Twitter
Facebook
VideosMay
- MP
ndpMay 16, 2012 12:45 pm | Nova Scotia, HalifaxMr. Speaker, my colleague opposite was correct in saying that this bill is being studied more than any other budget bill. That is correct because budget bills used to only be 30 pages. This bill is over 400 pages. It is almost 430 pages. With an extra 400 pieces of dense legislation, it warrants a full and thorough examination.
I know I cannot ask him a question, but if I had the opportunity to, I would ask why, if this bill is being adequately studied, is assisted human reproduction in this bill, is the Auditor General in this bill and why are changes to CSIS in this bill.
- MPndpMay 16, 2012 12:35 pm | Nova Scotia, Halifax
moved:
That, in the opinion of the House, the Budget legislation guts the environmental assessment and fisheries laws, leaving Canada’s lakes, rivers, oceans, ecosystems, and fisheries at risk while unfairly downloading federal environmental responsibilities and their associated costs to the provinces, territories, and future generations.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam.
My colleagues and I are hearing every day from Canadians who are rallying against the Conservative government's decision to table a Trojan Horse budget bill that contains measures that will do irreversible harm to our environment. It will affect the health, livelihood and future of Canadians, and it will leave an unacceptable and unequal burden on generations to come.
Canadians know intuitively that this cowardly attempt to avoid real debate on such significant legislation is undemocratic. It is another example of the government's penchant for avoiding accountability and scrutiny while it placates its industry bigwig buddies at the expense of the best interests of our communities.
There will not be sufficient public oversight or consultation on the bill. Communities that are relying on the very protections that are being gutted are being silenced. It is happening because the government knows that if Canadians were given the opportunity to examine this legislation fully, as they should be allowed to do in a democratic nation, they would reject the proposed changes because they recklessly gut environmental protection in this country.
New Democrats know and understand the importance of public participation in a democracy. That is why the NDP is holding a series of hearings in Ottawa and across the country that will allow experts and the public to engage in the policy areas of Bill C-38, such as the anti-environment provisions, in a meaningful way, which the government is trying to avoid.
The latest attempt by the government to hide from the public is yet another blot on the Conservative government's environmental record. From muzzling scientists, to withdrawing from international protocols that included mandatory greenhouse gas emission audits, to killing independent research bodies like the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and cancelling funding for environmental groups like the Canadian Environmental Network, the government shows time and time again that its number one policy is to stifle as much information and evidence as it can because that evidence flies in the face of the Conservative agenda.
The Conservatives keep forgetting one key thing and that is that Canadians from coast to coast to coast see these actions for what they really are: blindly partisan, incredibly short-sighted and devoid of any evidentiary framework or base.
One of the worst themes of Bill C-38 is the total lack of clarity and understanding on what impact these changes will have on the environmental protections we do have. For me, that is what makes this Trojan Horse bill so alarming. Canadians cannot be sure what the government is actually forcing upon this country.
We see in many different places where this legislation aims to give unparalleled discretion and powers to government and ministers, allowing them to override the best interests of Canadians in affected communities without really defining the scope of powers or important tests that would determine, for example, who could participate in a hearing.
Decisions will be made in the absence of an accountable framework. Make no mistake, these decisions of the future will be politicized and they will be partisan. This again flies in the face of good environmental stewardship.
I would like to talk about some of the proposed changes in the bill. In some of the cases we do not know what the outcome will be. We can see how the legislation is being changed, but we do not know what the impacts will be in the long run. That is all the more reason that we need to have a fulsome debate in the House and at committee on all aspects of the bill.
The entire Environmental Assessment Act is going to be replaced, and it is based on recommendations coming from the environment committee. That might sound like a positive thing, except that the review was the result of a very flawed legislative review at committee. It failed to meet any acceptable standard for a study of such an important piece of legislation.
I would like to talk about a couple of the changes to CEAA that are being proposed.
The bill would limit who could testify at environmental assessment hearings. It would limit that discussion to affected parties. Who is an affected party? Is it someone who lives in a place where a pipeline is going through the backyard? Is it someone who is five kilometres away or twenty kilometres away, or fifty kilometres? Think about Fukushima. How far away did that actually impact? Would people in that radius be able to participate?
What if people fish, but they fish very far downstream from a spawning bed, and there is an action taking place on a spawning bed? Are they an affected party if they live in southern Manitoba and the spawning bed is in northern Manitoba? Where do we draw the lines here? How do we know who gets to participate? What if they are scientists based out of Vancouver and they have good information about what could happen in northern British Columbia, or perhaps even in another province? Are they considered to be an affected party?
It is absolutely not clear what is being done here in limiting who can testify and who can participate. I am very worried that we are not going to get the good information that we need from the experts and from people on the ground who actually are directly affected, whether or not the government wants to believe they are.
This bill would also allow the federal cabinet to approve a project, even if the reviewing body has determined that there would be adverse environmental effects. In other words, if an arm's-length, non-partisan body says that a project should not go ahead—or yes, it should go ahead, but maybe with these changes—ultimately it is the cabinet that gets to make the decisions about whether that project goes ahead.
We also have a shift of moving from list versus trigger. This is a technical aspect of the bill, but right now an environmental assessment can be triggered because, for example, a navigable waterway is crossed or migratory birds may be impacted. We would switch to a list of what is included and what is not in an environmental assessment.
On its face, this might sound like a good idea, but we heard very good testimony at committee that asked this question: if lists are what is in and what is out, what do we do with projects that we cannot even conceive of right now? For example, if the list had been drawn up 50 years ago, would oil sands exploration have been on that list? Probably not. Do we think there should be environmental assessments of oil sands exploration? Yes.
This change would really limit what gets assessed and how the assessments are done, and it would not follow the evidence that we heard at committee, which is very unfortunate.
I will touch lightly on the fisheries provisions, and I am sure my colleague will also touch on them.
One really important aspect is that under the Fisheries Act provisions, we would change the focus from impacts on fish habitat to impacts causing “serious harm to fish”. What is “serious harm”? Well, let us imagine that a fish is maimed, deformed or has its growth stunted. Maybe its habitat is even destroyed. Maybe a future generation of fish is destroyed. As long as that fish is not killed, it seems it is okay under this legislation. That is absolutely impossible for me to wrap my head around, and it flies in the face of testimony we are hearing from people on the ground, who say that we need to protect fish habitat if we are going to protect the next generation of fish.
I will remind the government that allowing the degradation of our environment has long-term economic costs. The budget bill is not good financial management.The budget bill is not responsible governing. It is, plain and simple, an attack on our environment by a government that lacks the maturity or the common sense to see the long-term risks that it is engaging in.
How will my colleagues opposite explain to their constituents, their friends and their families why they are choosing to reject a path of innovation, environmental stewardship, sustainable development and intergenerational equity? I wonder how they will answer that question to their constituents, their families and their friends.
This legislation would be bad for our air, our water and our soil, and it is bad for humans and animals alike. I ask all members of this place to support our motion today in its denunciation of the government's environmental proposals.
- MPndpMay 16, 2012 11:35 am | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, I wish the minister was as coherent as his colleague was on Monday about the real reason for closing down the round table. The round table has something the Minister of the Environment does not have, and that is numbers.
