Philip Toone

[Fisheries and Oceans, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, not all Canadians agree.

Last week, 625 prominent scientists wrote to the Prime Minister, asking him not to weaken environmental protection measures. They say that weakening the Fisheries Act will affect water quality and the fishery and will damage Canada's international credibility.

This government may be able to censor its own scientists, but it cannot ignore expert advice. Will the minister confirm that he will not gut the Fisheries Act?

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, members will notice that today I am wearing grey. The reason I am wearing grey is because of the dark cloud that is hanging over heads because of this bill. There are so many problems with this bill that I do not even know where to begin.

First, I would like to thank the member for his exposé. I think it was well considered although flawed.

Parts of this bill talk about exceptions for safe country designations, where members of the LGBT community may very well not be able to have access to our refugee system. The minister would not be able to use those designations any more to determine whether a country is actually safe. I would say being gay in Mexico can be very dangerous. In fact, many people have lost their lives.

I do not agree with the way this bill is written. I would really like to hear the member's comments on how lesbian and gay people in the world would be able to access this great country of ours. I think one of the reasons it is such a great country is because we welcome people who are in danger in other countries. With this bill, we would not be able to do that. People's lives would be at risk. I would like to hear the member's comments on risking people's lives for political purposes.

[March 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I take issue with the thought that cutting so substantially at Fisheries and Oceans is in any way going to mean long-term savings for our country. It is firing 30 people at L'Institut Maurice-Lamontagne in Mont-Joli, Quebec. This will have a seriously negative impact on my region and I think on fisheries as a whole.

I do not see how, when scientists are fired, the government can then say that it takes a scientific approach to the fisheries. The scientists are simply not in the department anymore; they have been fired. We do not have the staff that is required. We are not going to be doing yearly inventory of the fish stocks. It is passing it from yearly to once every three years and once every five years. The science will not be there anymore.

Would the parliamentary secretary please address that issue?

[March 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, how can this government proclaim itself a champion of the economy when it is jeopardizing the economy of an entire region? It is more like the champion of empty rhetoric. The facts are clear. The fishery is the cornerstone of the economy of Gaspé and the Madeleine Islands. Yet this government is doing everything it can to hurt the economy of my region.

We know that cuts at Fisheries and Oceans Canada will have a major impact on the eastern provinces, and on Gaspé and the Madeleine Islands in particular: 150 to 280 jobs cut, including 30 in my region. That is truly scandalous.

These positions are jobs that pay well. This will be tragic for those families. Those salaries will no longer contribute to the local economy. On top of that, this government is completely incapable of looking to the future. How can it cut fisheries resource conservation programs and hope for the sustainable management of fish stocks?

We know that groundfish stocks are already considered to have collapsed for several reasons: a lack of essential scientific information, weak international laws and climate change. And what does the government do in response? It slashes the expertise of fishers and scientists, it eliminates fleet separation and owner-operator policies, and it withdraws from Kyoto. Canadians deserve more from their government than a short-term vision that serves only large corporations.

It was not enough that they jeopardized the financial well-being of fishers. Now the Conservatives are putting their very lives at risk. It is closing the Quebec City search and rescue centre, the only bilingual centre in Canada. When there is an emergency at sea, there is not a moment to lose. Without this centre, there is no guarantee that distress calls from francophone fishers will be understood. Is the life of a francophone fisher worth less than that of an anglophone fisher? Does this government not take the safety of Canadians seriously?

In addition to the Quebec City centre, it is also closing the St. John's centre and reducing Coast Guard staff. Why is this government barely interested in the marine safety of a region where the ecosystem is so precious?

In closing, can the minister explain why eastern Canada will bear the brunt of these cuts? The Conservatives' slogan in the last election was “Here for Canada”. Did they mean “just here for the oil sands regions”?

[Fisheries and Oceans, March 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we know that these references to these plans are false. Documents show that the government plans to change the fishery and set us back several decades.

The Conservatives want to get rid of environmental rules in order to push through their pipeline and supertanker schemes as quickly as possible.

Lobbyists have been consulted, but not Canadians. The Conservatives want to make changes in the budget in an underhanded way.

Will the minister finally confirm that in the next budget, section 35 of the Fisheries Act will be changed?

[Fisheries and Oceans, March 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the fisheries committee, when asked whether he planned to eliminate fish habitat protection from the Fisheries Act, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans could not answer. “Who knows” he said, “I don't know for sure”. Without habitat protection, new megapipelines could go ahead without environmental review and though the changes may be buried in the budget two weeks from today, the minister knows nothing.

Has the minister ever been consulted, or is it PMO that is calling the shots?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 15th, 2012]

With regard to Exploration License No. 1105 (as amended on November 23, 2011) of Corridor Resources Inc., issued by the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board: (a) what are the reasons for the two-year extension of Period 1 from five years to seven years (Fundamental Decision 2011.05); (b) what is the total amount of license rental fees that Corridor Resources would have paid during Period 2 before the November 23, 2011, amendment; (c) what is the total amount that Corridor Resources will pay in license rental fees after the amendment; (d) what are the reasons for amending License No. 1105 so that no deposit was required to extend Period 1; (e) has Corridor Resources ever posted a $1 million deposit under License No. 1105; and (f) has Corridor Resources posted deposits for any amount under License No. 1105, either before or after it was amended?

[Fisheries and Oceans, March 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, those are empty words. Canadians know full well that they cannot count on the Conservatives to protect the environment.

We know that the industry started lobbying the Conservatives in 2006. The government is supposed to protect our fishery, not roll out the red carpet for disastrous mega-projects.

Are the Conservatives going to do their job or are they going to keep giving their lobbyist friends special treatment? When are they finally going to meet the needs of the fishers?

[Air Service Operations Legislation, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I come from a rural riding as well. I find that Air Canada's main role where I live is to be a predator to the other airlines that actually do give proper service. Air Canada only services the slightly profitable runs. It makes the rest of the riding very difficult to service by other airlines. They have to increase their prices exponentially.

I am wondering what the member thinks about the government's presenting bills of this nature. How exactly does it help the average Canadian to protect a company that seems to have predatory practices to keep any competition out of the market?

[Fisheries and Oceans, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the lack of consultation is not going unnoticed.

On Friday, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans heard what provincial ministers think about his plan to change the fleet separation policy. It is pretty straightforward. Quebec, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island all oppose the proposed changes. Atlantic fishers and communities also oppose them. The fleet separation policy is essential to the survival of east coast fishers. Will the Conservatives commit to maintaining the fleet separation policy and protecting the coastal fishery?