Raymond Côté

[Energy Safety and Security Act, September 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech.

However, I will not hide the fact that I have many questions and concerns that he did not address.

My question is about a very specific topic, and that is damages associated with non-use value. This is an important principle that has been raised during debate on this bill. We can always quantify the economic value of a natural area, but we also need to look at other damages. There could be significant repercussions for communities.

With respect to marine areas, we were had by the Conservatives when they focused protection measures solely on commercially viable species, which overlooks the richness, the diversity and the complex interrelationships in a marine environment.

I would like to hear the hon. member's thoughts on the government's deliberate failure to include non-use value. It seems quite problematic to me. It is a huge loophole that companies could exploit.

[Energy Safety and Security Act, September 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, were it not so disappointing, it would be pretty funny to see the hon. member for Halifax West mimicking the Conservatives. It is resignation on his part. He is giving up in the face of the challenge of trying to improve a bill that might have some relevance and a positive impact, but that stops far too short when it comes to the issues in question, whether we are talking about offshore oil development or the nuclear industry.

It is truly disappointing to see him use rhetoric, sophism, to bring everything down to “if you are not with us, you are against us”. If he is going to imitate George W. Bush, then maybe he could use his words. In any case, he could take the time to listen to our arguments to understand and see how woefully inadequate this bill is. That is why we are against it. I would like my colleague to explain why he gave up so quickly and why he is giving in to the Conservatives on a bill that is clearly inadequate.

[Energy Safety and Security Act, September 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Hamilton Mountain for her very enlightening speech.

I have already had the honour of speaking to this bill in the House. What came out of the committee's work shakes me to the core and really scares me. I would like to quote Gordon Edwards, who had this to say about the problem of liability: “The exposure of the Canadian taxpayer is unavoidable under this legislation and it's unlimited. ...It is financial planning with no planning whatsoever.”

In other words, as with the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, the people responsible for those accidents will sneak away and the burden will fall on the taxpayers, the government, the provinces and the municipalities that may be victims of an accident.

Witnesses testified at only two meetings. I would like my colleague to tell me how those far-too-short meetings went and what the tone of the government representatives was.

[Red Tape Reduction Act, September 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the third party for his speech.

We have to admit that the Liberals were pretty good at using smoke and mirrors. Take for example the issue of climate change. The only practical measure that the Liberals took was to name a dog “Kyoto”. That is their track record.

I would like my colleague to explain the Liberals' decisions with regard to protecting the health and safety of Canadians. During their 13 years in office, the Liberals managed to dismantle the regulatory framework around rail safety by implementing safety management systems in the wake of the Mulroney Conservatives.

Given that the issue of Canadians' health and safety is addressed in the preamble rather than in the body of the bill, there are no real guarantees in this regard.

Can my Liberal colleague show that he is serious about the questions he is asking about this bill, given that his government did not have a very good track record during its 13 years in office?

[Red Tape Reduction Act, September 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert for her speech.

I want to talk about the content of the bill. In clause 2, “administrative burden” is defined as follows:

2. ...“administrative burden” means anything that is necessary to demonstrate compliance with a regulation, including the collecting, processing, reporting and retaining of information and the completing of forms.

This shows the huge disconnect between the government's intentions—or so-called intentions—and reality. My colleague was right to mention small businesses and the hassles associated with the changes to EI, which have created huge headaches for many small business owners. These owners are finding it virtually impossible to manage their staff, which adds considerably to their burden.

I would like to know how confident my colleague is in how the government will implement this bill, regardless of what form it takes.

[Red Tape Reduction Act, September 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for his speech and I would like to welcome everyone back to the House. Personally, I am very happy to be back.

This debate shows, once again, that the Conservatives are all talk and no action. Over the past three and a half years that I have been here, I have had the opportunity to speak with many entrepreneurs and business leaders in various sectors. When it comes to red tape, bureaucracy and problems regarding what approach to take, the government's record is the exact opposite of what it advocates in this bill, which is evident in the employment insurance file.

There the government has definitely increased the burden, which is causing a lot of problems for small businesses.

How can my colleague justify supporting this bill, while showing such a laissez-faire attitude on other issues?

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île for her remarks and especially for calling the Minister of Foreign Affairs to order. The minister was yelling like a wild animal, which is beneath a man in his position, but absolutely not surprising. It was simply one more example of his lack of judgment. I thank my colleague for commanding a bit of respect in the House.

As far as my colleague's speech is concerned, I greatly appreciated the fact that she clearly exposed the fundamental contradiction of this bill, in other words this infamous clause 11, which makes the idea of banning cluster munitions impossible to achieve for all intents and purposes because of all the exceptions it includes.

I would like her to elaborate on the fact that the government will never achieve the objective of completely banning cluster munitions from Canadian operations.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. His remarks were moving because he shared with us his personal experience of what he went through during his travels to Afghanistan for the implementation of a land mine treaty.

Another troubling thing that affected my colleague was how slowly the government moved and the long and roundabout way it took to introduce legislation, when Canada participated in the negotiations of the present convention on the use of cluster munitions several years ago, in 2008, in fact.

I would like him to talk about the government's foot-dragging, not to say its near-total inaction with regard to Bill C-6. That does not even include its undue delays after introducing the bill and with regard to the treaty banning the use of land mines, when Canada had signed the convention, in addition to ratifying it, on December 3, 1997. That was a very strong and very clear act of leadership.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan for her speech.

I cannot help but react to the question from the member for Palliser because of the parallel that is drawn, for instance, with the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction. Article 1 is very clear. It states that each state party to the convention must never use, develop, produce, acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer to anyone anti-personnel mines. This does not prevent the convention from allowing the retention of a small number of anti-personnel mines for training in mine detection, clearance and destruction.

Canada is a signatory to this convention. This bill to ban the use of cluster munitions creates some enormous loopholes that contradict the other commitment we made to ban anti-personnel mines, which has not caused problems with our allies, including the United States.

I would like my colleague to comment further on this precedent, which shows the direction we should have taken with Bill C-6. We should even have gone further in order to ensure that cluster munitions are banned.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin very much for his comment and his question.

One does not exercise leadership by constantly avoiding responsibility. What is truly unfortunate is that Canada is no longer the world leader it used to be. We have now been overtaken by many other countries that allow themselves to go the extra mile.

Coming back to the previous question, my colleague hid behind the argument that other countries had passed laws or implemented this convention and had included the principle of interoperability in order to protect the members of their armed forces from prosecution. That is treading lightly and very timidly on the path to abolishing these weapons and, unfortunately, completely losing sight of the objective.