We know the Conservative inaction on climate change will cost Canadians in the long run. How much will climate change cost us in the long run? Well, last night the minister did not have an answer, even though the round table has done that study and has those numbers.
I would like to ask the minister again: does the government have an estimate of the cost of climate change to Canada, yes or no?
- MPndpMay 15, 2012 9:45 pm | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Chair, what does the minister think our sustainable practice is in the oil sands?
- MPndpMay 15, 2012 9:40 pm | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Chair, can the minister even confirm that there will be money spent on public consultation this coming year?
- MPndpMay 15, 2012 9:35 pm | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I asked a simple question and it was very short. I would expect that the minister would follow the timelines as were set out at the beginning of committee of the whole.
- MPndpMay 11, 2012 9:20 am | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, as you know, I wrote to you earlier today requesting an emergency debate on the refusal of the government to split the omnibus budget bill into separate pieces for proper study at the proper committee.
According to page 693 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, an emergency debate is legitimate when the matter “could not be brought before the House within a reasonable time by other means, such as during a supply day”, which is the case here.
As time allocation was moved by the government to limit time for debate and as this is the last day of debate on the omni-budget, I believe this warrants an emergency debate. It is the case that we have a budget before us that is over 400 pages long when, historically, budgets have been about 30 pages long. It touches everything from the environment to old age security, assisted human reproduction, employment equity, CSIS, the Seeds Act, and telecommunications. It really does touch the lives of every Canadian as far as I am concerned.
The NDP has tried to negotiate with the government, asking it to voluntarily split this bill into the appropriate subject matters but it has denied us this. You, Mr. Speaker, may also have heard that yesterday it was my intention to move a motion during the public session of committee to try to have the environment committee review the environment parts of this budget bill. We were not even able to be in public for me to do that. I was denied the opportunity to even move a motion to consider some of the environmental aspects at the environment committee where it properly belongs.
I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to take this application for an emergency debate seriously, to see the urgency of this issue and to grant an emergency debate on the government's refusal to be transparent and accountable on this bill.
- MPndpMay 11, 2012 8:25 am | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, the Public Service Commission is now investigating 11 questionable appointments to ACOA, more jobs handed to Conservative supporters on a golden platter.
Merit and competence were thrown out the door and now it is the old boys' network of who one knows: a close friend of the Minister of National Defence, one of his former staffers and a failed Conservative candidate for good measure.
Why are Conservatives not looking beyond their Facebook friends when they appoint people to this taxpayer-funded group?
- MPndpMay 09, 2012 11:30 am | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, I would argue that the Conservatives are under-informed about what the environment commissioner had to say.
Yesterday at the committee the Conservatives blocked the environment commissioner from talking about environmental assessments and their impact on future contaminated sites. They blocked the environment commissioner from talking about the environment.
Will the minister find his backbone and put a stop to this environmental train wreck?
- MPndpMay 08, 2012 11:20 am | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, the government has not even done a simple cost-benefit analysis. There is no implementation plan to reduce emissions. Conservatives have no idea what their failed approach will cost the Canadian economy in the future.
Last fall the minister made the bizarre claim that withdrawing from Kyoto would save us money. But it seems he has not done a full life cycle accounting of his own plan.
Why will the minister not come clean with Canadians? Why is he hiding the full costs of the Conservative approach?
- MPndpMay 08, 2012 11:05 am | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, 125 years ago this month, the Halifax Ladies College opened its doors to the curious and creative minds of Canadian women. The college was founded by Anna Leonowens, a trailblazer in her own right, who struck out on her own to teach around the world in the 19th century.
Soon after it opened, the college became home to Lucy Maud Montgomery, who used it as inspiration for part of her beloved Anne of Green Gables novels.
When disaster struck with the Halifax explosion, the college was even transformed into a temporary hospital to treat thousands of injured Haligonians.
Known today as the co-ed school, Armbrae Academy, this Halifax institution has become a beacon of acceptance and excellence in our community. Armbrae has kept the spirit of its history alive with a close-knit, forward-thinking school environment.
Tomorrow, I will be hosting a group of Armbrae students on Parliament Hill. I cannot wait to meet Halifax' next set of great minds.
My best wishes on the college's 125th anniversary.
- MPndpMay 07, 2012 11:35 am | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, silencing electors is not enough for this government. It also wants to silence scientists and all of its critics.
The Minister of the Environment has gone too far in his attempt to discredit the people who criticize him. A group representing over 1,300 charities in the country has written an open letter to the minister asking him to retract his comments about environmental groups, which he accused of money laundering.
Will the minister apologize?
- MPndpMay 03, 2012 11:15 am | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, last month, the Conservatives changed their parliamentary report on plans and priorities with regard to the F-35. The first version of the report indicated that the purchase of the aircraft had been approved by cabinet; however, a new version, which they changed retroactively, states that cabinet has not approved this purchase.
Why did the Conservatives want Canadians to think that the purchase of this aircraft had been approved and why did they change their story?
- MPndpMay 02, 2012 11:55 am | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, on the campaign the Conservatives actually promised that the cuts would happen through attrition, and a year later they are chopping up jobs and selling off our parks.
Canada's national parks were founded on the principle that the public should have access to public spaces and our heritage sites, but Parks Canada, as we know, confirmed that a new private operator will determine access for Canadians, when we own it.
This is the same minister who also green-lighted the privatization of Jasper National Park.
First our glaciers, and now our hot springs. Which of our national treasures will the minister put up for sale next?
- MPndpMay 02, 2012 11:50 am | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, in last year's election campaign, the Conservatives did not announce a planned attack on our national parks.
Yesterday, they eliminated 1,600 jobs at Parks Canada. Today, we learned that they want to sell some parks and privatize the hot springs in Banff, Jasper and Radium. The discovery of these hot springs more than a century ago led to the creation of our first national park.
Why does the minister want to squander our national heritage?
- MPndpMay 01, 2012 11:30 am | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, the minister is ignoring his own findings. Last year the minister released a report showing that Parks Canada contributes more than $3 billion a year to our economy, and most of that is to small and local businesses.
Canada's national parks bring Canadians together and they draw tourists from around the world. Yet first the Conservatives are gutting the environmental assessment process, and now employee jobs are on the chopping block at Parks Canada.
Has the government calculated the impact of its reckless cuts on the tourism industry for Canada?
- MPndpMay 01, 2012 11:25 am | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, we would like to talk about the consequences of these cuts, because the Conservatives refuse to so.
It was not enough for the Conservatives to eliminate the environmental assessment process; now they are attacking our national parks. Over 1,600 Parks Canada jobs are being cut. This will translate into shorter seasons and restricted access to parks and historic sites.
As an indirect result of these cuts, the regional tourism industry will lose a lot of money.
Why are the Conservatives attacking Canada's most beautiful natural sites?
April
- MPndpApr 24, 2012 11:45 am | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, yesterday when asked why the government sent meddling overseers to the International Polar Year Conference, the minister said that muzzling scientists was “established practice”, but scientists disagree. A senior Environment Canada expert called the new media guidelines unethical and enormously embarrassing to our country on the world stage.
Will the minister explain how interfering in media access to our scientists fits in with the government's so-called open government approach?
