Philip Toone

[Rail Transportation, February 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, VIA Rail is caught in a vicious cycle. It has fewer customers as a result of bad service. The fewer customers it has, the less service it provides. The equipment and service in the east are pathetic.

Parliament must regain control of this fundamental service and impose a governance and funding structure on VIA Rail, as has been done in the United States with Amtrak.

Will the Conservatives support a legislative framework for VIA Rail? Why are they treating passengers like second-class citizens?

[Marine Mammal Regulations, February 17th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to thank my colleague for presenting this very important bill. It brings clarity to a problem we are all aware of, namely that there are obstacles, problems and even safety issues in the marine environment, on the ice, for the fishers who hunt seals. This can be a very dangerous undertaking. If we wish to improve conditions for fishers, it is an admirable idea to propose a measure such as we have here today, which will probably help them. Once again, I would like to thank the member who introduced this bill.

On the other hand, let us be clear that what the bill is changing is that people with a seal fishery observation licence will not be able to approach a seal-fishing site closer than one mile, rather than a half-mile. In itself, it does not change much, but it is certainly a step in the right direction.

The real issue is to determine how well we can ensure the safety of our fishers involved in the seal hunt, whether in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the north Atlantic or the far north. Communities that depend on the income from seal hunting deserve even more support than they will get through this bill. It is a step in the right direction but we really must take it further.

Not all the fishers asked for this bill as the first step. There were really a lot of discussions. The Senate did a study on grey seals and on the fact that their numbers are increasing dramatically. There are 30 times more grey seals now than there were 30 years ago. Their population is growing rapidly, probably because their predators have been eliminated. The region's ecosystem is out of balance, and all the governments involved and the members of this House must do something to restore this balance.

There is still a moratorium on cod fishing; it was once the major source of income for most fishers in the region. However, they still cannot fish for cod in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. That is very worrisome and many fishers wonder why. Even 20 years after the moratorium was imposed, is the population explosion among grey and harp seals the reason the cod population is not increasing? This question really needs to be asked.

Once again, I will refer to the Senate report. Unfortunately the senators were not able to determine exactly what measures should be taken. They proposed several measures on a trial basis, to see whether the species imbalance problem in the region could be solved. Even after its study, the Senate was unable to make any practical suggestions that everyone could agree on. I hope that we will continue to have a much sounder, more intensive debate on this issue.

However, let us not forget that first nations have been hunting seal for hundreds of years. Depending on the community, European settlers in Canada have been hunting seal for decades or hundreds of years. In my riding, in the Magdalen Islands, the seal hunt adds to people's winter income. There are not very many ways to earn money during this period. In winter, very few industries operate in my region. The tourism industry is in full swing in the summer, but almost non-existent in winter. People cannot fish for groundfish in the dead of winter. The Gulf of St. Lawrence is mostly frozen over and is not accessible. The seal hunt is an alternative. It is a way to earn extra money. That has always been the case in the Magdalen Islands.

That is the case in Newfoundland and the far north, where people try to find revenue where they can. This government should work with the people in my region, who are now being denied employment insurance, which was a source of income for the winter. They are having significant financial difficulty and need a lot more assistance.

If the government really wants to help the people of eastern Canada, it should think about the seasonal industries in that region, particularly seal hunting, which is paired with the groundfish fishery. It would have been worthwhile to commercialize the seal hunt, but nothing was done.

As for European free trade, we should have forced a debate with the Europeans. They wanted to open their market for other commodities to Canada, which would have been a golden opportunity to remedy the fact that the European market closed its doors to seal products. There are even barriers between provinces in Canada. People cannot transport seal products, including oil containing omega-3s, because there are a lot of interprovincial barriers. We should have this debate and help people in eastern Canada earn money in the winter.

This bill helps us keep our fishers safe, but it has to be profitable for fishers to go out on the ice. We can safeguard our fishers all we want, but if there is no market for their products, they will not fish. Fisheries and Oceans Canada allows the hunting of thousands of seals each year, but since it is not profitable, only hundreds are hunted. Licences are useless because the product cannot be marketed.

