Raymond Côté

[Respect for Communities Act, June 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Québec for her speech. She illustrated the need to not simply abandon people with drug addictions, especially those using hard drugs, since it is basically a disease.

I remember some of the meetings my colleague from Québec and I had with certain agencies that help people suffering from addictions and experiencing all sorts of problems in their lives, since everything is interrelated.

Could my colleague report to the House the very worthy things several people who managed to escape addictions of their own volition, but also with a great deal of support, had to say about the desperate need for a safe place where addicts can get help with their problems until they can break free of their addictions?

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, June 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I take my hat off to the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup for having touched on so many different subjects in 10 minutes. That was quite a feat.

At the beginning of his speech, he echoed what our esteemed colleague from Vancouver Kingsway said about international trade and the dramatic increase in our trade deficit. I know that there are a number of businesses in my colleague's riding that export to the United States and elsewhere. They are suffering because of this situation.

In a speech last October, the former senior deputy governor of the Bank of Canada talked about one aspect of the issue:

If Canada’s exports had grown in tandem with those of the U.S. and global economies...[Canada's] goods exports would have been $71 billion higher [than they were in 2002].

Could my colleague talk about this disaster, for which the Conservative government is largely responsible?

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, June 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor for his question.

I will mention the rather surprising fact that my Conservative colleagues have remained seated, with their bums glued to their seats, instead of participating in the debate. I do not know why they refuse to rise.

My colleague pointed to another important aspect: providing measures for the middle class, or for all Canadians, so that, in turn, they can improve their lot. Buying property is but one example among many others. We could also consider implementing measures to reduce banking transaction fees, which we have supported for a very long time.

There is no mention of measures to support our workers and small business owners, who currently are not being properly compensated for their efforts. This is probably the most scandalous aspect of the situation in Canada: the large number of people who are being left behind, or, in fact, middle-class Canadians, who are no longer entitled to receiving what is owed to them.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, June 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from LaSalle—Émard for her excellent question. I must pay tribute to her obsession with the co-operative movement, which she advocates fervently.

This brings me to another specific aspect of Bill C-31, specifically greater openness to demutualization. As a parallel with the co-operative movement, both mutual insurance companies and co-operatives, whether they be financial, labour or housing co-ops, are avenues for economic activity, job creation, and wealth creation. Mutual insurance companies are a very viable option that make it possible for people to get proper insurance and get around situations where the more traditional for-profit insurance companies often exclude them, preventing them from getting insurance.

These particularly important economic alternatives must be supported, as they make people more accountable and give them an opportunity to control their own lives.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, June 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my esteemed colleague from York South—Weston for agreeing to share his time with me.

Once again, the Conservatives have imposed time allocation, and they should be ashamed. This move was completely arbitrary and shows disrespect for the Canadians we are here to represent.

The government is abusing its majority, and it is not shy at all about doing so, which shows its contempt not only for the legality and constitutionality of the measures set out in this omnibus bill, but also for common sense and the basic social convention of mutual respect. These values seem completely foreign to the Conservatives' way of thinking.

As the member for Beauport—Limoilou, I am going to take the time that I have been given to come back to a very specific aspect of this bill that is buried somewhere in its 350 pages. This aspect affects the Comité vigilance ferroviaire Limoilou, which is a group that was created by individuals, parents of children who attend an elementary school located just a few metres away from a major railway line that connects the Port of Québec to the rest of the province. The goods that are received at the Port of Québec are shipped to other locations across Canada and the rest of North America.

This committee was established by the people who are considered to be its spokespersons: Xavier Robidas and Sébastien Bouchard. They were very active last March. As soon as I saw the announcement about this committee starting up, I got in touch with these parents, who were legitimately worried. I would like to tell the House about the very simple objective of this watchdog committee. Members can read it for themselves on the committee's Facebook page.

It says:

The [committee] wants to ensure that rail transportation is safe, that stakeholders communicate [with the population] and that they do so with transparency.

It is very simple and is based on common sense. After the Lac-Mégantic disaster last year, this very credible and legitimate request has been voiced across North America by Canadian and U.S. citizens and even by people from other parts of the world.

With the exception of some very particular extremist elements in our society, people generally agree that we live in an environment where dangerous substances, among other things, are transported. That is part of life. It is a risk that we accept when it happens within safety parameters that allow people to be demanding, and rightly so.

We would have expected the Canadian government to do something about this fear and the legitimate desire for minimum safety standards and, above all, to ensure that information is provided so that people know what to expect with respect to the transportation of dangerous substances by rail.

Aviation fuel and a number of chemical products—not to mention solid bulk, including the famous nickel, an issue I have been working on for almost two years already—are transported through Beauport—Limoilou on the railway line monitored by the members of the Comité vigilance ferroviaire Limoilou.

Coal and all kinds of potentially volatile substances, such as petroleum coke, are transported as well. An awful lot of dust can get stirred up into the air and then settle in the area, contaminating the residents and nearby school grounds. There are four schools near the rail line.

This is something that we must take on and manage. My colleagues and I have a responsibility to listen to concerns, reflect on the situation and propose constructive solutions. That is not what is happening with Bill C-31.

