Philip Toone

[April 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, during the recent debate on pensions, it was said that seniors will have more problems because of the intention to raise the age of eligibility for old age security from 65 to 67 years.

We are truly worried about this. What will seniors do during those two years? We already know that seniors are in a delicate position. Many seniors live in poverty, and it is hard for them to get by.

The government wants to raise the age of eligibility for old age security from 65 to 67. These people do not necessarily have the means to live for two years without an income. Not everyone can continue to work after the age of 65. I know that the fishers in my riding would find it very difficult to keep working. The fishers and the people who work in the processing plants will have a very hard time continuing to work after they turn 65. It is already very difficult for them to keep working past 55. Unfortunately, they do not have a “freedom 55” plan like some people in the rest of the country. These people do not have the luxury of stopping work at 55.

Quite frankly, I wonder what this government plans to do for people who are 65 and cannot go on working. They no longer have the means or the physical strength to continue working in factories and processing plants. They simply cannot go on.

So I ask the government: what are these people going to do? For those two years, people will be forced to either continue working and perhaps endanger their health and safety, or ask for social assistance.

Either way, this downloads the costs onto the provinces. If we shift the costs to the provinces, are we really saving anything or is this a false economy?

I have a few questions for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety or the minister. They might be able to shed some light on what is going to happen to these seniors who are unable to work past the age of 65. Do we really want to shift responsibility for their fate onto the provinces? Is this really a question of transferring costs from the federal to the provincial level? What is the federal government's game plan? What does it want to do with our seniors?

[Business of the House, April 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you were to seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, at the conclusion of today's debate on the opposition motion in the name of the Member for London—Fanshawe, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Monday, April 30, 2012, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

[Fisheries and Oceans, April 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not buying the minister's fish tale. The minister removed the word “habitat” from the legislation, despite his promises. Beyond his words, the thing that concerns us the most is his plan, which will destroy the fish habitats in our rivers, lakes and streams. This has nothing to do with flooded fields and everything to do with their obsession to build pipelines as quick as possible.

Why are ministers promoting the interests of corporations over the sustainable development of our resources?

[Fisheries and Oceans, April 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, habitat must be protected in order to protect the fishery. The protection of fish habitat is fundamental to ensuring the health of our ecosystems and the fishery. Scientists, people who work in the fishery, anglers and even two former Progressive Conservative fisheries ministers all agree: the Conservatives' plans to protect fish habitat are a joke.

Why are the Conservatives putting our fishery at risk? Is it so that their friends in big business do not have to obey environmental rules?

[Committees of the House, April 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That the following change be made to the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs: Nycole Turmel for Chris Charlton; and, Nathan Cullen for Phillip Toone.

[Safer Railways Act, April 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciated my colleague's comments. Her appreciation for the railway is very well known, and she is absolutely right—it is probably the best and most agreeable way to travel in Canada.

Clearly, there are safety issues. There was the accident in Burlington. We all offer our condolences to those who were affected by this unfortunate incident. In addition, railways across Canada, including the one in my riding in the Gaspé, are falling apart. Our railway is closed because of safety issues and a lack of maintenance. It is the same thing in British Columbia.

Could my colleague perhaps tell us a little bit more about the state of the railways, particularly in British Columbia. Could she tell us just how unsafe the railways in British Columbia are?

[The Budget, April 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order, even though I am really sorry to interrupt my distinguished colleague for Burnaby—New Westminster. He has shown that he does incredible work in the House. I also noticed that he works very hard to present clear arguments to make the government accountable.

Recently, I found on the Internet, more specifically on the site of the Journals Branch of the House of Commons, a document entitled: Time Limits on Debates and Lengths of Speeches. This document refers to section 84(7) of chapter 10 of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

It supports the point raised by the hon. member for Halifax. I am going to quote it in English because I do not have the French version in front of me.

(7) No Member, except the Minister of Finance, the Member speaking first on behalf of the Opposition, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, shall speak for more than twenty minutes at a time in the Budget Debate.

Therefore, if I am not mistaken, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster is the first opposition member to rise in this debate. In fact, he is replying to the Minister of Finance.

In this case, I do think he has more than the usual 20 minutes. As I understand it, he may talk as long as he wishes. It is my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that this question needs a ruling. I do not think 20 minutes is enough. I think the Standing Orders—

[Seal Hunt, April 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this year's seal hunt on the Magdalen Islands is a historic event. In an unforgettable collaborative project with hunters from the Magdalen Islands, the Micmac people of the Gesgapegiag First Nation have been able to rediscover traditional knowledge that had been lost for centuries.

Although their ancestors helped teach non-aboriginals to hunt for harp seals, the Micmac had this part of their culture taken away from them when the reserve system was created. Some 200 years later, the people of the Magdalen Islands were very moved to be able to return the favour and share their expertise on the pack ice.

Accompanied by an Inuit colleague from Nunavut, the Micmac conducted a harvest based on their traditions, combining respect for the animal and nature.

This event marks a new willingness to develop co-operation, dialogue and friendship between the communities of the Magdalen Islands and Gesgapegiag. We can only applaud the courage of the people who organized the event, which was an opportunity for growth between the founding peoples of this country.

[Groundwater Contamination, April 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today to support not only my hon. colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, but also the people of Shannon, of course, in their struggle for truth and justice.

The motion moved by my colleague represents a first step that the federal government must take towards building a new relationship of respect and trust with the people of Shannon. The adoption of this motion, which I believe is crucial, is more than a simple gesture of solidarity. It represents an acknowledgement of the responsibility of the federal government of the day for contaminating Shannon's groundwater. The community needs such an acknowledgement in order to obtain justice and move forward.

As we all know, in 1997, the Department of National Defence began detecting TCE in the groundwater under CFB Valcartier. A few years later, the same toxic chemical was discovered in the private wells of the residents of Shannon, the municipality next to the base.

In order to better understand the context of the motion, we need to look a few decades further back, when TCE, a toxic industrial degreaser, was used on the military base for a range of purposes. After using it, people on the base disposed of it simply by burying it in the ground. TCE was used for quite some time to degrease metal, as was the case on the military base, as well as to dry clean clothes and extract organic products. After its toxicity was discovered, the chemical was gradually replaced by other less dangerous products. The European Union has banned its use by individuals. TCE—

[Search and Rescue, March 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the reason why we continue to ask the question is because their plan is not working.

The minister claims that the consolidation of search and rescue centres in Halifax and Trenton will reduce costs and improve services, but nothing could be further from the truth. It would be less expensive to keep the Quebec City centre open. To be understood quickly and in one's own language is essential. It can save lives.

Will the minister acknowledge that he is wrong? Will he reconsider his decision?