Raymond Côté

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on something else that my colleague discussed.

I would like to suggest the following, because it would be the most promising and productive avenue for the future. I am talking about dialogue, the exercise of democracy, discussions and negotiations.

The federal government has frequently failed to broaden a number of debates. There are other examples as well of contentious issues across Canada. Some such issues are settled with some groups at the expense of others, without getting the latter involved.

Because my colleague raised this issue, I would like to ask whether he believes that the preliminary negotiations and dialogue in connection with this bill have at least been adequate?

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Manicouagan for his speech.

People always feel threatened by his razor-sharp mind. I found his perspective very interesting and would like to make a daring comparison. I hope he will forgive me.

As a result of my experience to date as a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, I have detected a general trend, which is not exclusive to the Conservative government, towards offloading more and more responsibilities on putative grounds of economic realism and the need for budget cuts. This means that such responsibilities are transferred to other levels of government that could be described as lower.

As I was listening to my colleague’s speech, I was thinking that this was clearly one of the consequences, and that it was probably based on similar considerations. I would like to know what he thinks of it.

Is the federal government generally attempting to shirk its responsibilities?

[Criminal Code, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to speak to Bill C-489. However, I definitely do not share the enthusiasm of my colleague who has just spoken.

I will explain that. I have had the honour of serving on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and having the opportunity to examine various private members’ bills brought forward by Conservative members. I will not pretend that it has not been somewhat dismaying to see the Conservatives’ remarkable talent for transforming gold into lead, using some process of alchemy that completely exceeds my powers of comprehension.

I sound like I am teasing or trying to make a joke about it, but we must always be very careful when we embark on amending the Criminal Code. This is fundamental, because the Criminal Code is very complex and has very wide application. Amendments can sometimes create more complications than solutions, at least when they are made without due care and attention.

However, I have to say that the bill introduced by the member for Langley is in fact very important. What is particularly worthwhile about it is that it potentially offers some real measures to protect and support victims of crime. That is what my New Democratic colleagues on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will be looking at very closely. I have absolutely no doubt of that.

We cannot deny that the bill is relatively promising. What concerns me, first, is the marketing job being done by the member for Langley and his colleagues. By focusing attention on the protection of minors, they are pandering to their political base. They are tugging at people’s heartstrings and then trying to score an easy goal in an area like this.

This is a very debatable approach. However, compared to a number of bills proposing Criminal Code amendments that were very punitive and went down the road of lengthening sentences for criminals, without a thought for victims, this is something innovative and different. As I said, it is promising, from what I have been able to see of it.

First of all, we will have to see what the effect of this bill is and what problem it will remedy. I am going to cite a case in Quebec City that received a lot of media coverage, the case of police officer Sandra Dion, who was a victim of a violent crime. She was assaulted with a screwdriver and was very traumatized. The worst thing is that Ms. Dion learned that the offender who had savagely attacked her, and who has psychiatric problems, was potentially eligible to live in a halfway house in Quebec City near her own home. This distressed her enormously. She reacted by moving to Ottawa for a few days. In fact, she came to try to meet with members and make them aware of her case, particularly members of the party in power. Her efforts met a somewhat disappointing fate.

However, based on her testimony and her case, and other similar cases, we can perhaps hope to improve the bill or at least determine whether it covers her situation. If not, we should improve the bill so she will have a way of getting what is needed so she can have some assurance of her safety and some influence over the situation and the release of the assailant who savagely attacked her.

I should note that Ms. Dion was in fact able to use the existing system to ensure that the authorities who supported releasing her assailant did not send him to the halfway house that had been planned, because it was not equipped to handle him, given his very significant medication needs.

As I said, I will support the bill at second reading because I have confidence in the work that will be done at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

I would nonetheless like to share some concerns with my colleagues. When I was a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I observed the Conservative members' very bad knee-jerk response as they sought to limit the powers of the judges and other authorities who carry out decisions.

I understand that some decisions made by the courts can sometimes be difficult for the public to understand, and decisions can seem out of sync with the media reports of a case, which unfortunately often do not tell the whole story.

Our justice system is predicated on the presumption of innocence. Obviously, it then provides for justice to be done, both for the complainant and for the defendant. If we do not maintain that balance, what confidence can all of the parties involved, not to mention the general public, have in our justice system?

When we too readily do an injustice, and do it repeatedly, it may offer a false sense of security, and that can lead to a great many problems in our society. There is nothing worse than an innocent person having to suffer the stigma associated with a charge and the impossibility or serious difficulty of restoring their good name or being able to shed all of the suspicion they have been tarred with.

