Mylène Freeman

[Blue Sky Policy, December 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this motion is simply not going to work for the air transport and aerospace industries or for air transport and aerospace workers.

These industries are important to Canada's economy and to my riding's economy. They create high-quality jobs and offer plenty of opportunities to innovate.

People in Mirabel and the Lower Laurentians are happy that a number of aerospace companies have set up shop near the Mirabel airport and are creating thousands of jobs in our area.

Unfortunately, the member who moved this motion does not seem to know this industry as well as he should. That is likely because he does not have an airport, a major aeronautics industry or a significant population of aviation workers in his riding. I have all of those things in my riding.

I believe that this explains why he is on the wrong track with this motion, which adheres to the gospel of deregulation, dismantling protections and chasing lower prices without considering the consequences of such policies.

I want to make it clear that I am not against competition, but I do want competition to produce positive outcomes for Canadians and for my constituents.

This motion seems to want to push the blue sky policy much farther than it should go. It is like saying that we can always adopt a blue sky policy. This motion is based on the supposed advantages of open sky agreements. However, as is the case with many other Conservative policies, the Conservatives' position is not based on solid facts. No full analysis or truly independent and objective assessment has been conducted since the blue sky policy was implemented.

We often see this with the Conservatives. They seem to show contempt for consultations, facts, analyses and science. They do not consider the possibility that these are the things on which our policies could be and should be based. What is the point of merely repeating the directives of the Prime Minister's Office without considering the impact on Canadians?

This policy is already in place. The motion is nothing revolutionary. Open sky agreements have already been signed with countries that account for 87% of international air traffic. This motion serves only to push the deregulation policy even farther—too far.

Let us look at one agreement in particular, the agreement with the European Union. Here is what CAW Local 2002 had to say about this agreement:

It reduces our ability to protect Canadian air carriers,...safety standards, and the employment and working conditions of air transport workers....

Our concerns are reinforced by the way in which the Canadian government negotiated the Agreement. In contrast to the EU, where the full spectrum of industry workers and their unions were consulted and given representation as observers, the Canadian government refused to consult with any worker representatives other than pilots’ unions.

In short, no reasonable consultations were held and there was a complete lack of transparency. We recognize the Conservatives' approach.

Of the two pilots' unions that were consulted with regard to this agreement, the Air Line Pilots Association, International, was consulted only through a letter containing five questions. This was therefore not a very extensive consultation. This pilots' association was in favour of an agreement with the European Union. It supports the balanced objectives of the blue sky policy. However, it warns the government of the possible risks associated with a badly negotiated agreement such as this. That is what I want to tell the House today.

Here is what the Air Line Pilots Association, International, had to say:

“The ATA must ensure a level playing field so that Canadian airlines and their employees can compete effectively and are not disadvantaged by pressures to achieve the lowest common denominator, be it safety, security, labour or environmental standards”.

What the industry really needs before getting involved in any more “open skies” type agreements is a critical, comprehensive and objective review of what currently exists. The motion before us today is merely a distraction.

Why are the Conservatives not trying to solve the real problems facing the industry? Here is something they should be looking into: Canadian airlines are losing five million passengers to the U.S. every year. That is a problem.

Uncontrolled deregulation and throwing out measures to protect the interests of all Canadians are not the answer. I could also talk about various regulatory problems. These problems will not be solved by reducing the amount of regulation, but rather by improving our regulations. A good example is the hiring of foreign pilots, even though Canadian pilots are well trained, competent and ready to fill those positions.

Regarding this motion, two main groups need to be protected in this debate on open sky agreements: Canadian air passengers and employees in the airline and aerospace sectors. I think it is safe to say that the Conservatives are not protecting either of those groups.

The NDP is working hard to protect and create Canadian jobs and to defend Canada's airline industry. As I said earlier, our aerospace industry is a real gem, one that creates high-quality jobs and innovation in Canada. It must be supported with serious, thoughtful policies, and not with motions based on ideology that are haphazardly proposed in this House.

Of course, we are also standing up for air passengers. Greater access to flights and lower costs for Canadians would enhance the general vitality of the industry. We want to strike a balance that will benefit Canadian consumers not only today, but also in the long term, rather than encourage a race to the cheapest price, which would only be temporary. For all of these reasons, I believe this motion is a step in the wrong direction.

The essential problem with the motion is that although we are hearing that a blue sky policy is always the best way to go, we need to look on a case-by-case basis where the benefit is for Canadians. If an individual case is not beneficial for Canadians, then we should not pursue a policy that is not good for our workers, because at the end of the line, our workers are Canadian. We need good jobs in Canada, and airline pilots and airline workers are part of that market.

We need to ask ourselves when we are talking about blue sky policy, at what cost are we doing this? Are we doing it as a race to the bottom? Are we trying to compete with countries that do not have unionized workers, who do not pay as much for fuel, et cetera, or are we doing what is best for Canadians?