- MPndpApr 23, 2012 12:15 pm | Nova Scotia, Halifax
With regard to the government-organized pan-European oil sands advocacy retreat held in London, England, in February 2011: (a) what was the total cost of this event; (b) what was the total spending on (i) hospitality, (ii) accommodations, (iii) travel, including both air and ground transportation, (iv) gifts, (v) meals, (vi) presentation materials; and (c) which officials from departments within the government attended this event, and what was their mandate?
- MPndpApr 23, 2012 11:25 am | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the Minister of Natural Resources has passed along his speaking notes to the Minister of the Environment.
This week the world is gathering in Montreal for the International Polar Year 2012 Conference. In addition to top scientists from around the world, this year also features government babysitters assigned to follow Environment Canada scientists and record their conversations. Is this 1984 or 2012?
Why is the minister putting a gag order on Canadian scientists?
- MPndpApr 23, 2012 11:20 am | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are doing away with environmental assessment processes by making cuts to various departments and agencies. Fisheries and Oceans Canada is no longer involved in the protection of the marine environment, and communities that depend on the fishery must rely on the advice of ministers—this government's ministers—rather than scientists. And that does not even include the elimination of the oil-spill response centre.
Why does the minister want to do away with the scientific dimension of environmental protection?
- MPndpApr 04, 2012 3:55 pm | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the bill today, especially on the heels of my colleague, the member for Sudbury, who has done amazing work on consumer protection issues for Canadians. In fact, I would call him a true consumer advocate. Therefore, it is great to speak after his speech on the consumer protection issues involved in the bill.
I have learned a lot from the bill. I did not know that cosmetic contact lenses were not a class II medical device. In fact, I did not know what a class II medical device meant, despite the fact that I have worn coloured contacts. I am wearing contacts right now, although this is my natural eye colour. I did not know any of this because I was able to purchase my coloured contacts many years ago from my optometrist. That is not the situation that we have with this bill.
Because I needed corrective lenses, I had to see an optometrist. I have to meet with him regularly and get regular checkups. I was instructed on how to properly handle my contact lenses, how to insert them and how to clean them properly. In fact, he always advises me when there is a new type of contact lens that comes out, which allows more oxygen into my eye. It is not something I know anything about. I trust his expert advice, when he says there is a new contact that is be better for my eyes because it does allow more oxygen in. I learned all of this because they are corrective lenses. When I was in high school, I had a slight green tint to my contacts, but they were still corrective lenses, so I still received the proper training and proper monitoring.
Last year I had a regular checkup with my optometrist. When he took a picture of my eye, there was a dark spot on it. He said that it could have been a freckle or it could have been something quite serious, but that he would not know until time had passed to see if the size of it had changed. Immediately, I was so terrified that I did not want to go back to see him. I know that is not logical, but sometimes we are not logical. Sometimes we just react with our gut emotions. I did not want to know if this was something dangerous. It made no sense, but it was how I felt.
However, because I had to see him to get my prescription renewed to order new contacts, I was forced into the position where he had to do another checkup. That is a really positive thing.
Some people complain that we might be regulated to death. In the situation like this, we are trying to protect Canadians to ensure they are healthy and safe.
If someone like me, an informed and educated consumer, a consumer who is familiar with the product, is too scared to go back to get a photo taken of the back of my eye to see if there was something wrong, too scared that I wanted to avoid knowing the truth about the health of my eye, imagine, for example, young people, large consumers of non-corrective or cosmetic contact lenses, not knowing how to handle them properly or not knowing the risks involved, and there are incredible risks. They think it is just for Halloween so they will get fun lenses so they can look like a cat, or a vampire or whatever. It seems pretty harmless. People wear contacts all the time. However, they can have pretty serious eye injuries. They can have an allergic reaction. There could be a bacterial infection. They could have inflammation or swelling of the cornea, scratches on the cornea, even loss of sight. However, the one thing with the Halloween contacts is some of these reactions can happen in as little as 24 hours.
We think it is just this silly little costume thing, but this is very serious. It is eye health. We only have one shot at this. Imagine having some of those kinds of impacts happen in as little as 24 hours. Some of these things are very difficult to treat and sometimes they are permanent.
I watched a CBC piece about a woman who went to Panama to get permanent contact lenses. There is an operation where a hard disc is inserted in the eye to permanently change the colour.
This woman is now legally blind. She can only see shapes and colours. She has had to have numerous surgeries, one surgery to take these disks out and then numerous cornea surgeries. It was heartbreaking to see. This was a young beautiful woman. This is how desperate people are sometimes to alter themselves cosmetically, that they go to such lengths. This surgery cannot be done in Canada, thank goodness. However, people actually spend their savings to go down to Panama so they can have blue eyes. It is hard to imagine, but that is the reality.
If that is the reality, we need to be doing everything we can to make sure Canadians are safe. When it comes to corrective contact lenses, absolutely they should be a class II medical device. It only makes sense.
My colleague from Sudbury used the term “low cost, high reward change”. This is not going to cost us anything. It is something that has been demanded. It has been asked for. Health professionals have been warning Canadians for the last 10 years about these risks. They have been urging the government to actually come forward and make these changes.
One of the first responsibilities of government should be to protect the health and safety of Canadians from potentially dangerous products. That is a no-brainer. It does not matter if people believe in big government or small government. This is fundamentally about what government should be there for. It is there to help us, to protect us, to make sure we are safe.
One thing about the bill that I think we have heard some folks chat about is that this bill is only the first step because, by and large, contact lenses are regulated provincially. It is a good first step. It is a necessary first step. However, what we are going to have to see is the federal government taking on more of a leadership role and working with the provinces to make sure there is an effective regulatory regime established for cosmetic contact lenses.
On that point, I would note the leadership shown by the member for Sarnia—Lambton in bringing forward this bill. I commend her for what she has done. Effectively what she has done is stepped up to the plate where her minister has failed to. We have been hearing about this for years. In 2000, Health Canada issued a warning. Health Canada issued a warning about cosmetic lenses and recommends that people only use them under the supervision of an eye care professional. Where is the Minister of Health on this? She is utterly absent in all the mandates where she has been serving, utterly absent on stepping in to play a leadership role in protecting the health of Canadians.
I just wanted to add those who have actually been championing this in civil society, to say that this is the kind of leadership we need from our government: the Canadian Association of Optometrists, a huge champion of this; the Canadian Ophthalmological Society; and the Opticians Association of Canada. They have all been publicizing the risks that are associated with cosmetic contact lenses, and they have all been asking Health Canada to regulate them under the Food and Drugs Act.
They recognize the jurisdictional issues here, too. By and large, it is the provinces that would be regulating contact lenses. They are saying both federal and provincial regulations are needed to treat cosmetic contact lenses the same as corrective lenses.
Going back to the evidence, I talked about some of the groups that are actually bringing forward this idea and being champions. There really is an abundance of evidence and research—
- MPndpApr 02, 2012 1:40 pm | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am looking for clarification from the Chair on the process of this debate. I am not a rookie any more, but there is still a lot to learn about parliamentary procedure no matter how long one has been in the House.
