Mathieu Ravignat

[Victims Bill of Rights, May 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes there is nothing more slippery than a Liberal. In this case, they are trying to defend their record of years of inaction on victims' rights. We have Liberals who did absolutely nothing on victims' rights for years, and now we have Conservatives who are basically doing something that is called tokenism.

The thing is that they cannot address victims' rights if they do not address funding programs and do not address trying to deal with prevention. How difficult is it to wrap their heads around the fact that they have to invest in prevention and invest in programs that allow victims to have a voice? The current government is not doing this, and the past Liberal governments did not do it.

I do not understand how my colleague can try to defend the Liberals' record by trying to squeeze out in the middle. I have tremendous respect for my Liberal colleague, just not for his government in the past. I would like to hear whether he can defend the Liberal record on victims' rights.

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, May 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, any discussion about victims and crime should also include the provinces. Justice and law enforcement are basically under provincial jurisdiction, aside from the RCMP. Therefore, it is essential that we consult the provinces about any legislation regarding justice and victims' rights.

Victims need to be protected. This issue is very important to me and to all New Democrats.

What approach does my colleague think the government should take in consulting with the provinces on legal matters and the protection of victims' rights?

[Reform Act, 2014, May 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will make full use of the six minutes allocated for my speech.

It is somewhat unfortunate because this bill raises some very interesting and fundamental questions regarding the health of our democracy. I would just like to congratulate my Conservative colleague for having the courage to confront the issue, his own party and the Prime Minister. I know that the member is sincere and that he shares my passion for protecting our democracy.

Democracy, its transparency and its responsibility are not partisan issues.

In fact, they are questions of the tension between authoritarianism and freedom. In history, we have seen that authoritarianism is not limited to the left or to the right. Authoritarian governments have been both right-wing and left-wing. The only safeguard against what is an inherent tendency in our political system to gain power and to want to maintain it is to balance this tendency with what I call multiple localities of power; that is, a sharing of power between various jurisdictions and segments of society.

I think what characterizes a healthy, modern democracy is power sharing. This is done in many ways, both tacitly and implicitly in our society. For example, we can point out the free market system that, with its profit motive, contains contradictions, it is true, with regard to the expression of freedom, with its tendency to deny the right of access to capital and to the means of production, labour mobility, free association labour movements, et cetera, but, nonetheless, at least in its social democratic expression, and my colleague will forgive me for that, provide fundamental room in expressing oneself in freely formed relationships between human beings.

We can all think about the sharing of power within civil society at large, as well. There are vast areas of our society that are not political, thank God, yet function in a free and open manner where the right of association is clearly established and actually creates shared power, spontaneous shared power structures separate from government, which are freely made and freely associated in. This is not to mention the ballot box and universal suffrage that, in my opinion, can be fundamentally improved in our democratic system; for example, by moving to a mixed-member proportional and more democratic system than the first past the post system. However, that is neither here nor there.

However, when we talk about political parties, there is something fundamental that goes on. We have to admit that they are different animals than other types of associations, corporations, or groups. Why? Political parties are in the business of taking power and maintaining power. They are, by their very nature, political. Electoral laws also tend to institutionally favour already established parties and discourage the formation of new political parties.

My colleagues across the hall would probably be more familiar with that than I am, with the whole Reform Party experience.

However, within a free market system, political parties are also financed through private means; therefore, they are also directly related to money, which opens them to all contradictions of our economic system, as mentioned earlier, even more so with the elimination of the electoral return and the public support of the political parties, which was meant to level the playing field. This is unfortunate.

I do lament the fact that this bill would not address these problems, both within our electoral laws and the financing of political parties, because I think that these are the fundamental issues and the very basis of what is wrong with our democracy and why there is so much cynicism and a lack of participatory action within our country today, at a political point of view.

Also, we have to mention that political parties make their own rules. The Conservative Party and the Liberal Party have a long history of being flawed democratic institutions. Their relationship to Bay Street, where the oil industry is too close for them to represent the true interest of the majority of Canadians, is an example.

In its current form, the NDP is much more democratic because it is the only party that has a leadership review every two years. Furthermore, it is the only party that would subject a sitting prime minister to such a review. Since the last election, for example, Jack Layton and our leader have had such reviews. No other party has had a leadership race and two reviews in the past two and a half years. Furthermore, the NDP already elects its caucus chair. We also have transparent processes for choosing a leader.