For all these reasons, I oppose this motion. I want us to work together in this House to come up with real solutions that are good for all Canadians, including those working in the airline industry.

[November 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville for her speech, which I found very informative. I enjoy listening to her.

The NDP believes that we need to have a serious look at the issue of nuclear safety and meet our international obligations in order to co-operate better with other countries with respect to strategies for fighting nuclear terrorism.

This bill was introduced in the Senate. The NDP usually opposes bills introduced in the Senate, because we believe that it is an unelected house and that these kinds of things should be examined in this House.

Can my hon. colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville explain why the NDP wants to study this bill carefully in committee?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 30th, 2012]

With regard to air safety: (a) from 2006 until now, how many air traffic controllers have been employed, broken down by (i) year, (ii) province; (b) from 2006 until now, how many air traffic controllers have been employed at Montréal-Mirabel International Airport, broken down by year; (c) from 2006 until now, how many aviation incidents have been reported, broken down by (i) year, (ii) province; and (d) how many aviation incidents reported from 2006 until now occurred at Montréal-Mirabel International Airport, broken down by year?

[Petitions, November 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition today in support of a national strategic transit plan. We are the only OECD country that does not have such a plan, even though it is very much needed. In my riding, the people of Mirabel, who commute to Montreal, often tell me how needed this is. It is very important for us to develop a national transit and infrastructure strategy.

[Aerospace Industry, November 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Emerson report is clear: the Conservatives are not doing a good job.

The aerospace industry represents 66,000 direct jobs, 92,000 indirect jobs and $40 billion in economic spinoffs. To avoid losing ground in the global aerospace market, we must invest more in research and development, among other things.

The industry wants a long-term development plan and stable funding. When will the Conservatives take action? Will they follow the recommendations or not?

[Aerospace Industry, November 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Emerson report is clear: the Conservatives are not investing enough in the aerospace industry. Industry stakeholders are concerned about the ground they have lost in recent years. The Conservatives' lack of vision for this industry is creating uncertainty that discourages investment.

Will the Conservatives take their usual approach and shelve this report that criticizes them, or will they implement the recommendations?

[Prostate Cancer, November 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we are very grateful to see the end of November. The men in our lives will finally shave off their moustaches. All through the month they have sacrificed their upper lips to raise everyone's awareness of men's health, a topic that is frequently neglected.

The health of men and women in Canada is not just an individual situation. I am proud that, together, Canadian men and women are showing their solidarity and this year have raised more than $32 million to conquer prostate cancer.

On behalf of my fellow New Democrats, our sincere thanks to all Mo bros and Mo sisters from across the country who have raised awareness about men's health. To remember the ones we have lost to disease, let us work together for the health of all.

With Jack's spirit among us, let us change the face of men's health so we no longer lose the faces of the men we know and love.

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is talking about various success stories in programs but not about Kanesatake. This question is about Kanesatake itself and a specific program, NCBR. He did not answer the question at all.

I understand that last Tuesday maybe the minister did not have the answer prepared despite the fact the community and I had sent letters and tried to work with him. However, I would have expected that by now they would have the answer.

The letter announcing the cuts to the people of Kanesatake indicated that the cuts were because of the “increasing needs for income assistance”. Let me get this straight: the needs increase and the government cuts programs.

Can the member please explain the specific decision and the basis for the cancellation of NCBR funding in Kanesatake?

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday I asked the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development about the unexpected cut to Kanesatake's national child benefit reinvestment, or NCBR. It was a simple question on a specific program.

The NCBR provides community-based support and services for children in low-income families, and in Kanesatake it funded important initiatives such as the youth centre and a hot lunch program. The answer I got from the minister was vague and completely disconnected. He seems to have at least recognized the importance of investing in children and families, but he refused to acknowledge the negative impact of the cuts in Kanesatake and gave no indication that he had any idea of the situation on the ground.

For the record, the investment, which was cut, meant that children would not go without food all day long and that there would be after-school programs to keep teens off the streets. According to a letter to the minister dated September of this year and sent by the grand band council chief of Kanesatake, Serge Simon, a number of other cuts have been made affecting children in the community, such as to post-secondary education funding and to the residency requirement, meaning that the community is being stretched to provide opportunities for its youth.

In the letter, he says:

When we take into account the statistics regarding native people in this country.... How...can the Canadian government justify such cuts to the neediest of our population?

It is worth noting that the community has put the investment to extremely good use for years. The money was a real way to help the community prevent crime. With a high poverty rate and limited employment opportunities within the community, the hot lunch program and the after-school activities were part of the solution for the children of the band. These cuts have already forced the closure of the youth centre, and the band will very soon run out of money to provide the lunches.