I have been very engaged in listening to the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, who, I might add, has been in the this House serving the people of B.C. for about eight years now. I know that the debate is on topic and on point to the budget. I think he has done a very good job laying out an intelligent and reasoned argument about why the Conservative budget is leaving Canadians behind. I understand how the budget debate works in the sense that he is talking about what is in the budget and as there is a lot in the budget, there is a lot to talk about.
However, my point of order relates to the time limit on debate. I have been listening for quite some time and I notice that my friend from Burnaby—New Westminster appears to have gone beyond the time limits that I am used to seeing in a debate like this.
This is not a criticism of the member's speech, but I wonder what that means in terms of how long a speech can actually be. I am interested in what the member has to say, but I am worried about him actually losing time and being cut off before he is done.
- MPndpApr 02, 2012 12:10 pm | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago I rose and made a statement about the Q104 Halifax contest, the “Male is in the Czech”. This petition is actually about the “Male is in the Czech, win a mail order bride from the Mighty Q” contest.
The petitioners point out that sexism is everywhere in our media. While we are often trying to combat sexism, homophobia and racism, there are few measures for people to try to combat this in advertising, television and radio. Therefore, the petitioners are asking the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council to bring forward stronger enforcement of its standards, in particular clause 3 about sex role stereotyping. This would help to make sure that contests like the “Male is in the Czech” would not be brought forward and that we could actually combat these kinds of prevailing sexist attitudes against women in today's media.
The petitioners and I look forward to a response from the minister.
- MPndpApr 02, 2012 11:45 am | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives will stop at nothing to give their big oil lobbyist friends what they want.
The northern gateway pipeline hearings are already under way, and thousands of Canadians are engaging with the democratic process by registering. They want to testify about how this project is going to impact their communities. However, the Conservatives are pulling the old bait and switch. They are cutting the review short. The minister is turning the northern gateway review into a sham.
Why does he not just come clean and tell us the exact date he plans to rubber-stamp this approval?
March
- MPndpMar 29, 2012 9:35 am | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's history lesson. There is a lot to be learned from it such as what can go right or wrong and what we should reconsider for the future.
I would like to hear her comments about what we can learn from these NAFTA-style agreements, which were intended to be between two nations of relatively equal bargaining power, countries from “industrialized” nations that would work together on these trade deals. However, this is a trade deal where we put Panama, a developing nation, in place and it sets up a relationship of exploitation. These trade deals should not be about that.
Does she have comments about that?
- MPndpMar 28, 2012 11:50 am | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Talking about messing it up badly, Mr. Speaker, you should see their record on the environment, and it just gets worse.
The Conservatives want to use this budget to help their oil industry friends by gutting environmental protections, such as by clawing back first nations consultations, shutting Canadians out of environmental reviews and rubber stamping major projects without any consideration of the impacts.
The Conservatives are trying to bury their anti-environmental agenda deep in the budget where no one will see it.
Canadians want accountability and they want debate. Will the minister agree to propose these changes in a stand-alone bill?
- MPndpMar 26, 2012 11:50 am | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, by this point Canadians are catching on to a pattern with the Conservatives. When the Conservatives get caught doing something wrong, they blame someone else.
The latest attempt in this sorry saga is the Minister of the Environment's attempt to cover up his muzzling of scientists by blaming the media. The problem, he says, is a few grumpy journalists. It is another Conservative attack on democracy, this time by denigrating the fourth estate.
Will the minister retract this absurd accusation and admit that his heavy-handed communications protocols are keeping good science out of the hands of Canadians?
- MPndpMar 14, 2012 12:00 pm | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, here is the Conservative plan to study environmental assessments: One, ignore important evidence; two, fail to consult key stakeholders; and three, write a phony report full of holes that serves no one but the Conservatives.
That is not good enough. We are talking about important safeguards here to protect our health, communities and environment. Conservatives are turning environmental assessments into a farce.
Will the Conservatives put off any changes to the Environmental Assessment Act until a credible review can be done?
- MPndpMar 14, 2012 11:55 am | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have transformed a crucial report from the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development into Conservative talking points. The report contains no proof and does not take the points of view of key stakeholders into account. Since no one can support their plan to phase out environmental assessments, they wrote a phony report that supports their case.
When will they stop producing reports based on their fantasy world?
- MPndpMar 13, 2012 10:50 am | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the member for Edmonton—Strathcona when she talks about environmental safety issues. When I came in I missed the beginning of a section of a report that she was reading. My apologies to her if it was from the environment commissioner's report, but it sounded a lot like the 2011 report by the environment commissioner.
One of his recommendations dealt with the fact that Transport Canada does not conduct an adequate timely review when approving emergency response assistance plans, particularly when transporting dangerous goods. He talked about these plans. There can be an interim plan, and all that is required for the interim plan is a working telephone number. That is it, and some of these interim plans have been in place for a decade. Therefore, I would like to hear from the member what she thinks about this kind of emergency response.
- MPndpMar 08, 2012 11:40 am | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, in 2008, when he was president of the Montreal Alouettes, Larry Smith partnered with the David Suzuki Foundation to make the Alouettes a carbon-neutral, environmentally friendly team. Mr. Smith was a strong supporter of the foundation back then. Just yesterday, failed Conservative candidate and Senator Larry Smith lectured the David Suzuki Foundation on its policies. It is funny that he has changed his mind now that he is a member of the Conservative caucus.
My question is for the environment minister. Is there a concerted effort by the Conservative government to go after the Suzuki Foundation and other environmental organizations?
- MPndpMar 07, 2012 11:15 am | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, happy one hundred and second International Women's Day. Who would have thought a hundred years ago that in 2012 women would be able to run for election, have successful careers and be given away as prizes in morning radio contests.
That is right. This is the environment we are asking women and girls of Halifax to live in, one where they are offered up as trophies, that is, their Czech Republic counterparts, anyway.
A radio station in my riding is running the charmingly named “The male is in the Czech” competition, promoting a mail order bride as a prize and using damaging ideas about foreign women's sexuality to titillate Canadian listeners.
As a woman, I am furious. As a Canadian, I want to apologize to all Czech women and to the 50,000 women of Czech descent living in Canada, incredible women like Chaviva Hosek, Hana Gartner, and Halifax's own Lucy Decoutere.
If the bride gets here, Lucy and I would be happy to show her around and we will make sure that she knows something else that Canadian women have won in the last 100 years: the right to a divorce.
- MPndpMar 05, 2012 11:55 am | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, a senior Environment Canada official has suddenly become the head of a new pro-oil sands industry group, and the Conservatives would have us believe that this is perfectly fine. Again.
The Conservatives are creating a revolving door between government and industry.
Can the Minister of the Environment explain the meaning of the term, “conflict of interest”?
February
- MPndpFeb 27, 2012 3:15 pm | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, I want to share something with my colleague from Just Us!. In its mandate it says:
Most importantly as small-producers organize, they gain collective power and a collective voice. In many areas they have traditionally been exploited by colonialism, oppressive regimes and large corporate commodity traders. Cooperative organization increasingly allows farmers to control their economic and social activities and to make the decisions and investments that impact their own communities. We see their choice to farm...in the Fair Trade market, as a statement to work towards a healthier existence....
Would that not be nice?
- MPndpFeb 27, 2012 3:10 pm | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, I am getting some very technical questions today. There is nothing wrong with that. I welcome them. That is great. I like being on my feet.
