Philip Toone

[Search and Rescue, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, another example of an irresponsible budget cut is the closure of the search and rescue centre in Quebec City. This centre responds to roughly 1,500 maritime distress calls a year and it is the only centre that provides bilingual service in Canada.

In his report, the Commissioner of Official Languages clearly states that there is a risk that distress calls made in French will not be handled properly if they are handled in Halifax or Trenton.

Why risk the safety of fishers, mariners and boaters by closing the Quebec City search and rescue centre?

[Employment Insurance, September 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary's response is certainly a matter for thought, but I have a few questions.

The parliamentary secretary said that people would be offered appropriate employment, but the definition has been removed from the act. There seems to be a lot of discretion as to what “appropriate” actually means now. I would like to better understand that. Are we leaving it to the courts to decide or will the ministry propose a definition?

Also, if jobs are being offered within a reasonable distance, why is it that in my riding people have been offered jobs that are three, four or sixteen hours away from their homes and those are considered jobs that are within their region? I believe the change the Conservatives proposed was within an hour away from a person's home, but now we are talking about someone taking a ferry and travelling incredible distances to get a minimum wage job. How does that help increase the wealth of the regions? How does that help anyone really?

[Employment Insurance, September 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I hope to be given a more satisfactory answer for the workers in my riding than the one I received last May and this week. Every time the minister has had to explain how these employment insurance changes will affect workers, she plays the same old tune. I hope she will not do so this time.

Instead of again telling us that we have got it all wrong, can she explain what options EI recipients in my riding will have when they cannot find work either because the fishing season is over, or because plants have no more fish to process, or because the tourists are gone, or because restaurants, hotels and museums are empty, or because the school year is over, or because the fruits and vegetables have been picked? In short, we have a seasonal economy.

These are the workers' options. According to the changes proposed by the minister, they will have to accept any job and be paid 80% of their previous wages up to the sixth week, and then 70%. In Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands, more than 80% of the jobs are seasonal, and all these workers will have to accept a 30% reduction in their income. Is the minister serious when she says that she will reduce my constituents' income by 30% this year, another 30% the following year, and yet another 30% the year after that? Does she really want to impoverish my constituents to that extent?

In the medium term, that measure can only have one consequence: the impoverishment of the whole region and the exodus of families to other parts of the country. There will not be enough people left to fish, to harvest and to welcome tourists. This is ridiculous.

Is the minister not aware of the impact of what she is proposing? With the cuts to Service Canada local knowledge is disappearing and this is already being felt. When my fellow citizens are asked to take jobs that are three hours away from their home, or else they may lose their benefits, it shows that public servants have ignored the geographical reality. That is the risk with centralization and this government is the one to blame for that. Does that not ring a bell with the minister?

Finally, the government is putting a stop to a pilot project designed to bridge the gap between the end of benefits and the beginning of the working season, in the spring. That project protected workers against the harsh reality of not having an income for a month or two. Is the minister able to understand the distress of people when there is simply no money coming in?

The change made to the working while on claim program is another joke. One wonders whether the minister really understands the issue. This measure targets the poorest in our society and the minister should be ashamed. What she will not say is that this measure is deterring many unemployed people from working part-time.

Because of all these changes, small and medium businesses will have a hard time keeping workers. People will simply leave the regions. This reminds me of the Conservative election campaign, in May 2011. Their slogan was “Power to the regions”. Is that their vision for our region?

[Employment Insurance, September 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is just as we thought. The Conservatives do not have any consideration for unemployed workers.

The chair of the regional conference of elected officials in my region, the Gaspé, said that 80% of that region's economy depends on seasonal workers.

What does the minister's reform involve? Is she suggesting that fishers from Rivière-au-Renard fish all year? There are not enough fish in the sea to fish that long.

She is attacking restaurant owners in Percé. Should they stay open all year too? There are no tourists in Percé in the winter.

She is attacking forestry workers in Chandler. These people will have no choice but to leave the area.

Why are the Conservatives going after the Gaspé?

[Employment Insurance, September 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would really like her to stop with the tall tales. But let us move on.

Let us take another example: the cultural and tourist sites that have to close in the winter. Not all the inns, restaurants and museums in the Gaspé can stay open in the winter because there are no tourists. Thousands of my constituents make their living from tourism. They need employment insurance. The program is essential to the survival of seasonal industries.

With their reform, the Conservatives are jeopardizing these jobs. Why are they attacking the economy of our regions?