Even five years after UNDRIP, a document that is not just about special rights but about human rights, the government is not respecting the basic needs of first nations peoples. I recommend that the minister and the parliamentary secretary read the report from the Shannen's Dream campaign to the UN committee on the rights of the child called, “Our Dreams Matter Too”. It explains that:

There is little evidence to suggest that Canada is making any significant progress in addressing the gap [between on and off reserve education]. Current estimates are that First Nations children on reserves receive $2,000 to $3,000 less per student, per year for elementary and secondary education. This shortfall means less funding for teachers, special education, teaching resources such as books, science and music equipment and other essentials that other children in Canada receive.

First nations children deserve to have the basics that other children receive. Furthermore, they deserve to have it in and provided by their community with culturally appropriate content. The attitude of the minister has been up until now intransigent and difficult to work with for the community, despite their best and honest efforts to effect positive change for the community.

I hope that this time the minister or the parliamentary secretary will be able to answer the specific question. I sincerely hope that they will not use their answer time to pat themselves on the back for their lack of equitable treatment of first nations and their lack of concrete action.

I will ask the minister again. Does he understand that aboriginal communities need programming for children, especially in low-income communities such as Kanesatake?

[Income Tax Act, November 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Repentigny introduced a bill that is very important for all volunteers in Canada. The purpose of Bill C-399 is to provide a tax credit of a minimum of $500 and a maximum of $1,500, in respect of travel expenses to individuals who perform a minimum of 130 hours of eligible volunteer services and make at least 12 trips in order to do so during the taxation year.

I would like to thank my hon. colleague for introducing this bill, which, I hope, will receive support from the other parties in the House, because volunteer work is often what makes our communities so dynamic. This work, which is done by very generous people either out of charity or solidarity, strengthens ties between people and builds on the values of communal living. There is no doubt in my mind that the volunteers in my riding deserve a tax credit like the one proposed by my hon. colleague, especially those who live in the regions and who have to travel in order to help people.

Whether they are helping young people, seniors, those less fortunate or even veterans, volunteers in Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel give of their time to help organize celebrations, to help with fundraising or to commemorate important sporting, environmental or cultural events, and they therefore deserve to be celebrated, encouraged and thanked. They often work very hard and have to travel a lot. It is possible that they can no longer afford to volunteer.

Papineau has the CR3A, or Comité régional du troisième âge de Papineau, whose mission is to help seniors remain in their homes with respect and dignity, and to end social isolation among seniors. Seniors who still live at home have an even harder time in the regions, since they can often no longer drive. Thus, it is very hard for them to get out of the house to go and see their family and friends. Our wonderful volunteers go and get them and take them to the grocery store, to see their friends, or even just out for coffee. It is very important to end the isolation that seniors sometimes fall victim to when they cannot get around on their own. As long as they can take care of their homes, they do not necessarily have to move into a big institution or seniors' home. It is better for seniors to stay at home and maintain their dignity.

The Centre d'action bénévole d'Argenteuil provides almost the same services. The Coup de pouce co-operative in Argenteuil is made up of volunteers who are trying to improve the lives of people who are isolated because of their age or a physical limitation. It can be very difficult for people who live in the regions to get around because of the large distances that have to be covered.

It is important to point out that this bill takes transportation into account in the granting of the tax credit. In my opinion, that is the most important part of this bill. Of course, volunteer work is already demanding, but people really put their hearts into it. However, the travel required to help others in remote and rural areas is often not taken into consideration. We do not think about how much travel is required. Whatever the cause or objective, volunteers in my region have to travel long distances to do volunteer work.

Sometimes really dedicated volunteers simply can no longer afford the cost of gas, particularly in difficult economic times. Yet it is in more difficult economic times that we need volunteers the most. That is why people who dedicate their time and talents to helping the most vulnerable members of our society must be recognized. We must also encourage other people to get involved and lend them a hand. These volunteers, who are often retired, get involved because they love their community and their fellow citizens, and it is true that they will do this work with or without a tax credit.

However, without these people, life in our cities and towns would not be the same. We must therefore recognize their work and encourage this type of involvement. We must actively respond to the challenges faced by the volunteer sector in these difficult economic times. For example, the cost of gas is increasing, and we are not doing anything to go to the people who are isolated and help them to get out. I am using this example because it clearly demonstrates how this tax credit will really support this type of volunteer work and will allow volunteers to travel more in the regions to help the less fortunate.

Clearly, vulnerable people have even more need of help and volunteers when times are tough, but right now, the government is abandoning these people. They often have to turn to charity. But volunteers are also being affected by the difficult economic times, which are forcing them to limit their volunteer work when needs are on the rise.

The total amount of donations and volunteer hours has not really changed since 2007. However, during this same period, needs have skyrocketed. For example, the number of people who need food aid is on the rise. The NDP wants to tackle this problem. This motion is the first step in the fight to support the volunteer sector.

I urge all members of the House to vote in favour of this bill, which will really help our rural communities in particular.