling the St. Lawrence River. Quebec City was long considered to be the Gibraltar of America. Because of its strategic importance, Quebec City, formerly the capital of New France, has seen many battles over the course of its history. Those battles, and that history, contributed greatly to forging the character of Quebeckers and Canadians. Quebec City has also long been one of the key economic hubs of Canada because of the Port of Québec and the importance of the St. Lawrence Seaway. For many years, the port was the first point of contact with Canada for newcomers. It has also always been crucially important for international trade. In short, the historical importance of Quebec City, which is inseparable from its port, is worthy of mention by and support from the House of Commons.

As has already been said, we are aware of the importance of the Port of Québec. It is the second largest port in Quebec, outranked only by the Port of Montreal. More than a quarter of goods shipped by water in Quebec stop in the Port of Québec. This makes it one of the most important ports of entry for shipping in Canada, still today. It enables Quebec City to be competitive in international trade and makes it possible for the local economy to prosper.

Although it has been mentioned, there has been no discussion so far about the importance of respect for the environment. Soil decontamination is of great importance in revitalizing the port environment. If we look at most of the ports in Canada, we see a contamination problem. We should therefore support this project, because most of the land surrounding these ports is contaminated. We must really find a way to decontaminate and develop that land.

Respecting and improving our environment is a priority for the Liberal Party. In addition, this decontamination goes hand in hand with other port improvement projects. Thus, it goes without saying that we absolutely must have an ecological vision for the Port of Québec and for other ports across the country.

Infrastructure projects and projects to develop the site will mean important economic spinoffs for Quebec City. Many tourists arrive in Quebec City by water, and infrastructure projects have definitely improved things in the past. According to statistics, traffic has tripled since the early 2000s when a cruise ship terminal was built. With just one terminal, the number of cruise ships has tripled in the port.

Tourism is vital to the Quebec City region. More and more people around the world are working, but there are more destinations. Thus, it is harder to get people to come. A port is always a good tourist attraction. For instance, on October 6, 2010, four ships were berthed in the Port of Québec for about 48 hours, which brought in economic spinoffs worth $1.3 million in just two days.

Upgrading of port assets and developing the facilities of the Port of Québec would address the concerns of the Liberal Party regarding the poor state of infrastructure in Canada. The government must invest in this area in order to maintain Quebec City's competitiveness on the international stage.

As I was saying, across the country we are seeing a lot of ports that require investment, whether it be to upgrade their equipment or provide dredging to allow bigger boats to dock there. However, the problem we have with the motion is that we do not know how much money it would cost. There is not much detail.

I do not see how the government or members in the House cannot support the motion. There is nothing controversial here. We know that for every dollar that is invested in our economy, it multiplies five times. In a port, it would probably generate 10 times as a multiplier. I do not see how we can avoid investing in our ports.

Many ports across the country and in the world were used for different purposes. Since they were close to water, they were used for transporting goods and people. In today's day and age we have different ways of doing that with the arrival of rail, cars and trucks. Therefore, ports are now used for different reasons. Yes, they are still used mainly for bringing in goods, but as I said, now they bring in cruise ships.

If we look at the major ports that are being developed, they are being used for condo development and business development because they attract people. They attract business and make the economy of that particular city more vital and vibrant.

I see that in Montreal we have the same problem. There was some money invested, and it created a good environment. Investment brings tourists and dollars into the city. It brings respectability, things get renovated, and the city looks nice. However, as soon as we stop investing in the area, people stop coming, and the city does not look as nice.

I do not see why the government, in partnership with the provinces and the city, could not support the motion.

I am pleased to support my colleague's motion. Quebec City, the second largest city in Quebec, performs very well economically and the Canadian government has a duty to contribute to that. By supporting this motion, we are taking the first step, but further action is needed. We must contribute to the improvement and upgrading of the Port of Québec because of its economic and historic importance.

In closing, I hope the Conservative government will set partisanship aside and support this motion, not only by voting in favour of it but, more importantly, by taking action.

[Port of Québec, December 6th, 2011]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Normally, I would have no problem and I would have provided the member with consent to split his time. However, the question was asked when there were other members in the House who did not give their consent. Now there is a member who is representing a party, but I am not sure what he representing, so we are creating a precedent that I do not think there is a need to create. The member has a few minutes left. If he does not need to use them, the rest of us will.

[Search and Rescue, December 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, that is not what the emails say.

Under the pretext of participating in a search and rescue mission, the Minister of National Defence hailed a flying taxi at a cost of $32,000 an hour.

