House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2015, with 24% of the vote.
Fisheries and Oceans October 31st, 2012
Mr. Speaker, today Canadians are finally going to get some answers about Conservative fisheries mismanagement from Justice Cohen. After 18 months, $26 million and 150 witnesses, one thing is clear: this report cannot sit on the shelf to gather dust. The stakes are far too high for Canadian fisheries.
Will the government advise us when we can expect an action plan to rehabilitate the Canadian fishery here on the west coast as a starting point?
The Glace Bay Miners' Museum October 31st, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the National Arts Centre recently opened its new season with a production called The Glace Bay Miners' Museum. Based on a novel by Sheldon Currie of Antigonish and set in beautiful Cape Breton, it is a fantastic show that I would recommend to every member in the House. It runs until November 3.
Not only is it entertaining, it was written by one our own, the former MP for Dartmouth and celebrated playwright Wendy Lill.
This show was first introduced to Nova Scotian audiences in 1995 to great acclaim and it was no different here in Ottawa. Paula and I were pleased and proud to be in the audience with Wendy and her husband, Richard, and to join the rest of the audience who gave the play and its performers a rousing standing ovation.
It is worth noting that, along with Wendy, there were several people from Dartmouth involved in the production: the director, Mary Vingoe; the music director, Paul Cram; and two of the actors, Jeff Schwager and Francine Deschepper.
I offer my congratulations to all and say thanks for a great show.
Jobs and Growth Act, 2012 October 29th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, that is an absolutely perfect question because I have talked with the officials at the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs, the traditional governing structure for the Mi'kmaq in the Atlantic provinces, and there has not been any consultation.
Likewise, I spoke to the Thames River watershed conservation society on Thursday of last week, which is responsible for 410 kilometres of watershed as a volunteer organization. It has not been consulted.
I spoke to Trout Unlimited Canada on Friday in Alberta. It had not been consulted about the changes to the act that directly affect its area of interest. In the case of the aboriginal community, the changes directly affect its treaty and aboriginal rights.
Jobs and Growth Act, 2012 October 29th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, provisions of this bill are particularly onerous for the reasons he cited, in terms of the direct jobs that are going to be lost.
The other part of the bill really puts it to workers. Whether we call them private sector or public sector workers, they are workers who are supporting families, communities and making a contribution to the economy of this country. The government, as a result of changes to the pension plan for public sector workers is in effect rolling back wages. Pensions are nothing but foregone wages. That is exactly what they are. They are freely negotiated, and there are trade-offs made during negotiations. Pensions are part of the compensation package. What the government is asking us to do is to unilaterally impose a rollback in the area of 25% to 30% on public sector workers in this country.
Jobs and Growth Act, 2012 October 29th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, what the government is proposing to do with respect to these important watercourses and waterways, I find appalling. I have had the opportunity to talk to a number of organizations. I was in Alberta this past weekend where I had the opportunity to talk to an organization that is concerned about the watershed it is responsible for. In particular, the Bow River will be covered under this particular act but the Oldman River will not, and the two are completely interconnected. People are asking themselves what the rationale is behind this and, more importantly, what the damage is going to be as a result of this legislation and the removal of oversight and protection.
Jobs and Growth Act, 2012 October 29th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-45.
I want to focus a little on the environmental impacts of various provisions, but I want to start with what concerns me to a great deal.
The bill is supposed to be all about creating jobs and generating prosperity. In fact, anybody who has been able to obtain some information from the government, which it is loath to releasing, any of the experts, the PBO for example, on the impact of the provisions of the budget bill that was brought down last spring has estimated we would be looking at nearly 100,000 jobs lost as a direct result of the implementation of this particular bill.
Not only that, the government would be making widespread wholesale changes to environmental protections that exist in various legislation, such as the Canadian Environmental Assessment Review Act, the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Act. A number of pieces of legislation that provide oversight for projects, for development, for activity throughout the country, will be removed and that causes considerable concern.
Listening to members opposite talk about the bridge over the Detroit River or other projects, I hearken back to the Sydney tar ponds. I heard today in the news that the last contract has been awarded for the cleanup of the tar ponds in Sydney.
The tar ponds is a notable environmental spot that resulted from steel making over more than 100 years in Sydney, in Cape Breton. Government after government felt that it was sufficient to make steel to create jobs to do whatever we wanted to do with the environment, to get rid of waste, to spoil the earth, the air and the water. Rivers were completely ruined and covered up as a result of what the steel making process did.