[Employment Insurance, September 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, there is another category of seasonal workers who may have to pay the price for the changes that are being made to employment insurance, and that is contract teachers.

New teachers who work on contract in our schools often apply for employment insurance benefits during the summer to help them make ends meet. From now on, they will be forced to accept jobs in other areas, rather than continuing to upgrade their skills.

Is the minister aware that this reform is penalizing teachers and the quality of our young people's education?

[Employment Insurance, September 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, by making seasonal workers ineligible for employment insurance benefits, the Conservatives are attacking the economy in our regions. This is particularly true for seasonal industries, such as agriculture.

Since 2006, the Association des entrepreneurs en drainage agricole du Québec has invested half a million dollars in training workers. Under the new rules, employees who turn to employment insurance during the winter will have to take jobs rather than continue their training.

Is the minister aware that her reform is penalizing companies?

[Fisheries and Oceans, September 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have some difficulty with the answer. I thank the parliamentary secretary for having presented the government's position, but I question the validity of the answer.

The idea that we had to reduce habitat protection in order to protect Canadian fisheries from Asian carp does not make much sense to me. Frankly, I do not follow the logic. If we reduce habitat protection, we are actually putting an awful lot of fisheries at risk. Asian carp, as I understand it, is a regulatory question, and I do not think we needed to change the Fisheries Act in order to defend Canadian waterways from Asian carp or any other invasive species for that matter. We have to protect fisheries in order to ensure that future generations can benefit from the same wealth that various coastal communities enjoyed in the past. I believe that the government is completely on the wrong track.

I would like the parliamentary secretary to comment on how invasive species and reducing habitat protection is in any way coherent.

[Fisheries and Oceans, September 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my congratulations on your appointment as Deputy Speaker of the House. It is a well-deserved distinction.

I would also like to thank the parliamentary secretary for staying here this evening to answer my questions. It is very much appreciated.

I would also like to congratulate our new colleague, the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, on his recent appointment to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

I rise here this evening to follow up on a question from April 24. At that time, I had asked why the Conservatives were putting our fishery at risk. The minister denied that the changes to the Fisheries Act would jeopardize the fishing industry. He even went as far as claiming that, on the contrary, the changes will enhance habitat protection.

However, if we look closely at the changes to the Fisheries Act and particularly those dealing with fish habitat, it is clear that several of those changes pose a serious risk to the future of the fishing industry.

First of all, the definition of “fish habitat” was changed in the legislation. How can the Conservatives claim to protect fish stocks when the legislation does not even identify its habitat? This creates a legal uncertainty that precludes proper regulation.

Second, the definition of serious harm includes only the death of fish or any permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat. Such harm is extremely difficult to prove in court. How can we count the number of dead fish in an isolated case? How can we determine whether this damage is permanent? It would be extremely difficult.

Third, the government introduced the notion of ecologically significant areas but did not define it. Who in this government will be able to define what is an ecologically significant area? And how will it be defined? For the Conservatives who abandoned Kyoto, it does not seem as though they even think the planet Earth is an ecologically significant area. What about a river or a marsh?

We know that each element of the ecosystem is essential to the survival of our fisheries resources. This means that every area is ecologically significant.

Fourth, the new law would protect fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or aboriginal fishery, or fish that support such a fishery. In light of all of the cuts being made to science and the experts being fired, this government does not seem to have the ability to establish the fish food chain with certainty.

Fifth, individuals will no longer have to conduct an environmental study before taking action that could harm fish. They can do it voluntarily or at the minister's request. In a world where companies are focused on externalizing costs, does the minister really think that environmental studies are going to happen?

Indeed, this gives the minister far too much discretionary power to decide whether or not to conduct an environmental study. This government is a leader when it comes to disrespecting the environment.

In short, these changes eliminate the possibility of legal action to protect the fishing industry from potential harm to fish habitat. This legislation will not protect our fisheries. It will undermine the Fisheries Act. By leaving out definitions, it gives the minister far too much leeway when it comes to protecting our environment and our fisheries.

It is extremely naive to believe that environmental assessments will be conducted on a voluntary basis. Is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans taking his role as protector of the fisheries seriously?

[Fisheries and Oceans, September 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives realized that they made a mistake by failing to consult coastal communities, so in a desperate and ridiculous attempt to deal with that, they consulted people after changing the legislation. But even then, they did not keep their promises. The people of the Gaspé deserve better; people across the country deserve better.

Will the minister start listening to those who will end up paying the price for the government's decision to gut the fish habitat protection policy, or is he too afraid of what he might hear?