My colleague raised the EU issue. All nations were called upon to reach an agreement together and to develop some sort of consensus around how to move forward with the EU. In stark contrast here, this trade deal was negotiated in record time. There was no consultation with trade unions, with environmental groups, with civil society organizations, nor with citizens.
That is not what we should expect, a fast, quick trade deal where people are not consulted. However, we do see time and time again here in Canada that is exactly what the Conservatives are doing on pretty much every subject, especially when we consider things like the pipeline with the minister saying there are too many people who want to testify. I guess it is in keeping with the Conservatives' general theme.
- MPndpFeb 27, 2012 2:50 pm | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak to Bill C-24 on Canada-Panama trade.
However, earlier today I was up on my feet talking about Bill C-7 on Senate reform. I know we have moved on, but during the debate on Bill C-7 I pointed out that I was hard pressed to name the senators from Nova Scotia and noted that they were politically absent from the scene in Nova Scotia. I received an email from a constituent who was at home watching. He wrote:
Excellent points. Here's a note: since 2008 I have been periodically emailing Nova Scotia Senators...in relation to various political, environmental, or other issues. If memory serves me correctly, in those four years I've never received a response from any of them. I've never met any of them. You're right: they're absent from the Nova Scotia political landscape.
I know it is off topic, but it is the same day and I am hoping for a little latitude on this.
Getting back to Bill C-24, I would love to give a little shout out to Meghan Lawson who is working in my office through the parliamentary internship program. She has helped me greatly in doing research on the bill and for this speech.
I am pleased to rise today to speak to this piece of legislation. As with many other pieces of Conservative legislation, the title of the bill tries to paint a pretty rosy picture of a quite troubling proposal. The bill's long name is an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the agreement on the environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the agreement on labour cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, otherwise known as the Canada–Panama economic growth and prosperity act and the protecting Panamanians from childhood predators act. That last part may not be part of the title, but the point is that we have a short title painting a rosy picture of something that just does not exist.
It is a very worrying piece of legislation. I think it jeopardizes Canadian growth and overlooks distressing concerns when it comes to Panama's record on environmental issues and workers' rights. We will hear this as a theme in many NDP speeches, because those are two things that we hold dear to our heart: the planet and the rights of people who are working. It is about the rights of the environment and the rights of people.
We think that Canada's trade policy should be based on the principles of fair, sustainable and equitable trade. Canada should build trading partnerships with other countries that support the principles of social justice and human rights while also expanding our business and economic opportunities.
If we just pursue these NAFTA-style deals, we are adopting legislation with a one-size-fits-all mentality. They overlook the fact that some of these countries we are negotiating with are not on the same footing, which is the situation here: Canada and Panama are not on the same footing.
We are taking the NAFTA template designed to function between large industrialized nations and are applying it to Panama, a global south community or a “developing nation”. Instead of helping Panama to grow in a sustainable way, this trade deal is really just about benefiting big multinational corporations. It would actually promote further inequity and inequality within Panama. Instead of these shortsighted bilateral deals, we need multinational trade deals that are going to benefit all trading partners both now and in the future.
As I pointed out, bilateral trade deals usually favour the dominant players. They facilitate a degree of predatory access by large corporations to less powerful domestic economies, in this case Panama, not us. If this legislation passes, we risk failing not only countless Canadian workers but also countless workers and families in Panama. They will be subject to increased inequality, and possibly a decreased quality of life.
According to the UN, a third of Panama's population lives in poverty.
Some of my colleagues discussed testimony that was submitted to committee by witnesses. Teresa Healy, a senior researcher at the Canadian Labour Congress, appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade this past December and gave some interesting testimony. She stated:
[Panama]...is currently recording relatively high growth rates, but it is the second most unequal society in the region: 40% of the population is poor and 27% is extremely poor, and the rate of extreme poverty is particularly acute in indigenous populations. Although the country has endured extensive structural adjustment, liberalization, and privatization in recent years, this has not translated into economic benefits for the population.
We need trade deals that promote sustainable growth for all partners, not ones that put big business before people. Remember that tag line, “big business before people”, because I will shortly talk about a company in Nova Scotia that specifically talks about people and the planet before profits.
The glaring shortfalls of this trade deal do not actually stop there. Although Panama refuses to sign a tax information exchange agreement, the Conservative government is still going ahead with this deal. This is really troubling considering the large amount of money laundering that takes place in Panama, including money from drug trafficking, as we know. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Panama is a major financial conduit for Mexican and Colombian drug traffickers' money laundering activities. Both local and international corruption watchdogs also rank Panama really low in terms of its transparency.
Panama's complete lack of taxation transparency has even led the OECD to label the nation a tax haven. As another parentheses about tax havens, we have recently seen the U.S. trying to crack down on tax havens. It loses about $100 billion a year to offshore tax evasion and avoidance. Canada loses about a tenth of that or $10 billion a year. The U.S. is trying to crack down on these tax havens by making sure that people are tax compliant and introducing new legislation like FATCA, for example. The problem is that they are actually scooping up the wrong people. They are not going after the folks who are tax avoiders or are ferreting off this money and trying to hide it, but are hitting ordinary citizens, like ordinary Canadians.
In my riding of Halifax, there are many people who have immigrated to Canada from the U.S. and are dual citizens, as well as people who are American by accident, whose parents were American citizens and whose offspring are therefore considered American citizens for tax purposes. They did not know they had to file taxes over all these years and are now finding out that they may face tens of thousands of dollars' worth of fines. The phone was ringing off the hook in my constituency office from these folks calling and saying that they were scared, too scared to find out what their rights were and too scared to find out if they are considered U.S. citizens and do not know what to do.
As a result, we held an information session on rights and filing obligations, how the amnesty works, and those kinds of things. Myta Blacklaws in my Halifax office organized this information session. We booked a room for 60 people but when we managed to fit 125 people into that room, we started putting people into a second room. It was unbelievable. It was standing rooms only, as it were. This information session was led by a woman named Blair Hodgman, an immigration lawyer, and some tax accountants were also present.
It is really stressing people. People are scared and under a lot of pressure. Yet the NDP has been asking the Conservative government to take action to start discussions with the U.S. about what is going on, why regular folks are being penalized and that this is not what we are going after with the tax haven legislation, that this is not the intended effect and that we should be reasonable.
We have not seen action from the government on this issue. I know it is the opposite situation that we have in Panama with tax havens, but the track record on tax havens by the government has been pretty appalling, so I cannot imagine that it is going to try to enact anything when it comes to Panama as well.
Anyone who has been in the House for any period of time knows my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster and his passion for international trade and for fair trade. He has spoken to this many times in the House. He has done a lot of dedicated work on many pieces of international trade legislation and free trade deals, including this one. He actually proposed that the Canada--Panama trade agreement not be implemented until Panama agreed to sign a tax information exchange agreement. That sounds reasonable. We can do that. We can say that Panama only gets this if it does something. We can offer up a good faith piece that we can work with.