Nonetheless, how political parties are structured and work, and in particular the relationship between the party and its elected officials, is clearly a blind spot in our democracy. I commend the member for shedding some considerable light on this issue.

Like many Canadians, I am deeply concerned about the highly concentrated power that the government has created in the Prime Minister's Office and his cabinet. We must remain vigilant lest our democracy slip. The fact is that a majority government in this country with a Senate that is undemocratic yields too much power.

One of these powers is the control of its own caucus and elected members, a democratic deficit this bill partially attempts to address.

I will finish the rest when I have four minutes at the next hour of debate. I am thankful for the attention of the members.

[Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act (Vanessa's Law), May 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his great speech. I think what he has touched on and what is fundamental with this particular bill is the role of government in making sure that Canadians are safe with regard to something as important to their health as prescription medication or medication in general.

The fact is that statistics have shown that not taking one's medication properly or not taking it all, because one misunderstands, can have dire consequences on one's health or could cause death. There is a tension between the interests of the pharmaceutical companies and their profit-making initiatives and informing the public, so there is definitely a role for government to play, a role that the NDP has recognized consistently. Informing and educating the public is essential. Making sure that labels are very clear is essential.

I would like to hear my hon. colleague's opinion on that positive role that government can play with regard to our health system and our pharmaceutical industry.

[Petitions, May 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of presenting a petition that condemns the lack of justice for children and women who are victims of violence. The petitioners are calling on the government to do more to protect them.

I would like to congratulate Aline Lafond from Maniwaki, who campaigned to get this petition signed. It is an important cause, and I am pleased to present this petition.

[Kidnapping of Girls in Nigeria, May 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, like many people in Pontiac, I was very shocked to learn about this tragic story. I am the father of two little girls, Gabriella and Sophia. When I talked about it with Sophia, who is now going to school, she did not understand why other girls in the world could not go to school. She is four years old and already she understands the importance of going to school.

I congratulate the government on the measures it has taken so far. However, we also have to talk about promoting education. We have to talk about whether we need to invest in education in countries like Nigeria.

My hon. colleague, the NDP critic for foreign affairs, said it is important that we increase investment in education abroad by millions of dollars. I wonder whether my hon. colleague agrees with me that this investment is important.

[The Public Service, May 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have been in power for almost a decade, and one thing has become clear: they are waging a malicious war against federal public servants to score political points and hide the failures of their poor economic management.

They unilaterally announced their intention to go after federal public servants' sick days, and are forcing new staff to increase their pension contributions, thereby creating a two-tier system. Conservatives have also gone after retired public servants by limiting future retirees' access to health care. As usual, they consulted no one and silenced debate in Parliament.

A number of my constituents are public servants. They come to see me because they are overwhelmed as a result of being asked to do more with less. The stress level in the public service attests to that. Enough is enough. Federal public servants must not bear the brunt of this government's deficit reduction plan. These constant attacks on those who provide our public services must stop immediately.

[Offshore Health and Safety Act, May 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that both provincial governments and the federal government have been involved. It takes a lot for the Conservative government to consult. It takes a lot for Conservatives to admit that they need to consult. In this case, fortunately, though it took some time, it was done, and it seems to have been done across sectors, with organizations.

The fundamental principle is important, and that is that no matter where a Canadian works, whether it be on the earth, in the air, on the sea, they should be given the same protections. There should be the same security standards offered to them so that we lose fewer workers in this country every year. We already lose too many.

[Offshore Health and Safety Act, May 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with my hon. colleague from Churchill.

As always, I am pleased to rise in the House today to talk about Bill C-5, which was introduced as Bill C-61 during the first session of the 41st Parliament, as members probably all know.

I would like to begin by saying that the NDP will support, at report stage, this bill to amend the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act to enhance the safety and transparency of offshore petroleum activities.

These amendments would, primarily, create a new offshore workplace health and safety regime, which is a good thing. Bill C-5 addresses long-standing gaps in the legislation, as well as regulation-making authorities associated with workplace health and safety standards and how they apply to offshore petroleum extraction operations in the law. This is an important measure that the NDP has been seeking for some time.