A rescue helicopter is like a fire truck or an ambulance. The Department of National Defence is not a Toys "R" Us. The minister does not seem to understand that this is serious.

Why does he have such contempt for the Canadian Forces?

[Business of Supply, November 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question. It is true that the government will oppose the NDP's motion because it will no longer have control over closure and time allocation motions. The government knows that it cannot control the Speaker.

The Liberal Party does not necessarily want the Speaker to have control over these motions. However, we would like the issue to be examined by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. That committee would be able to find solutions with all parliamentarians. It is a decision to be made by Parliament and not necessarily the Speaker. It certainly is not a decision that should be made by the government. We are in favour of this motion in principle, but we do not agree with all of the details.

[Business of Supply, November 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member. If there is time that is needed to be spent on a bill to make it perfect it probably should be spent in committee because that is where we can actually have third party, people who are interested and actually have the minister come forward. I agree with the member that there should be more time.

Bill C-13 was a 600-page bill and there were a lot of technicalities. More time should probably have been given to the witnesses to prepare so that they could come forward at committee.

[Business of Supply, November 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg Centre always makes his questions much more animated than they need be. However, I understand and agree with the gist of his question. I do not agree 100% with it but I agree that we are eroding the traditions of Parliament slowly but surely. It is a little sad to see that some of the government backbenchers, as they are called, do not stand up for some of the things that should go on in committee and do not listen to Canadians.

I think there is room for change. I think that after a couple of years the government backbenchers will be on the backbenches realizing that they are not doing anything and at one point or another will need to react because they will need to account to their electorate.

I think the government is treating Parliament more as a nuisance than an actual voice for Canadians. That is the troubling part in all this.

[Business of Supply, November 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you on the nomination to your new post. I hope you are getting at least a fraction of what the real Speaker gets. You should be justifiably compensated for your work.

That is a great question from the member. This is one of the areas in which I probably both agree with the government and actually disagree, because they probably allotted too much time on second reading.

I love to get these bills to committee and I love to consult with Canadians. I am not a fan of time allocation, but I am not opposed to it. If there is ever a time that a government should use time allocation, it should be at second reading, in order to get the bills out of the House and sent to committee so that they can really be worked on there.

Ways and means is one way to introduce things that are urgent in the budget. There other mechanisms. A budget implementation that has important items in it does not have to be passed overnight. If there are items that need to be passed overnight, they can be put in a ways and means motion and the House will vote on them right away.

[Business of Supply, November 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will share my time with the hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor.

I find it a little sad that, with this government, we always start with the end instead of the beginning. Regardless of what we may think, this government does what it wants and cares little about parliamentary procedures and tradition.

Since the last election, we are seeing too much abuse. This government is abusing its majority, thinking that with the support of 39% of Canadians it can do anything. And this is an inflated number because it does not include the 40% of Canadians who did not vote. So, it is not even 30% of Canadians who supported the government. Therefore, it should at least respect the opinion of all Canadians. It is not the first time that we raise this issue.

Today, we are talking about the government cutting debate short after introducing a bill, and not even after several hours of debate. This government has shown repeatedly its contempt for our institutions. In the case of Senate appointments, it has also shown that it does not respect its own promises. Indeed, the government had committed to appointing only elected senators. However, two weeks after the election, the Prime Minister not only appointed to the Senate individuals who had lost their election, but he did so without consulting the provinces, as he had promised to do.

Recently, we saw that this government had even set criteria to appoint an officer of Parliament. I am not going to get into details, but there were two basic and very simple criteria to select the Auditor General. First, the individual had to be an accountant and, second, he or she had to be bilingual. This government ignored the fact that the appointee had to be bilingual and it hired an accountant who had some experience in a small province. We can already see the abuse of power.

As we have seen so far, there is always a double standard with this government. We believe the government is abusing its power by constantly resorting to closure to avoid debate. That is the only motive we can find today. It has already done it close to ten times over a period of a few weeks, when none of the bills involved were urgent.

We have seen time allocation invoked on six out of 10 bills. That does not mean time allocation has been invoked 6 times. It means time allocation has been invoked on 6 bills at different stages. Just so that listeners are aware of how many stages a bill would go through, normally a bill would go through second reading, report stage and third reading. If we multiply six bills times three, that would be 18 times that the government could potentially invoke time allocation. To date, we have a calculation of about 10, so we can look forward to seeing more of these bills undergoing time allocation for the next few steps.