My colleague brought this up I think at committee. His motion was defeated by the Conservatives and the Liberals who argued that the double taxation agreement that Panama agreed to was satisfactory. The problem with the double taxation agreement is it only tracks legal income. We heard that Panama has some pretty big issues when it comes to non-legal or illegal income. What my colleague proposed would actually track all income, including income made through illegal means. As the OECD has noted, having a trade agreement without first tackling Panama's financial secrecy practices could incentivize even more tax dodging. We could be making things worse by having this agreement in place. Why would we not try to avoid making it worse, but also mitigate the problem in the first place? I think he came up with a really good solution. Considering Panama's history and reputation on these matters, it is pretty clear why this kind of agreement is absolutely necessary before signing a trade deal.
This deal also fails to take real action on addressing Panama's record on the environment and workers' rights.
First, let us look at the environment. I am the environment critic. While this deal includes an agreement on the environment, as we saw with the free trade agreement with Colombia which has a separate agreement on the environment, it actually provides no enhanced environmental protection or resources for affected communities. Given Panama's lax environmental regulations especially when it comes to mining, this oversight is extremely worrying. Let me illustrate.
One current proposal from the Canadian mining corporation, Inmet Mining, includes plans for an open pit copper project west of Panama City. This plan would see 5,900 hectares of mostly primary rainforest deforested. According to media reports, the controversial presence of another Canadian mining corporation, Corriente Resources, on indigenous lands has spurred protests from civil society groups and indigenous nations in Panama. Earlier this month reports surfaced of protesters being killed in violent clashes with police.
We know full well the devastating impact of deforestation, especially in that area of the world. Instead of taking real action to address the current and impending threats to Panama's precious natural resources, the Canada--Panama trade agreement risks encouraging a race to the bottom on environmental protection.
Why is the government so willing to ignore huge threats to Panama's environment? All trade agreements, including this one, should respect sustainable development and the integrity of all ecosystems. That is another carrot and stick idea. We could say we are not going to enter into this agreement until we see action, but we are not seeing any action on that.
Lack of concern for labour rights in this trade agreement is also deeply troubling. As Teresa Healy pointed out in her testimony before the Standing Committee on International Trade, this agreement is weaker than previous agreements when it comes to workers' rights.
This agreement does not include specific protection for the right to organize and the right to strike. It provides instead for the “effective” recognition of the right to collective bargaining. The Conservatives appear to assume that the free flow of trade and investment automatically leads to better wages and working conditions, but we know that is not the case, whether it is in Panama, Canada, or wherever.
The fact of the matter is that the agreement fails to ensure that labour rights are not denied to Panamanian workers as they have been in the past. In effect, this agreement creates a free trade zone that belittles the rights of labour. This is a serious problem that already is prevalent in Panama.
I have heard some comments from the other side that the NDP is at it again, that we are against trade. That is not the case. The reality is that fair trade should be the overarching principle, not just an afterthought, of any trade negotiation. It is possible. We see these winning examples in our local communities.
For example, in Nova Scotia there is a company called Just Us!, which in 1997 became the first certified fair trade licensed coffee roaster in North America. It is actually in the riding of Kings—Hants but it does have a coffee shop in my riding. It was the first in 1997 which was not too long ago. Now there are 250 licensed fair trade companies just in Canada. They are in communities all over Canada. They recognize the need for sustainable development, the need for relationships with communities in the global south, and the need for fair trade.
The motto of Just Us! is “People and Planet Before Profits”, but mark my words, it is a profitable company. It is doing very well. It has expanded. It has a museum of fair trade in its coffee shop in Wolfville. It has two coffee shops in Halifax. The company keeps getting bigger and bigger. It is all based on the principle of fair trade. This is an idea that came from our local communities and it is working.
I also note that behind the chamber's curtains there is a little area where we can have a cup of coffee or a glass of water. I note that the coffee there is fair trade. It is good enough for parliamentarians, but somehow it is not good enough for Canada, not good enough for Canadians, not good enough for our trade agreements. I do not understand how that works.
Canadians need an agreement that supports our sovereignty and the freedom to chart our own policy, an agreement that supports our ability to be a competitive force on the world stage. We need an agreement that upholds the principles of a multilateral fair trade system, but instead we have an agreement that shows complete disregard for corruption and money laundering practices that are rampant in Panama, not to mention the country's glaring environmental and labour rights records.
We need an agreement that puts people before big business.
- MPndpFeb 27, 2012 12:45 pm | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, I have quite a large petition to present to this House concerning health care in Canada.
The petitioners have an interesting point. They say that the federal government should preserve and enforce the Canada Health Act and should be supporting and maintaining the five principles of medicare. The petitioners' call upon Parliament to enshrine the Canada Health Act and the five principles of medicare in the Canadian Constitution to guarantee national standards of quality, publicly funded health care for every Canadian citizen as a right.
I enter this petition and I look forward to the minister's response.
- MPndpFeb 27, 2012 10:15 am | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his comments.
As always, I am in complete agreement with my colleague and I would like to thank him for the idea.
- MPndpFeb 27, 2012 10:10 am | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Madam Speaker, Senator Oliver is an interesting fellow. He is one of the few senators who I actually see trying to engage with the community. I get a newsletter from him. I do not agree with his position on policies, but he is someone who tries to engage with community. He is out there doing what he can as a senator and I admire him for that.
However, that does not change my position on the Senate, especially when I am hard pressed to name the senators from Nova Scotia. I am a member of Parliament for the province of Nova Scotia and I do not know their names because they are non-existent in our province. They are not out meeting with people and talking about issues. I do not know what they do and I am here in this place. It is incredible to me.
There are some exceptions to the rule. I think Senator Jim Cowan and Senator Jane Cordy are working hard, but beyond that, it comes down to the fact that the Senate is not working. It does not matter to me that these are nice people who I happen to like, it does not work.
- MPndpFeb 27, 2012 10:00 am | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to add my voice to the debate on Senate reform. As has been made clear in the House, the position of the NDP is to abolish the Senate. I am comfortable with that position, I support it and I advocate for it.
However, at the same time, I am all right talking about other ideas. I love hearing from my constituents about this issue. We have different perspectives on the issue, but, unlike the Conservatives, I am not afraid of different perspectives. I am not afraid of people sharing their ideas with me even if we might not agree at the end of the day on how to solve the problem.
People often talk to me about this, whether at events where they pull me off to the side and say that they have thought about Senate reform and want to talk about it. People write me letters. People stop me on the street. This is something people think about in their day-to-day lives and they try to figure out a solution. They are trying to work through what can be done.
Why are all these constituents preoccupied with Senate reform? Parliamentary procedure is not exactly something that people think about while having dinner. However, they care about this because they see our system is not working. They see that the Senate is not serving the purpose it was intended to serve. Therefore, people do legitimately talk to me about their ideas and I listen to them.
Before I came into the chamber today, I looked through some letters I received about Senate reform. I want to share a couple of them with the House. Again, they are proposing a solution that is not my solution, but it is encouraging to hear from people and know they are so engaged on this issue. I want to share just a couple of letters with you.
One letter is from Andre MacNeil, who is from Halifax. He wrote to me last year on International Women's Day. I will not even paraphrase. He said:
Hello Megan,
while listening to a news item on women's representation in the Senate (or its equivalent) in India (on the radio) this evening, I thought that we, in Canada, should consider something similar.