We must remember that sales of this product grew quickly because of European seal hunts. In the 1950s and 1960s, the Europeans hunted thousands of seals and were more numerous than sealers from eastern Canada. With the resurgence of the issue of cruelty to animals, a hotly debated topic, people hesitate to hunt seals.

I believe that people have good reason to be concerned about this, but it is the reason the Europeans abandoned us and stopped hunting large numbers of seals. Once again, they were the ones who took large numbers of seals, not us. Animal rights activists should be criticizing the Europeans, not us, for seal hunting. We have always believed in sustainable hunting. Unfortunately, the Europeans abandoned us by closing their market. The seal hunt has a bleak economic future because there are no markets for this product. We need to find ways to help the sealers in eastern Canada and the far north market the product, but the bill is silent on that.

Keeping sealers safe is very commendable. Let us work on that. We have to find ways to help them. However, the government closed the marine rescue sub-centre in St. John's, Newfoundland, it wants to close the maritime search and rescue centre in Quebec City, it wants to cut positions at the vessel traffic management centres throughout eastern Canada, and it cut the Canadian Coast Guard's budget. How can we say we are going to improve the safety of our sealers when they do not have the tools they need?

Even if their safety during the seal hunt were guaranteed, we still need to find a market for the product. Unfortunately, the bill before us today does not address these issues. Let us go ahead and improve the safety of our sealers, but let us find the economic tools to help them. That should be the next step.

[Marine Mammal Regulations, February 17th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask my hon. colleague some questions.

The bill is certainly worthy of our support. I think it is important that we support hunters, fishers and people who are getting by in eastern Canada and the far north.

The negotiation of the European free trade agreement was a golden opportunity to increase the economic opportunities for seal hunt products in the European market. Why did the Conservatives not take this golden opportunity to give an economic boost to this industry that is struggling, as we all know?

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for his question.

He is absolutely correct. Rights and obligations, what we sometimes call parliamentary privilege, exist for one clear reason: to prevent the executive from abusing its powers. The judiciary controls the executive, but it acts after the fact.

Basically, in Parliament, when we want to solve problems before they appear, we have to propose amendments and keep an eye on what the executive is doing. That is why I believe the motion before us presents a fundamental problem. First of all, it was moved by the government and this is an excellent example of an abuse of power on the part of the executive, which is imposing its solution on the legislative branch.

Parliamentarians have an obligation to defend their rights, but not because they like the power. Rather, it is because Parliament's reason for being is to control the executive. Otherwise, the executive would behave as it did long ago. It would do as it pleases and members would not speak out and would not be willing to take their obligations seriously.

Ultimately, we would end up with an executive over which we had almost no control. More and more we are trying to control the executive in Canada using the judicial system. However, it would be much more effective and less expensive if that were done here in the House.

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member. I would certainly then encourage him to vote against the motion if that is how he feels because I do not see how the main motion is going to reflect what he said at all. He needs to look at this carefully and decide whether he can in all good honesty support a motion that will not fulfill the concerns he has raised at this point.

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Northwest Territories.

I am very proud to rise today to speak to this motion and to share my constituents' views.

I would first like to say that there is a real problem with the fact that this is a government motion. The NDP is seriously concerned that a motion, which would have a direct impact on the security of parliamentarians and on the institution of Parliament itself, is coming from the Prime Minister's Office, even though it is a so-called government motion.

Our role here in this place is not necessarily to accept the government's bills, but to check them and study them. This is what we call oversight. It is our role as parliamentarians to oversee government bills. In this case, we are not even dealing with a bill; we are dealing with a motion. This motion did not come from a member. It did not come from the Speaker's office or the Board of Internal Economy, which was mandated to examine the issue of parliamentary security. In fact, the Board of Internal Economy is still examining the issue and, as far as I know, did not draft this motion. I think that the motion came straight from the Prime Minister's Office.

Conservative members themselves have said so. For example, I heard them say:

the government must move forward on this.

The government must move forward on this? I am sorry, but the government does not have a say in this. The government should be listening to parliamentarians. It is the complete polar opposite of what needs to be happening in this place.