The government House leader has stated that the issues on the government's legislative agenda so far this session have been discussed in detail since the government took office. I do not understand it.

The point is that during the elections the Conservative government made promises. However, if we look at the makeup of the House, at least 40% of the members are new parliamentarians, so this debate never took place. Also, what was said during the election campaign was not necessarily in a legislative format. Our job as parliamentarians is to debate these pieces of legislation.

That brings me to another subject, one that is not necessarily tied into the debate today. I am a member of the scrutiny of regulations committee, and we see that if legislation is not properly worded, then a lot of this legislation and, in turn, a lot of its regulations get bogged down. We then have things that are not necessarily clear, Canadians are not happy with how the legislation is worded, and the courts have to get involved. It is all just a churning of bureaucracy and a waste of money.

The claim that the government has already consulted Canadians is far from what the government has actually done. It has not consulted Canadians.

It is saying that three or four hours of debate it is sufficient for a bill. However, let us look at some of the bills that have been tabled. As an exaple, the budget is made up of 600 pages of legislation. It is a government omnibus bill. As a lawyer, I sat in on some of the committee hearings and I can tell members that it was not the easiest thing to follow. I just cannot imagine how a couple of hours of debate would suffice for a proposed bill that is going to affect all Canadians, not just the criminals. It will affect all Canadians, because one day they will have to deal with these issues, and if they do not have to go before a court of law, they will have to at least pay taxes to pay for all the costs that are going to be incurred in trying to monitor these pieces of legislation and put them into force.

We are trying to avoid just passing these pieces of legislation blindly. We are trying to ensure proper vigilance before these pieces of legislation are passed; however, that does not seem to be a valid argument for the government.

We in the Liberal Party are trying to do our job, but the government is making allegations that we are obstructing and we are using unreasonable amendments. I can understand the government's point of view, because sometimes the NDP acts irrationally and tries to filibuster and makes ridiculous amendments. However, I think the Liberal Party has made pretty reasonable amendments up to now. We have been first up to bat on making amendments on proposed bills. I think that we have done our job, but the government refuses to allow us to continue to do our jobs. We want the public, whether it be experts or third parties who are affected by these bills, to come forward to testify and make suggestions so that we can actually make these bills work properly.

Let us look at some of the bills for which time allocation has been introduced. The budget implementation bill was introduced and read for the first time on June 14; there was time allocation at all stages, and it was voted on June 15.

This is nothing new. Budget implementation bills are introduced twice every year, plus the budget. The budget implementation bill is not a partisan issue. It is normally the bill that introduces the legislation to put the budget into application.

Usually it is technical. It requires people affected by the budget to provide us with their input and tell us what changes they would like to see; if there are no changes, they at least come forward to give us their interpretation of that particular bill.

In the past, whether it was a majority government or a minority government, we have always been able to get consensus on how many hours of debate we needed in the House and in committee. However, the government seems to be using its majority at will and is just punching the legislation through. It has done that for the two budget bills, Bill C-9 and Bill C-13.

On Bill C-10, the omnibus crime bill, the Conservatives invoked time allocation not only in the House but in committee as well. I was there. They suddenly said that they did not want to hear what we had to say. They had made up their minds. It was impossible that they would need opinions from experts. They did not even have to hear from the bar association. They did not even have to hear from the provinces.

Even though members from the province of Quebec had numerous valid amendments to introduce into the bill, the government had already decided it was not going to listen to anyone. I understand that the NDP had numerous amendments that were not relevant to the case and had to be rejected, but my colleague, the member for Mount Royal, introduced some pretty important amendments that were backed up by Minister Fournier from the Quebec government. We are going to have report stage next week, and I am hoping that the government can change its mind and adopt some of the amendments.

With regard to the Canadian Wheat Board, it was not a matter of procedure. Again, that was just rammed through. These farmers are working, and they do not have the time to come here and be notified because everything has to be rammed through.

I see my time is up. I am hoping that I will have some good questions and that I can continue.

[Health, November 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the question was about regulations and how those were going to change.

In 2004 the health accord created innovative solutions to the real problems facing the health care system, including a national pharmaceutical strategy to make sure that prescription drugs were safe and available for everyone who needed them.

However, the Conservatives killed this plan which, as the Auditor General pointed out this week, has prevented many life-saving drugs from reaching the market while keeping many unsafe drugs on pharmacy shelves.

As negotiations on the next health accord begin, will the government admit its error and bring forward a plan to ensure that Canadians have a safe, affordable supply—