On the occasion of International Women's Day, I suggest that all Senate appointments be gender balanced, commencing today. From this point forward, every other appointment to the Senate should be a woman. To someone like myself—outside of politics—this seems like a reasonable possibility, since all Senate positions are appointed. As well, it should provide a much broader—and improved—representation for Canadians than the current approach.
Is this concept too “simplistic” ... or is this a viable alternative for public representation?
Thank you for your time and tireless efforts.
Andre and I have a different solution, but the point is he worries about the fact that the Senate is not working the way it should and he is trying to come up with a solution.
Mark Hoffberg wrote to me and summarized a proposal that he had. He said:
My proposal....changes the Senate from a regional representation body to one that represents the actual popular vote in the country, composed of a 100 seat chamber (with room for a rounding bump of a seat if needed). I would also allocate 5 additional seats for what the census would call Aboriginal Canadians (First Nations, Métis, Inuit).
The 5 Aboriginal seats I feel are important because of the nature of representation of Aboriginal people in the country. Making up 5% of the population but operating on wholly different governing systems, there's a lack of a voice in the direction of the country as a whole. The members would not be members of an existing party list but would be determined by other means and certainly not limited to those on or off reserves.
After a Federal Election, the number of Senate seats for each party would be determined based on the popular vote. The parties would then select members to represent them in the Senate. The parties would have a list of potential candidates available within 10 days of the writ of election being dropped....
I know the Senate is a topic of conversation so I wished to add my thoughts on it, thoughts I think would work well for all the parties in the House of Commons.
Have a good day.
He is right that the Senate is a topic of conversation.
These are two examples of Canadians writing to their MP saying that the system is broken and suggesting some ideas on how to fix it. I welcome those kinds of letters and I welcome a discussion on Senate reform.
I have a proposal. Why do we not abolish it? The reason we need to abolish the Senate is because it is “a relic of the 19th century”. Who said that? It was the right hon. Prime Minister.
The 2006 Conservative platform said that the Conservatives and the Prime Minister believed that the current Senate must either be reformed or abolished, that an unelected Senate should not be able to block the will of an elected House in the 21st century.
We can talk about these ideas on how to reform, but it is not serving us. We should abolish the Senate. At the very least, we should do what I have just done in the House, and that is welcome opinions, talk about ideas, hear from people who may even think something different than we think and put it to the test. Let us have a referendum. Why are we afraid of the Canadian people? Why are we afraid of hearing from them and getting a clear message from them, 50% plus one? Why would we not welcome that kind of participatory democracy? It is brilliant. Once we have done that, let them have a say and then follow the will of the people. Never mind party or regional posturing.
On the regional issue, I am from Nova Scotia, and the Senate is a big issue back home. People tell me that the Senate is about regional representation, that if we lose the Senate, then Nova Scotia will lose out and that this is an opportunity for Nova Scotia to have more of a say in parliamentary affairs.
When I first heard that argument, I thought it was a good point, but let us apply that to what happens in the House and the other chamber. When have we ever seen a senator stand up for Nova Scotia? When have we ever seen a senator stand up for Atlantic Canada? How are senators representing my interests as a maritimer and Atlantic Canadian? They are not because they cannot put their party allegiance aside. They are doing what the centre is telling them to do and they are not standing up for Nova Scotia.
Because I am here during the parliamentary calendar, I work and meet with constituents during the summer. Summertime is a great time to be with people in the community, whether it is at festivals or meetings. I met a senator in the airport on my way back to Ottawa and asked him how his summer was. He said that he was not busy and was so glad to go back to Ottawa. He said that he had been bored stiff. I tried to swallow the bile, because we work during the summer. We meet with our constituents and have outreach events. This man told me he was bored all summer. Well, cry me a river. Seriously, what the heck are senators doing?
I want to talk about the climate change accountability act, which was introduced in 2006 by Jack Layton. Parliament dissolved for the 2008 election so it did not get to the Senate. However, my colleague from Thunder Bay—Superior North brought it back and it passed on May 5, 2010, by a vote of 149 to 136. It went to the Senate and the Senate killed it on November 16, 2010. So much for sober second thought. Senators are activists. This is not what they are supposed to do.
I will never forget that day because I was with Jack Layton and I had never seen him that angry. He was so angry at how undemocratic this was. At a press conference, he said that this was one of the most undemocratic acts we had ever seen in the Parliament of Canada. To take power that does not rightfully belong to senators, to kill a bill that has been adopted by a majority of Canadians is as wrong as it gets when it comes to democracy in our country.
As my time has expired, it is appropriate to end on those words from my former leader, Jack Layton.
- MPndpFeb 16, 2012 11:45 am | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, they have no time for refugees but they have all the time in the world for oil executives.
Conservatives have attacked people who are concerned about jobs and the planet as environmental radicals and now they have placed environmentalists and aboriginals on a terrorist watch list. To Conservatives, a maple syrup boycott and a cardboard cut-out of Ontario's environment minister are now on the same threat level as al-Qaeda.
When will this minister stop using counter-terrorism as an excuse to silence Canadians?
- MPndpFeb 16, 2012 7:15 am | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am presenting is on the Canadian interfaith call for leadership and action on climate change.
The petitioners point out that global warming is a reality and that while all governments have committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Canadian levels have been increasing. They say that we cannot wait for others to act but must lead by example.
The petitioners call for a number of measures, such as implementing a binding international agreement, or committing to national carbon emission targets.
I am pleased to present this petition and look forward to the minister's response.
- MPndpFeb 15, 2012 11:50 am | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the seventh anniversary of the coming into force of the Kyoto protocol. One hundred and ninety-one countries signed and ratified the Kyoto protocol on climate change. Only one government has broken its word: this government. The Minister of the Environment exaggerated the penalties in order to justify withdrawing from the protocol, but he still has no plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
If he truly believes the science, when will the minister table a science-based plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
- MPndpFeb 14, 2012 11:40 am | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, the minister vilifies his critics, but he is willing to spend thousands of taxpayer dollars to sponsor a retreat for his oil industry friends.
The PMO has told the minister to believe in climate change, but clearly he does not believe it is actually a problem.
The Conservatives' inaction on climate change hurts Canada's reputation. That is the message from his own diplomats in Europe and from industry. These are his friends, not the so-called radicals the minister imagines are hiding under his bed at night.
Will he take the advice of his friends and clean up his act, yes or no?
- MPndpFeb 14, 2012 11:35 am | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, the only sector escaping the Conservatives' budget cuts is the oil industry and its lobbyists.
The Conservatives are cutting services for Canadians, but spending thousands of dollars for the oil companies to give Canadian diplomats lobbying training. In other words, the oil companies are getting paid to do the job for them.
Will the Conservatives offer the same advantages to renewable energy producers?
- MPndpFeb 14, 2012 11:05 am | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, more than 20 years ago the House pledged to eradicate poverty among Canadian children by 2000. We are now 12 years past our deadline and one in ten children still live in poverty in Canada. While we have doubled the size of our economy, the income of Canada's poorest families has stayed the same.
Tomorrow I will be tabling a motion, seconded by MPs across party lines, denouncing the shameful failure of the House to fulfill its pledge, due to a cruel and selfish lack of political will for which all members should apologize. There is clear evidence that poverty, particularly child poverty, increases the cost to our health, education and justice systems by a sum greater than the cost of eliminating it. We are all culpable.