To come back to the accused persons who are affected by the bill, we must never forget that every case is unique, although the law tries to cover all cases. One of the ideals is to make rules and provisions that apply generally and allow for some individualized interpretation or involvement by judges, with the help of the justice system and the lawyers, both for the Crown and for the defence. Instead of easily applying a strict rule that is inappropriate in some cases, the judgment of justice system experts can be applied in an individualized manner.

That is something that will have to be investigated and ascertained when the bill goes to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I cannot emphasize that enough. I am in fact confident that my colleagues on the justice committee want to take a good look at this aspect, and I am going to watch the proceedings very closely.

To conclude, I cannot emphasize enough that, as I said at the outset, what is most worthwhile about the bill brought forward by the member for Langley is that it opens the door part-way to concrete measures that will potentially assist victims of crime in order to provide them with support. I think this is really the point we have to focus on. We have to hold onto that so we can find common ground, so we can propose a bill that will amend the targeted provisions in fairly and efficiently and genuinely protect the public interest.

I will hold onto that thin ray of hope.

[Health, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec Stevedoring, the Port of Québec and the Minister of Transport are passing the buck in trying to find out who is to blame for the dust that is falling on Limoilou.

Now Quebec City is to blame because its hydrants do not have enough pressure.

When will the minister come to Quebec City to see how badly the port, for which he, as minister, is responsible—and I mean responsible—needs federal investment to update its facilities in order to protect public health?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his question. This gives me a chance to remind the House that the government rejected our housing strategy.

It also allows me to share a memory that is truly very pleasant, and that is my first nomination as an NDP candidate in 2005. It was a few days, a few hours even, before my late leader, Jack Layton, reached an agreement with the Paul Martin government to cancel $3 billion in corporate tax cut and adopt measures for housing, among other things.

It is funny because that was my introduction to active politics and the three electoral campaigns I ran before being elected.

Housing has been a priority of ours for a long time. I want to thank my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for fighting for this cause. We will continue to hold up our end; that is certain.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

I will start by talking about something that happened at the beginning of the year. At a reception held at the Port of Québec in January, I had an opportunity to speak to people from the business community. One of them said something that I found especially intriguing. The individual said that the business community was looking for some recognition. I thought it was significant that after seven years in power the Conservative government had not been able to do that.

Our proposed measures would clarify the rules of the game and introduce fairness.

We are in the midst of the hockey playoffs. If we were to get rid of the rules and allow high-sticking and other infractions, the game might be more exciting, but the resulting brutality would be totally unacceptable to society. That is where we are headed with the new Investment Canada rules.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-60. I wish that I had more than 10 minutes, because there is so much to say about this bill.

We were not given nearly enough time at the Standing Committee on Finance. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to waste a few seconds of my precious time to express my opposition to the government's 39th gag order and the fact that the Standing Committee on Finance's study of this bill was a sham.

The committee was responsible for studying Bill C-60. As everyone no doubt remembers, we suggested splitting up the bill in the interest of serving Canadians well. We wanted each committee to have an opportunity to consider relevant parts of the bill, to study them fully, seriously and in depth, instead of looking at the mishmash of measures in this omnibus bill over what amounted to barely two and a half meetings. The committee did its clause-by-clause reading, then wrapped it all up in the blink of an eye with almost total disregard for the witnesses and the integrity of the committee process. It is truly appalling.

I would like to get right to the point and focus on changes to the Investment Canada Act. I have chosen to discuss this aspect as a reminder that, in my riding of Beauport—Limoilou, White Birch Paper's Stadacona mill met with what I would call a tragic fate. I have brought this subject up several times already.

In 2003, when an American investor—more specifically, an unscrupulous investor from New York—bought the Quebec City mill, it employed 1,600 people. At this time, after a nasty lockout and numerous measures to defraud pensioners and workers, only a little over 200 people remained employed at that mill. The mill is operating at well below half of its capacity.

I would like to go into a bit of the history of what happened before the 2011 election. When the lockout was imposed, over 600 employees were working there. Given their working conditions, the work was spread over three shifts and was done around the clock. The order book was full.

This Quebec City industrial gem was altered completely. It was virtually abandoned and left with an uncertain future. It is hard to imagine that this mill could be revived anytime soon, especially since the transaction whereby White Birch Paper was sold to Black Diamond Capital is linked to one of the shareholders, namely, the son of the former owner. That kind of absolutely unbelievable manoeuvring revealed the flaws in the Investment Canada Act.