Unfortunately, if Bill C-31 passes all the stages, the government will be able to amend and repeal numerous rail safety regulations without even notifying the public. That makes no sense because, currently, people are able to find out about any existing regulations that have been amended or eliminated, and they can do that through legitimate and perfectly transparent means. It will take a majority to support this monster bill, and the Conservatives are the only ones who would dare blindly support it.

If Bill C-31 is passed, cabinet decisions about changes to safety standards related to the rail transportation of dangerous goods will now be kept secret. I hope that some of my Conservative colleagues will wake up before it is too late.

We are familiar with the culture of secrecy that exists, particularly within the PMO, but there are limits. Considering what the people of Beauport—Limoilou are demanding, with good reason, and for that reason alone, I will be voting against this bill.

Moreover, because of these amendments, not only will citizens not be informed, but subject matter experts will not be able to provide their opinions to the minister before the amendments take effect. God knows how little anyone listens to them anyway, considering what I have seen at the Standing Committee on Finance, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

In other words, the government will pass measures in the dark, the experts will then have their say, and the minister will be free to ignore them. This is a familiar refrain. I have asked questions about activities at the Port of Québec and nickel dust contamination so often that I am not really surprised that they are still doing things this way.

Unfortunately, despite my interest in just three or four clauses in this bill, which contains nearly 500, for the fourth time, as my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques pointed out, the government has forced us to deal with a monster, an omnibus, a hodgepodge of different measures that have nothing to do with the Minister of Finance's mission.

Once again, the government is demonstrating its total lack of respect for all Canadians, including those who support the Conservative Party. It is imposing its will while carefully maintaining its cult of secrecy—its favourite way of doing business—and avoiding any display of the courage it takes to have a real debate.

I am glad I was able to once again discuss the gaps in rail safety and confirm my steadfast opposition to this government's way of doing things.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, June 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his speech. I definitely will not blame him for skimming through this monster bill in the little time he had, barely 20 minutes.

I am going to keep the ball rolling on trademarks. In a sham consultation, the Standing Committee on Finance instructed the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, of which I am a member, to examine the part respecting trademarks, among others. We obviously had too little time to do it thoroughly and of course faced criticism and in fact virtually unanimous opposition to the measures proposed by the government.

Despite that mandate given by the Standing Committee on Finance, which made no sense, we, as a committee, could not submit any recommendations without making some sort of amendment. In any case, what we proposed from our side was rejected by the government.

I would like my colleague to characterize this parody of a procedure, all these roundabout attempts to legitimize this omnibus bill, which is in fact the catch-all device the government uses to pass whatever it wants.

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification for her speech. I had the pleasure of working with her for part of 2013 on the Standing Committee on Finance.

After she left the committee, we studied the economic inequality of Canadian households. The report we produced, which was endorsed by the Conservative government, showed that even though the Conservatives may have slowed the increase in income inequality in Canada as compared to the Liberals, it has still increased. Income inequality has increased at a slower pace, but it has increased nonetheless. The pace has not been reversed, despite the tax measures taken by this government.

Part of the motion addresses the increase in income inequality in Canada. Is the parliamentary secretary distancing herself from the report her government adopted in the Standing Committee on Finance?

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to what the Minister of State for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario had to say and the question he asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, and it was rather unbelievable.

It is all very well to list 180 tax measures, even though some are still very marginal, but this does not address the heart of the matter. The indicators are very clear and the situation has deteriorated rather quickly. There has also been a dramatic increase in income inequality, and it has happened much more quickly in Canada than in the United States, regardless of what the studies might suggest.

Let us be sure to put things in perspective properly because some studies—and I know which study the hon. member was talking about—can skew information. In the meantime, Statistics Canada has found that the middle class has been hard hit and the decline is far from slowing down. The foundation of our motion has to do with the growing income inequality. Income splitting will only help the rich because more than 90% of households will not benefit or will only slightly benefit from this measure.

Why is this government trying to do everything it can to help the wealthy?

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, even though it was just a long series of slogans. It did not contain any facts, except for when he was bragging about the supposed measures that would help the middle class.

Let us get down to business. The fact of the matter is that the middle class has been deeply in debt for many years. Under this government, household debt has increased and reached 165% of income. This is a very significant indicator of the poor financial health of Canadian households.

However, the government keeps pushing for tax cuts, especially for corporations, which cost the treasury tens of billions of dollars. It dramatically increased the amount of dead money in companies' coffers, which did absolutely nothing to stimulate the Canadian economy. On the contrary, incomes are still stagnating.

How can I make my colleague understand that he is on the wrong track? How can I make him realize how bad the situation is for the majority of Canadian households?

[Auditor General Act, June 10th, 2014]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-612, An Act to amend the Auditor General Act and the Federal Sustainable Development Act (port authorities).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to sincerely thank the hon. member for Québec for seconding this bill.

I will keep my speech short. Currently, neither the Auditor General nor the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development oversees the country's 18 port authorities. My bill simply aims to correct that situation because although port authorities function independently, they manage crown property, which is therefore public property. That is the purpose of this bill.

Again, I would like to thank the hon. member for Québec for seconding this bill, and I would ask that all of my colleagues examine it very closely in the coming months.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)