We have seen time and again that a number of MPs in this place consider their role to be that of cheerleader for the government. That is not the role of Parliament. The role of Parliament is for MPs to represent their constituents and to bring forward their concerns about issues posed by the government.

We have a democracy in Canada that is different from the American democracy and from many other democracies. Parliamentary democracy is essentially one where we have a government that sits in this House at the same time as parliamentarians. I want to make it clear that if someone is not a minister, that person is not in government. Their role is to defend this place, defend its obligations, and to defend the interests of their constituents. In this case, I do not think this motion would respect that.

In the case of all the people who brought forward motions or amendments to the motion, they all agree on one thing, that we need a fully integrated security system in this Parliament. No one has said anything different. I keep hearing from members on the government side that we live in a number of silos and that this motion would fix that. Everyone in this House, as far as I can see, agrees that we should have an integrated security system. The Board of Internal Economy is actually investigating this matter at the moment. The Speaker has been investigating this matter. We keep referring back to the Auditor General, and the government's motion actually mentions that the Auditor General agrees that there should be a more integrated security service.

No one, except the Prime Minister's Office and those who want to represent that office in this place, is proposing that integration means that it should be under the control of the RCMP, albeit with some deference toward the Speaker's office.

We need a system where the Speaker actually is the defender of this place, and not a situation where we have a security service that, in theory, would have shared responsibilities as far as having to respect authority structures is concerned. An RCMP officer is not going to be trained to respect the Speaker's office; an RCMP officer is trained to respect his or her hierarchy. When it comes to this place, it has to be clear that the Speaker's office has complete control.

If the RCMP were to be in control of this place, we might end up in a situation like we saw in Ontario, under what I believe was the Harris government at the time, when there were many demonstrations held at Queen's Park. Parliamentarians in Ontario decided that it was a mistake for provincial police to be responsible for security in their parliament and decided to go the opposite way of this motion, which was that the security measures would be the responsibility of the assembly itself. That was a wise decision, and that example is being forgotten with the motion that was brought forward today.

For some reason, the example in Ontario, which I think a number of people who sit on the other side actually experienced first-hand, has been forgotten. Now they talk about integration as if it is something they have some unique and limited understanding of. I do not think members in this place want to abdicate their responsibilities. The Prime Minister's Office has put forward a motion, and some people refer to the Auditor General's report as if it supports this motion. I have read that report and I do not see that support anywhere. What I saw on October 22 was that a number of security agents employed by this place did their jobs admirably, to the point of heroism.

Most Canadians saw the videotapes of what happened that day, and the evidence is clear. The best security was found inside this place and not outside this place. Outside this place, the RCMP were responsible for the grounds. I did not see any acts that would have protected individuals, be it the public or parliamentarians, outside of this place. The only acts I saw that were done in a heroic and incredibly responsible fashion were those done in this place.

To say that RCMP security is better trained and better prepared to take care of a crisis situation neglects the recent history we have experienced. We need to clearly see that there are many other options that are currently being debated. This motion short-circuits that debate and brings it in line with what the Prime Minister's Office wants. If that debate is to happen, all parliamentarians should have an opportunity to speak to it with greater information than they have today.

A motion short-circuits the process that legislation would normally have brought forward. We do not have time to debate this fully. We do not have the facts we need to look at this properly, and it is being rammed down our throats with limited debate. All of these things are an affront to the parliamentary institution.

Again, the role of this place is to have oversight on government bills. It is not simply to look at the text and say, “The government makes perfect sense every time and let's vote in favour of it”. The opposition parties have proposed amendments that I think make sense. The amendment that the NDP put forward respects the nature of this place much more than the main motion ever will. The main motion is an affront. The office of the Speaker is responsible for ensuring the safety of this place. This motion would take some of that power away.

We need to understand that the RCMP is not directly answerable to this place. The RCMP is answerable to the government. The RCMP is a government institution and exists to defend the interests of government. Were there to be protests, for instance, on Parliament Hill, I would much rather that Parliament's security take care of them than an agency under the control of the Prime Minister's Office.