Despite the federal government's refusal to implement recommendation no. 29 of the Wells Inquiry, Bill C-5 is a positive and necessary improvement to the current offshore health and safety regime because it places safety practices into legislation.

Bill C-5 is the culmination of over 12 years of negotiations, which started in 2001. In fact, I wonder what took the government so long to put these worker protection measures into law.

The bill also establishes a framework that clarifies the individual and shared roles of the federal government, the provincial governments, regulators, operators, employers, suppliers and employees. That is a lot of people, and I understand that the whole issue of the safety of our workers is rather complex and important, crucial even.

The bill is based on three basic principles.

First, offshore occupational health and safety laws must provide offshore workers with protection at least as good as that of onshore workers. That seems pretty basic to me. A worker must be protected regardless of where he or she works, whether offshore or onshore. No matter what environment a person works in, the conditions should be standardized and safe. No one wants to lose a colleague, a parent, a sister, an uncle or an aunt in a workplace accident. It is always tragic. During question period today, my colleague mentioned that we have already lost six miners in northern Ontario. That is six too many. It is the responsibility of all governments, federal and provincial alike, to ensure that our workers are safe.

Second, it is important to protect workers' rights: the right to know, the right to participate, the right to refuse unsafe work and the right to be protected from reprisals if they should blow the whistle on unsafe working conditions.

Third, it is necessary to support an occupational health and safety culture that emphasizes shared responsibility in the workplace.

New Democrats in the provinces in question had long been calling for these changes to be enshrined in law, but the Conservative government seemed reluctant to follow through. Nevertheless, we are pleased that this bill was introduced in the House.

However, it is disappointing that the federal government prevented us from making workers even safer by creating a stand-alone safety regulator.

I would like to quote the Honourable Robert Wells, who in a 2010 inquiry report on offshore helicopter safety said:

After a full study of the Transportation Safety Board’s Report, I have concluded that not only should such an independent safety regulator be created, it should also be given a clear and unambiguous safety mandate. This need is more urgent in the light of the TSB Report.

Justice Wells recommended that, even in the event that the recommendation was not considered feasible, a separate and autonomous safety division be created within the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board.

Unfortunately, the government has no interest in creating a stand-alone safety regulator. I am not the only one saying so. When he was the natural resources minister in Newfoundland and Labrador, Tom Marshall said the same thing.

The NDP is determined to work in partnership with the provinces to achieve better results, something that seems very difficult for my Conservative colleagues to do.

Bill C-5 also authorizes the Minister of Natural Resources and the provincial employment ministers, in consultation with the Minister of Employment and Social Development and the Minister of Transport, to develop offshore health and safety regulations. In addition, the Minister of Transport would be required to develop health and safety regulations for offshore workers in transit, because the bill also applies to workers who are moving between offshore marine facilities or structures, and that is a good thing.

This bill is definitely a step in the right direction. It may not be a big enough step, but it is a step nonetheless. It would have been a bigger step had the Conservatives not refused to consider, for example, the entirely reasonable NDP amendment that would have included a mandatory review of the law in five years. This type of provision is found in a number of laws. It is quite acceptable to review a law every five years, because things change. In order to adapt to new conditions, the laws in force must be reviewed so that they can be strengthened and so that they are an appropriate response to needs. They have to be evaluated and amended, if necessary. We thought it was a very reasonable amendment.

The principle of this amendment was supported by a number of key witnesses and corresponds to the position taken by Justice Wells on this issue. We believe that our amendment is necessary, I will repeat, for due diligence and good governance, especially given the complex nature of the bill and the fact that it pertains to several levels of government.

Nevertheless, we will support the bill, which is a positive and necessary improvement to the current regime. Furthermore, it will protect offshore workers at least as well as onshore workers. That is a good thing, and that is why I am pleased to rise in the House to give this speech in support of the bill.

[Census, May 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about how badly the Conservatives are failing when it comes to statistics. The Auditor General pointed out that the data on small communities is of poor quality. Labour market information is crucial, particularly for the small and medium-sized business in those small municipalities.

We know that the statistics the Conservatives are using, which were pulled from Kijiji, simply mean that more temporary foreign workers are being hired, paid low wages and exploited by employers. When will the Conservatives correct the monumental mistake that led them to abolish the long form census?