Raymond Côté

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, June 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, during second reading of this bill, I asked a very simple question about something my constituents of Beauport—Limoilou are concerned about.

There is a palpable sense of insecurity among parents of primary, secondary and college students. There are four schools along the railway. It is a very busy line that is used to transport potentially dangerous materials from the Port of Québec to the rest of Canada and even the United States.

Bill C-31 provides for certain amendments that will allow cabinet to make decisions on rail safety in total secrecy, and I do not accept that.

How can my colleague accept this secrecy?

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, June 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the parliamentary secretary and I feel like telling him that the government needs to stop shoving things down Canadians' throats. Again, we are talking not only about the 70th time allocation motion, but also, and most importantly, about an omnibus bill that the government is shamefully trying to put a lid on.

Yesterday, I talked about how the government must earn the respect of all members of the House. I also discussed a problem that concerns me directly in Beauport—Limoilou, namely rail safety, for which the government is imposing measures that will keep cabinet decisions shrouded in secrecy.

How can the parliamentary secretary boast about these so-called accomplishments when he is imposing the will of the government without really knowing whether the public approves of the multitude of amendments? Somewhere around 60 to 70 laws will be amended by this one single bill. This is outrageous.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, June 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Joliette for her question. Had I wanted to look at every item in this omnibus bill, it would have taken me at least five hours, and that would have been just my speaking time.

My colleague from Joliette made a very good point about a very simple, direct measure that was very popular with small businesses. The government never gave us a reason for unilaterally getting rid of that measure. It did not explain why it decided to cut such a popular, direct and active form of support for small businesses. We are still waiting for answers from the government.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, June 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. That is an important aspect to consider, especially when we put it into perspective over the past 20 years.

Let us not forget that in the 1990s, the Liberals made things extremely tough for the provinces by unilaterally reducing general transfer payments and health transfers in order to balance the budget and make themselves look good. I know that my colleague has already made the argument that he was not in the House at the time. Nonetheless, he does carry the Liberal banner. At some point he is going to have to accept that legacy, including the reckless cuts that had major consequences. I know all about it. In Quebec we saw massive retirements and it was disastrous.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, June 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I must say at the outset that I agree with what my colleague just said. I did spend a lot of time talking about the process, which is deeply flawed.

I want to help my colleague understand that there has been a fundamental shift in the legislative process. Bills can be introduced in radically different ways, but if the government truly wants to earn respect, then it should not impose such ridiculous working conditions on all the representatives in the House. If we look at the number of hours we have compared to the number of clauses to be studied, that leaves just a few minutes per clause. That is absolutely unacceptable.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, June 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, to begin, I would like to make a fairly critical comment to the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margaret's. His complaints about the opposition are quite pathetic, given that the government holds a majority in both the House and committees.

If the government wants to earn the respect of Canadians and the opposition parties, it needs to show some courage and admit that all of the MPs who sit in the House are presenting sensible ideas—which may even be constructive—and that it is possible to discuss them. In the three years since I was elected, I have seen how this government operates. In this case, with this particular 360-page omnibus bill, all of the amendments proposed by the New Democratic Party were systematically rejected, even the ones that dealt with details that have limited scope and would not have affected the substance of certain measures included in Bill C-31.

My speech will have two parts. First, I will talk about this government's approach, about how it refuses to listen to anyone who disagrees with it and about how it simply imposes its will. The government's lack of courage is incredible. Moreover, this all started with the help of the Liberals, when we returned to the House for the last four weeks. They forced longer sitting hours on us and restrictions on procedural rules, which is surprising for the Liberals.

It is as though having a majority and the power to repeatedly shut down debate was not enough for the government. We saw it again today, when it invoked closure for the 69th time. It is absolutely unbelievable. I do not know how some of my colleagues can look at themselves in the mirror every morning or how they can sleep at night. When I see them with their eyes glued to their desks, it strikes me that wilful ignorance is the only way they can live with themselves.

I would like to reiterate that this bill is 368 pages long and contains a variety of measures. It is a hodgepodge of legislative measures that affect dozens of different laws. It is absolutely vital that the government consider the fact that the official opposition did not disagree with everything in the omnibus bill. Anyone can see that if they look at the work that has been done recently by the Standing Committee on Finance. Had some of the measures proposed by the government in this omnibus bill been examined separately, the NDP would have either fully supported them or supported them on the condition that discussions be held so that we could propose amendments to correct certain specific flaws.

Unfortunately, rather than having an open debate with all of the stakeholders, the government is imposing its will. It is particularly ridiculous to see the Prime Minister lecturing people left and right in Europe when his track record over the past 10 years is so poor that he could not even lecture someone as extreme as Vladimir Putin.

