House of Commons photoLost her last election, in 2015, with 26% of the vote.
National Philanthropy Day Act October 30th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I am not a stranger. I am an elected member of this House.
I was indeed inside the chamber and I said “no” loudly and clearly. The Speaker can confirm this. He saw me. I was physically present in the House. This could resolve the matter.
However, I repeat, I am not a stranger.
Government Spending October 29th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives promised that the cuts announced in their most recent budget would not affect service to Canadians.
We have learned that the next wave of layoffs will affect project development officers at Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, and that all of those positions in the Montreal north shore office will be affected.
Organizations that provide assistance to the community will no longer be supported, and Canadians will be the ones who lose out the most.
Why are the Conservatives attacking community organizations?
Science and Technology October 26th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, if members do not understand what happens when caps slow down Internet service, it is kind of like playing a 75 rpm record at 45 rpm.
The U.K., U.S. and Mexico have raised or eliminated caps. Meanwhile, Canada has the most restrictive caps in the world. It is an international embarrassment and bad for the economy.
Raising the caps would give Canadian businesses and consumers better access to services and markets like Netflix.
Will the Conservatives put away their old record and finally help Canadians jump into the digital age?
Science and Technology October 26th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, our country is desperately behind in terms of Internet access, and that is one reason why some experts are calling Canada the digital third world.
One of the main problems is that the bandwidth limits set by Internet service providers are so low that many new services like Netflix and cloud computing are simply not marketable in Canada.
What will the government do to offer Canadians better Internet access?
Jobs and Growth Act, 2012 October 26th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nickel Belt raises an excellent point. In fact, this omnibus bill probably has more pages than any other in 20 years. The member opposite who just asked me a question should understand that bills like this are unacceptable.
If the Conservatives are so proud of this budget and this omnibus bill, which is over 400 pages long, why can we not have some real debate? Why can we not make amendments that might improve this bill? Why not let the people of Canada and Quebec examine this legislation properly and listen to the advice of experts and academics from all across Canada? Because all they want is quick passage of these bills. There is too much to digest, even for the media. They have to pick the most important measure to discuss in the media. There is really too much to digest.
If they were so proud of their legislation, they would want to discuss it at length.
Jobs and Growth Act, 2012 October 26th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite knows we have voted for budgets in the past in minority situations. In his wisdom, he should know that.
Regarding the lack of time for the budget, yes, we received the lovely budget document and indeed we read it, except that the budget tabled in March contained so little detail. We might see a sentence saying they were making changes to environmental protection and expediting the project assessment process, but it is just one sentence.
Now, we have been landed with a document over 400 pages long. It is easy to understand that one sentence does not give us a lot of information.
The information is coming, certainly, with this bill, but it is in a 400-page brick. I think it is truly shameful to think this is acceptable.
Jobs and Growth Act, 2012 October 26th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie. He will speak for 10 minutes after I finish the eight minutes I have remaining from yesterday.
I started yesterday's speech by pointing out that this bill is completely undemocratic. We are debating more than 400 pages under a time allocation motion, so we will not have a chance to discuss the bill thoroughly. It is all well and good to say that we will have the chance to study the bill in committee, except we will not be able to make amendments. When I came to the House, I thought that we were supposed to debate ideas to find compromises that reflect the values, ideas and wishes of the Canadian public. But that is not the case and I am very disappointed.
The bill is called the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012. This title is a bit misleading, since the bill does not propose any concrete measures to create the 1.4 million jobs needed in this country. As we know, the budget actually led to the loss of 43,000 jobs. It is not creating jobs; it is causing them to be lost.
The government tells us that the $500 million in cuts to research and development can help stimulate innovation, except that we have not yet been told how it will bridge that gap. We do not know the new criteria for research and development, and those would be very useful to know. It would stimulate our economy and motivate people to innovate.
This week I attended a conference that addressed the importance of innovation, particularly in the technology and computer industry. If the government does not invest and does not compensate for the $500 million shortfall in research and development, I do not understand how it will ensure economic growth.
The bill includes a $1,000 tax credit that will help create jobs in small- and medium-sized businesses. This is a measure that we support. We have always supported these types of measures. However, I would have liked to see a longer-term commitment, since $1,000 is great now, but if an employer is considering hiring workers in one or two years, he would probably like to know that this tax credit will still be available.