Nearly $500 million of taxpayer money was taken, not the people who actually made off like bandits as a result of the opportunity to make steel in Cape Breton over those 100-and-some-odd years. It was the taxpayers who ended up paying as a result of the fact that government after government, both federally and provincially, failed to provide the oversight.
It feels to me like we are going back to the future. We are rolling back the clock in our country. The government has decided that it wants to export oil and bitumen and it will see those pipelines built, over as many water courses as needs to happen, as quickly as possible, without any oversight. That causes me and members on this side some considerable concern.
Not only does the government bring in this second omnibus bill, which we are going to be forced, with one set of votes, to vote on, rumour has it that it is going to break off some of the provisions in the bill and send them to committee, but we still are going be faced with one bill that we will be voting for or against at the end of the day.
As a result of public pressure, the government is going to allow for greater discussion. However, it is clear that the Conservatives have no intention of making any changes to the bill. That is why members on this side continue to move motions to try to get the government to split off some important aspects of the bill.
One issue that is particularly burdensome and troublesome with the bill is the change, in fact the removal of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Canada has over 32,000 lakes and rivers, and under this proposed budget bill only 97 lakes and 62 rivers are identified as significant. Why is that important? I heard a member opposite a moment ago say that the changes made to this act were important for farmers so they could plow over ditches in their field. It has nothing to do with ditches. That was the first budget bill last spring when that was allowed to happen; it allowed developers and others to get bulldozers and plow over the ditches.
This has to do with lakes and rivers. It is going to leave thousands of waterways without protection. Conservatives are even walking away from the majority of Canada's 37 designated Canadian heritage rivers. That means that a couple of heritage rivers in Nova Scotia, one of them being the Margaree, which is part of Margaree-Lake Ainslie River system, where Atlantic salmon and trout flourish in incredibly pristine water, could potentially be allowed to have roads, bridges or other projects that interfere with this river and this watershed without the requirement for permits.
It is the same thing for the Shelburne River, which begins in the Tobeatic wilderness park. It is part of the Mersey River system. It is an important river system for the Mi'kmaw. It has been used for millennia, and now it is no longer under protection. The government does not seem to understand how important these rivers, lakes and the environment are to Canadians. Our job on this side is to make those points and to bring that information to the attention of Canadians. As I indicated earlier, we are going to do that by continuing to move motions to try to split off various portions of the bill, so not only do they get proper debate, but they get an opportunity to have a vote.
My time is nearly over. I want to move a motion. I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion: That notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, clauses 173 to 178 related to changes to the fisheries act be removed from Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures and do compose Bill C-47; that Bill C-47 be entitled “an act to amend the fisheries act and the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act; that bill C-47 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans; that Bill C-45 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-45 be reprinted as amended; and that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.
I am proposing this motion as indicated so we will have the opportunity, not only to discuss the changes being proposed, debate them and hear witnesses, but to have an opportunity to vote on these specific amendments. I, therefore, request said unanimous consent.
Employment Insurance October 29th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, with five unemployed for every job opening, “just get a job” is not good enough.
Another group of over 200 workers and employers gathered in P.E.I. to protest EI cuts. They did so because employers are concerned about losing part-time employees and out-of-work Canadians are concerned about being denied benefits.
How large will the protests have to get before the minister starts to listen? When will the contempt for the unemployed end?
Employment Insurance October 25th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, instead of focusing on regional development, Conservatives are turning their back on Atlantic Canada, and they are telling seasonal workers to hit the road and head west.
Without any level of public consultation or even informing seasonal industries or workers, the Conservatives have ended the five extra weeks project that helped people in areas of high unemployment.
When will the government start respecting the workers and businesses who pay for EI, and start listening to the needs of Atlantic Canadians?
Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act October 22nd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Forces members I talk to in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour get extraordinarily frustrated from time to time. They stop me in the market or on the street or come to my office and we have a conversation about the way they feel they are being treated by the government and previous governments regarding things like returning from the fields of battle. When it comes to issues like dealing with matters of justice, having the right of appeal, getting an answer from the Minister of National Defence, they get discouraged sometimes. I would not say everyone is, but I have heard this from Canadian Forces members in my constituency. They do get frustrated when the government talks with great relish about how it honours the women and men who fight for our country, yet it will not move with the necessary speed to provide them with the rights and benefits they are duly entitled to.
Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act October 22nd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Québec for her insight into a key part of our opposition to the bill, the summary trial process, which is completely closed. It is often presided over by a Canadian Forces member's commanding officer. There is no record of the process, no appeal process, and no opportunity for the person subject to the trial to have access to counsel. The penalty may very well be a criminal record, a Criminal Code violation for offences without there being due process. We believe that is wrong.