We have seen it time and again. I will remind people of the demonstrations that occurred in Vancouver under the previous Chrétien administration, in which some security agents used very extreme measures to control protesters. This place should not be showing that kind of example to those who want to express themselves. They should be showing an example where their right to express themselves might be curtailed by government order. They need to know that parliamentarians have their backs. They need to know that parliamentarians are doing their jobs, and in doing their jobs they should be voting against this motion.

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Chief Government Whip for his presentation. The problem I have with the motion in front of us is simply the House needs to debate it. It simply is not true that any committee that might have been sitting behind closed doors has had a fulsome opportunity to look at all the potential weaknesses and faults that the motion brings forward.

The House needs to have the opportunity to discuss this. The Chief Government Whip is not allowing that discussion to occur in the House.

We are talking about the House having precedence over government institutions. The purpose of this place is to have oversight over government institutions. We would now have a government institution imposed upon this place. We have turned this upside down.

The House needs to take its job seriously. I suggest the members from the other side take this job a lot more seriously than they are prepared to show today.

[Rail Service Resumption Act, 2015, February 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary and carry on with the discussion we just had.

I have heard from municipalities in my riding that while the recent regulations are an improvement, they are far from satisfactory. The government tends to look upon its proposals with a very positive attitude, but when it actually seeks consultation with the greater community, it finds there is an awful lot lacking.

I, for one, have not heard a single municipality in my riding say that being told six months after the fact that a dangerous good is passing through the community is in any way adequate. Certainly when it comes to the DOT-111 cars that will be retrofitted, it is really not happening anywhere near as fast as it could, according to Canadian manufacturing capacity. I would like to see improvements there.

Getting back to the motion at hand, the strike is of incredibly short duration and we have not seen any consequential effects on the Canadian economy. When the government says it is trying to avoid extreme effects on the Canadian economy, I challenge the minister to show me some numbers where the Canadian economy is actually in extreme peril due to the current strike.

It is laudable that we are looking to make sure that negotiations have been fluid and continuous, but to force workers back to work, taking away their greatest tool in negotiations, the right to strike, I think is a terrible mistake. I think it contravenes the recent ruling of the Supreme Court.

Would the parliamentary secretary please comment on the recent ruling of the Supreme Court regarding the right to strike?

[Rail Service Resumption Act, 2015, February 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, while I disagree with most of the parliamentary secretary's points, I certainly agree with him that we need to be looking at the Canadian economy with great regard. We have to make sure that we defend it in the ways we can.

However, the Supreme Court has said very clearly that the right to strike is a fundamental right in this country and that curtailing it can only be done only in circumstances that are justifiable in a free and democratic society. With a strike that is not even 24-hours old, it seems a little precipitous to send people back to work in response.

If we are to talk about rail safety I certainly would like to see more attention placed on it by the government than it has until this point. If it were serious about rail safety, it would try to work in partnership with the workers of the rail industry to ensure they are partners in this endeavour. Legislating them back to work will not lead to better rail safety. If anything it would result in working conditions that led to the rail tragedies we saw recently in northern Ontario and western Canada, and in Lac-Mégantic.

The government seems precipitously inclined to attack workers, but it does not seem to take rail safety anywhere near as seriously as it should. I would like to hear from the minister exactly how the municipalities are supposed to work with the recent regulations that say that dangerous goods passing through their communities will only be divulged to them six months after the fact. How does that help rail safety?

[Rail Service Resumption Act, 2015, February 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Ottawa South. His speech was very interesting.

The Conservatives are clearly causing a crisis when we should be negotiating an agreement.

We have a real problem with today's motion. I completely agree with my colleague that the Conservatives seem more interested in advertising than in solving the problems we are facing in the area of rail safety, for example. We are all too aware of this danger in Canada. Canadians, and especially Quebeckers, are very concerned about this issue given the accident that occurred in Lac-Mégantic.

We want workers to be proud of what they do, we want their working conditions to allow them to do their jobs effectively and we want them to be willing to report any problems with rail safety, as there were in Lac-Mégantic.

I would like my colleague to comment on the recent decision rendered by the Supreme Court, which found that collective bargaining is a fundamental right in Canada, and I would like him to explain how that relates to rail safety. Do agreements that are negotiated between employers and workers lead to a better workplace and can they improve the safety of Canadians?