What is really crucial when it comes to economic growth is ensuring that we invest in our environment. We must create a green economy and invest in it. With all of the restrictions and the changes made to our environmental protection laws, I have a hard time imaging how my generation will see any economic growth in 20 years. The protection of natural resources and natural resources themselves are an incredible source of wealth for this country.
Instead of creating jobs, Bill C-45 completely destroys the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Thousands of waterways will no longer be protected. The changes are huge. The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, which will examine this, will not even be able to propose amendments. It is truly shameful.
Furthermore, the bill removes the notion of “water protection” and replaces it with “navigation protection”. There is a huge difference between the two definitions. Once again, this will not be examined. The bill also reduces the number of environmental assessments indicated in the Environmental Protection Act.
However, the bill does have one good measure for the environment, but the amount allocated is very small. The bill includes a tax credit for certain kinds of green energy equipment and products. It is a good measure and I congratulate the government on this, but $3 million to $5 million is peanuts; it is not enough. This does not demonstrate any real desire on the government's part to invest in the green economy, which would help create jobs. Everyone knows this; studies have proven it. I think this is really a missed opportunity.
The bill also eliminates the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission and puts more powers in the hands of ministers. We saw the same thing with Bill C-38, which unfortunately also passed and was just as undemocratic as this one. That bill also eliminated several commissions and gave more powers to ministers.
What is the point of conducting studies and hearing from informed and educated people who are experts in their field, if the government does not want to listen to them? They betray their ignorance by saying that, because they are ministers, they know everything and there is no need for experts or their advice. Our country is vast and the population is growing. We have to take into consideration what the majority of people want, and this advice could help us do that.
The plight of our young workers is of particular concern to me because, before I was elected, I was a labour relations officer with a union that represents young workers. Last year, in a discussion group, I spoke to young workers who said that they were very worried about the fact that a two-tiered pension system is being proposed.
Young workers are going to enter the workforce, and their pension benefits will be less than those of people who entered the workforce before them. That creates two categories of employees: those who were there first and young workers. Young workers begin their careers saddled with huge debt they have accumulated to finance their post-secondary studies. They have a hard time finding work, because the youth unemployment rate is very high. Furthermore, once they enter the workforce, the public service pension plan will change. They will be told that they are entering too late unfortunately. This will create two classes of workers, which is not good for our young people.
And this is all happening without any real debate. I support some of the measures in the bill, but because everything is lumped together, I cannot support this completely undemocratic bill.
Every time that the government asks why I ask a question when I will be voting against a measure, I will answer that I am proud to oppose it because the NDP will always oppose undemocratic measures. We will always be proud to support transparency and accountability. We will always defend environmental protection, retirement security and health care.
Jobs and Growth Act, 2012 October 25th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed to rise in this House today to condemn yet another omnibus bill, the government's second mammoth bill. That is certainly a good descriptor for another completely undemocratic bill.
Last time, we stood in support of democracy for 22 hours in this House because we wanted to denounce this completely undemocratic behaviour. It is not surprising that we lost in the end, but I told myself that at least it would be the worst bill that the Conservatives would get passed during their term. But no, there is another one. There are more environmental laws to destroy and dismantle; the government wants to go even further. There are still protections for our navigable waters, after all. It will continue to charge forward with legislation that has nothing to do with the budget.
I would like to respond to the allegations that we did not read the budget. Yes, we read it, except it was so vague that one sentence could have been destroying or amending one act or 20 different acts. All in one sentence.
These are not budgetary measures, so they should be individually debated by the appropriate committees, not presented in a big document that is over 400 pages long.
How is the public supposed to digest all of this information? I see that my time has expired, but I will come back to this tomorrow.
Political Loans Accountability Act September 28th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit surprised to learn that the Liberal Party will vote against this bill. Do the Liberals not understand that it is necessary to clarify the rules in order to limit the power held by groups or third parties over funding for political parties?
Perhaps the Liberals do not understand how serious the situation is. An affluent group will be able to give because it has more money, while a rights advocacy group for instance will not be able to donate. There is therefore a chance that a candidate will do what he or she is asked to do by the lender.
Can my Liberal colleague explain a little more clearly why the Liberals have decided to vote against the bill, which seems hypothetically to be a very good thing for our democracy?
Political Loans Accountability Act September 28th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech and on the passion with which she speaks every day in this House.
On reading the bill, I found a flaw in terms of financial institutions. In my colleague's view, is it possible that financial institutions might prefer certain political parties rather than others?
Does my colleague agree that this question should receive further consideration?