I mentioned the unfortunate complicity on the part of my Liberal colleagues who agreed, under absolutely false pretenses, to drastically raise the review thresholds for foreign investments. That threshold will now be $1 billion. For the minister involved, this will be something quite extraordinary in the course of a year, something that will be worth mentioning, given the number of transactions of that size that we are likely to see.

Meanwhile, any number of highway robbers, thieves and fraudsters can freely and openly engage in unfair competition with honest investors and real entrepreneurs who care about developing businesses, taking on missions, diving into a great business adventure and taking positive initiatives, as well as providing opportunities for workers and our young people. It is truly appalling.

Unfortunately, we know that Bill C-60 will pass, barring some unforeseen incident. We can always hope. In the event that a number of government members are regrettably absent, we will gladly vote down their bill.

I would like to talk about the Investment Canada Act and, more specifically, about expanding the criteria. The Minister of Industry will have very few reasons to review transactions in Canada, and that represents a threat to the Canadian economy.

I was on the Standing Committee on International Trade for one year. I have no problem welcoming foreign investors with open arms. However, we cannot be naive. We need to take at least a few precautions when a so-called investor tries to acquire a Canadian business. It is no different from when a business owner or our financial institutions—our banks—make enquiries about consumers who make significant transactions. That is not unusual; it makes sense.

It is common for a credit check to be conducted when someone is buying a house or car or signing a lease.

How can the government be so lenient when it comes to entire sectors of our economy? Millions of Canadians suffer, directly or indirectly. They suffer directly because the company cuts operations and business is threatened. They suffer indirectly because when working conditions worsen and businesses become filled with cheap labour, they take on other forms, creating unfair competition for business owners who play by the rules and actively participate in Canada's development. A huge number of people are affected.

The erosion of our industrial fabric, our economic fabric and our social fabric is a liability and a disturbing legacy to leave for future generations, particularly since the government is moving forward at top speed. It is absolutely incredible.

Unfortunately, another part of this pseudo-investment is the decision to terminate the pension fund for current and retired employees of the Stadacona mill of White Birch Paper. There will be new developments on that front in the coming days. I continue to watch it all very closely.

Providing our workers and retirees with much less attractive retirement benefits will also undermine the sustainability of our economy to a certain extent. The reality is that having a large number of retirees is also a stabilizing factor in turbulent economic times. We have seen that in the Quebec City area.

I could have talked about the elimination of the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds, which is not in Bill C-60, but is another bad measure. I could also have talked about the creation of private pension funds that, unfortunately, will make workers shoulder the entire responsibility by making employer contributions optional. This will also make it much more difficult to save for retirement.

I am pleased to have spoken out against the type of measures adopted. There is no need to worry that all we are going to do is complain. We are laying the groundwork for our future and for taking power and correcting this situation.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Malpeque for his speech. I had the pleasure of working with him on the Standing Committee on International Trade.

He was right when he said that the infrastructure money for all of Canada is peanuts—peanuts in the shell, actually. Stakeholders who want to apply for program funding for their projects will have a lot of work to do.

I would like him to comment on another issue that I am quite concerned about, an issue that we discussed at length at the Standing Committee on Finance. I would like to tell the member for Malpeque how frustrated we felt when the Liberal Party representative supported the government on this issue.

The proposed changes to the Investment Canada Act will raise the threshold so high that, a few years from now, only those transactions worth over $1 billion—which is very few of them—will be reviewed. It will also depend on what the minister wants, of course.

How can he support that when he talks about fighting for jobs and the future of our youth? Is he not ashamed?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

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

She focused mainly on the interference of the President of the Treasury Board in the collective agreement negotiations of crown corporations. I fully understand her concern because it is common knowledge that, regrettably, the President of the Treasury Board tends to confuse his personal interests with the public interest. Indeed, he diverts the public interest to serve certain personal interests in a small circle in his riding. This has been obvious in recent years.

One very big problem with this is that it pushes the limits of government interference in collective agreement negotiations. Now it is plausible that this moving line could affect other business activities within crown corporations.

I would like to know whether my colleague shares these concerns and whether she thinks this could go beyond the issue of collective bargaining.

[Health, June 3rd, 2013]

First came the nickel and iron dust. Then, this weekend, coal dust from the Port of Québec settled on my region.

Every time I have asked the minister a question about this, he has evaded it by saying that the port is an independent organization that is doing its job. However, the minister is forgetting that he is responsible for enforcing environmental legislation in the ports.

Does the minister understand the principle of ministerial accountability? Is he waiting for all the elements of the periodic table to fall on our heads before taking action?