In January 2015, it will have been 10 years since this government began using all the procedural tools it could to try to impose its will, while defying traditions, legislation, and the operations and legitimacy of some of our institutions.

The government really has a very poor track record. Had this government implemented some measures to renew the CF-18 fleet, for example, we could have said that at least the Conservatives had managed to do something. Instead, by trying to find an aircraft to replace the CF-18 after over nine years in office, the government has left the skies empty of any new, safe and effective aircraft that would allow our air force to defend the country and finally do its job. It is absolutely unbelievable.

It is really shameful that the government is patting itself on the back when it has proposed very few practical measures to the public and has denied the legitimacy and the very basis of our work here in the House of Commons.

The second thing I would like to talk about affects me personally as the member of Parliament for Beauport—Limoilou. A major railway line passes right through the downtown core of Beauport—Limoilou, not far from the Port of Québec, where many of the riding's industrial plants are located. The trains travelling on that railway line transport a large variety of products, including solid and liquid bulk commodities. A number of those liquid bulk products are hazardous, volatile and explosive materials, such as jet fuel.

All of these products are moving through the downtown core of Limoilou, just a few metres from four schools that are located along the railroad track. There is an elementary school, a high school, a vocational school and the Limoilou CEGEP.

This is obviously a legacy of the past. I am absolutely not denying the importance of port activities or transit activities that require this means of transport. However, a few months ago, I met with a group of concerned parents, led by Xavier Robidas and Sébastien Bouchard, who were calling for more transparency and rigour with respect to rail safety.

There are some clauses in this bill that pertain to rail safety. However, it is very disappointing. Instead of correcting the problems of transparency, reassuring parents and addressing their very legitimate requests, Bill C-31 will impose a code of silence on all cabinet decisions. That is absolutely intolerable.

As far as I know, cabinet members are elected members and they are accountable. Why impose secrecy for something as vital as rail safety?

The same thing will happen every time regulatory changes are made or certain regulations are rescinded. Heaven knows that many problems with rail safety inspections were brought to light after the terrible Lac-Mégantic disaster. These problems resulted from a lack of resources and very lax compliance with regulations. This is contrary to the recommendations of the Transportation Safety Board.

This bill does not promote transparency and public information. The public will not be notified of these changes. When you play the game of democracy, you have to go all the way.

This government has shown a lack of transparency for more than nine years, especially since it gained a majority and has systematically refused to account to Canadians for its legitimacy.

I will end there. I no longer have much hope of making this government listen to reason. It is not complicated: in 2015, the government will be booted out and we will be there to take its place.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, June 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that the speech by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has left me scratching my head. I do not know why, but at the beginning she seemed to be trying to absolve Liberal governments or indicating that, when they were in power, introducing omnibus bills was less serious than it is today.

We should not ignore the fact that the Conservative government is going much further compared to what we have seen in the past. It is a complete abuse of our institutions. The government is doing away with our right to defend the opinions of our constituents. It is holding that right hostage.

However, I would like to understand what motivated the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands to downplay the Liberals' actions when they were in power.

[Agricultural Growth Act, June 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this is truly a sorry situation. The NDP is not at all afraid to carry the burden of all the work on our shoulders. On the contrary, this is good preparation for when we take power in 2015.

That being said, let us not forget to put what is happening right now into context. The Liberals, with the complicity of the government, defined the rules for the last four weeks of work in the House.

What we are seeing now is a joke. In fact, it makes a mockery of the public interest and all Canadians. I want to know what has the minister so afraid that he is cutting off debate on this rather important bill. The bill makes changes that would have a considerable impact.

[Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), June 3rd, 2014]

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

I especially thank her for showing us what issues this bill fails to address. This bill very specifically targets one category of animals, those that provide assistance to the police, the Canadian Forces and people with disabilities.

My colleague raised a very interesting point about how this bill does not include other animals, whether they be pets or even wild animals, when it could have included every little creature living in our midst. This bill does not do that, unlike the bills introduced by our colleagues from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and Parkdale—High Park.

I would like my colleague to elaborate on the fact that this bill looks at only a small part of the picture instead of taking a broader and more inclusive view.

[Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), June 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague from LaSalle—Émard for her question and comments.

The motivations of the Minister of Justice and the government in general do make us wonder. This morning the Minister of Justice made a speech about this bill, but it is clear that the NDP has to move all the debates forward. I thank both my NDP colleagues very much for asking me questions and making comments after my speech. In the rest of House, mum's the word. Members no longer want to take part in legitimate debate, let alone talk about the issues having to do with this bill.

There is something deeply disrespectful to the public about repeated time allocation motions and the fact that my colleagues are keeping mum and refusing to have a constructive debate. We will see what happens at committee stage. Nonetheless, I hope that our amendments will be considered seriously by all members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.