Today many of our colleagues are taking part in a discussion about how to address poverty in Canada at an event hosted by the Dignity for All campaign. All members of the House should join in the conversation about how and why we should eliminate child poverty and all poverty as soon as possible.
- MPndpFeb 10, 2012 10:25 am | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, this is essential legislation if we are going to treat our Canadian Forces and RCMP personnel with dignity and respect. My friend and colleague, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, has worked tirelessly on this issue over the years, so I am extra pleased today to speak to it.
Whether it is embarking on search and rescue missions, carrying out dangerous arrests on our streets or working alongside our international partners in peace building overseas, Canadian men and women in uniform make a tremendous sacrifice for our country every day. They often face dangerous conditions and extended family separations. Canadians and their families together make huge contributions, contributions that the rest of us can barely comprehend.
Sadly, the government is not prepared to make a similar contribution to the lives of men and women who serve our country. As it currently stands, as we have heard in the House, service pensions for retired Canadian Forces and RCMP personnel are significantly reduced at the age of 65 or when personnel begin to receive disability benefits. That is not just. Why would we reduce a veteran's pension at a time when he or she need it most? When veterans are grappling with permanent disabilities, visible, invisible or maybe with increased health risks because of old age, why would we not support them having a fair standard of living? Thousands of veteran Canadian Forces and RCMP personnel across this country want an answer, as do I.
In my riding of Halifax, the military is the largest employer. We have been a navy town since the beginning and we are proud of our military legacy, which began in the 18th century with the building of the dockyard. However, more than 300 years later, CFB Halifax is home to Canada's east coast naval base and the country's largest military base in terms of posted personnel, with more than 10,000 military and civilian employees. It is a major factor in the riding of Halifax.
Military personnel are actively engaged in my community. They enrich Halifax through their dedication to their work, their community and their volunteer work. They are involved in many different community partnerships, including the Military Family Resource Centre. However, like I said, too often many of the retired workers do not have an adequate standard of living. They do not enjoy the standard of living they deserve because of the current clawback to pensions.
The deduction that we are talking about was created nearly half a century ago and it is time for us to put this policy to an end. It hurts veterans, but, as I said, it also hurts their families. The Conservatives say that this is not a clawback. Maybe technically that is not the word that we should be using, but when money is missing from people's bank statements each month, that is a clawback and a clawback by any other name still stinks.
How does it work? I have an email from Leslie Sanders, who was impacted by this clawback. He did his deductions and talked about what he was getting before versus what he was getting now with this clawback and the difference was $130 a month. That is a lot of money for someone living on a pension. That is a couple of weeks of groceries. He told me that just because he had turned 65 did not mean that he needed less to live on than when I was 64. He wants an explanation of how this could happen. I think we would all appreciate that explanation.
It is not just service men and women. It is also their spouses that we need to think about. Due to the unique nature of life in uniform where families continuously move around this country and the world, CF and RCMP spouses often struggle to find and maintain employment. That makes it even more difficult for spouses to contribute to their own pension plans and support their families. We are seeing people left in the financial lurch yet again.
What is even more troubling is the unequal treatment of our troops. Currently, serving members of the Canadian Forces are able to draw their full salaries as well as disability pensions if they are injured, and rightly so, but discharged troops with a disability are not entitled to the same treatment. However, they have all made tremendous sacrifices so why would we not treat them the same?
Some of my colleagues across the way have expressed concerns about the financial implications of this legislation, but great credit should be given to my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore because he has outlined so many opportunities to keep the costs of implementing the bill at a minimum or revenue neutral.
We could try avenues like current payments to employment insurance, which CF and RCMP personnel pay into but cannot collect. We could use those contributions to offset these costs. Plus, members would likely receive less old age security and guaranteed income supplement payments.
This legislation is about more than the bottom line. I am almost reluctant to talk about those measures because it is really about providing a quality of life for Canadian Forces and RCMP personnel who go above and beyond for Canada every day. Supporting our troops is not just about wearing a yellow ribbon.
New Democrats are not alone in support of righting this wrong. More than 112,000 Canadians have signed a petition supporting this initiative, including many former colonels and generals. The Canadian Legion, the Army, Navy & Air Force Veterans in Canada Association and the national chairman of the Armed Forces Pensioners'/Annuitants' Association all back this proposal, as does Veterans ombudsman, Colonel Pat Stogran. He called it profoundly unfair.
In my home province of Nova Scotia. the clawback has become a concern for countless Nova Scotians. In 2006, our provincial government adopted a resolution urging:
...the Government of Canada to investigate this matter immediately and end the unfair policy of benefit reduction to our veterans of the military and the RCMP.
It is pretty profound when a provincial government would make a statement like that concerning a federal issue. I think we need to take that to heart.
Before I close, I would like to read part of a letter of support I received in response to Bill C-215 from a gentleman named Doug Grist, a retired RCMP officer. He is not from my riding but from the riding of South Shore—St. Margaret's, which is held currently by a Conservative MP. Mr. Grist said:
...there is more to recognizing all these brave men and women, who lay it all on the line both on foreign soil and here at home, than building monuments and holding an annual ceremony. These people provide us all with a secure, peaceful, enviable quality of life. They too deserve the same quality of life, not just while they serve but in their retirement.
I could not have put it more eloquently than Mr. Grist.
Throughout this debate I have been reminded of the old adage “no soldier left behind”. With the policy on service pensions in its current form, CF and RCMP personnel are being left behind. We need to ensure that this adage becomes a reality.
I urge members on all sides of the House to put down their partisan blinders, to go beyond our party affiliations and realize that this is the right thing to do. We need to stand up in the House and support the bill to ensure that none of them are left behind.
- MPndpFeb 10, 2012 8:25 am | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to hear about what industry is doing. I want to hear about what the government is doing, which is nothing. Let us try another question.
On December 6, the government authorized the Minister of Foreign Affairs to denounce the Kyoto protocol on behalf of Canada. The trouble is that the Minister of the Environment on that same day was in Durban supposedly negotiating an extension to Kyoto. This is bad faith negotiating at its best, or perhaps its worst, depending on how one looks at it.
How can the government expect Canada to have any credibility when it is cutting off international negotiations at the knees?
- MPndpFeb 10, 2012 8:00 am | Nova Scotia, Halifax
Mr. Speaker, the government is a one-trick pony when it comes to economic policy because, instead of presenting a comprehensive job creation plan, the Conservatives continue to sit idly by making faulty economic comparisons with other countries and claiming that tax cuts create jobs.
The reality is that corporate tax cuts do not increase productivity. We watch as executives take the cuts, award themselves bigger bonuses, shut down operations in Canada and move them elsewhere. Public sector cuts do not make any more economic sense. More than 60,000 jobs economy-wide are jeopardized by the public sector cuts made over the last few years.
New Democrats believe that any job creation worth its salt must include public sector investment, and the Governor of the Bank of Canada agrees, but the Conservatives are ignoring his advice because it inconveniently contradicts them.
It is clear that the economic policies of the anti-science, anti-worker, Conservative government are bad for Halifax, bad for Nova Scotia and bad for Canada, and we demand better.
1 2 3 4 5
follow
Flickr