House of Commons photoLost her last election, in 2015, with 26% of the vote.
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns June 13th, 2012
Regarding the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and digital television: (a) how many complaints has the CRTC received about the transition to digital television; and (b) how many people no longer have access to television since the transition to digital television, based on the CRTC’s estimates?
Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act June 12th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I certainly do know how to create jobs: by investing in the green economy.
Where is the government's plan for the green economy? Nowhere, because it does not exist. Economy and environment go together. There is no need to choose one or the other because they go hand in hand.
Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act June 12th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the impact of the cuts is clear.
In my riding office, before December, there were just two files involving constituents dealing with employment insurance problems. Now everyone who walks into my office comes for that reason. These people have nothing. They have absolutely nothing left and they have to wait for months and months, three or even four months in some cases. That is not even a remotely reasonable wait time.
Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act June 12th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her remarks.
When it comes right down to it, yes, we need this information, this knowledge and these data. How are we supposed to plan and make responsible decisions when we do not have any data or expertise in the field? If we want to plan for the future, if we want to have a prosperous economy in the future, we need such expertise and data.
Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act June 12th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to condemn the Conservatives' mammoth bill, which some have called a Trojan Horse.
When preparing my speech today, I did not know where to begin. That is exactly the problem. The government is giving Canadians a 425-page bill so that they get discouraged and decide not to read it because it is not worth the trouble. In short, this bill is too long.
That has been the government's goal all along. It wants Canadians and Quebeckers to get so discouraged about democracy that they stop participating. That is the message the government is sending, and I am very worried about it.
We have tried to split this bill so that Canadians have a chance to study each part individually. We tried to be reasonable with the government, but unfortunately, it rejected our request to split the bill. Despite all that, the government says that we are the ones delaying the process.
I am sorry, but 425 pages amending over 70 different acts deserve a lot more time for debate. The government is refusing to let the House study this bill the right way, and that is why we are trying to have this debate.
I want to point something else out as well. This government says that it is very important to pass this bill quickly, because it is a job creation plan. Excuse me, but there is no job creation plan in this budget.
The Conservatives are too concerned about giving gifts to their friends and making the most vulnerable suffer, including seniors by increasing the OAS eligibility age from 65 to 67.
The government is attacking seasonal workers who need employment insurance. Whether we like it or not, here in Canada we have seasons. We have winter. Agricultural workers cannot work in the winter. I do not know why this government does not understand the climate in which we live.
The government is far too concerned about these things to create any jobs. This bill includes amendments, such as that to old age security, which will not be in effect until 2023. Why can we not debate this bill a few hours longer, especially when we know that these changes will not come into effect until 2023?
I hope that we will be in power in 2023 and that these changes will not take place. Nonetheless, in the meantime we could debate the matter a little longer.
We know that this bill has no job creation plan and has more cuts than investments. That is a problem. We know what is not in this bill. However, I would like to talk about what is in this bill.
As the NDP critic for digital issues, I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to a change, found in two or three of the 425 pages of this bill, that will allow foreign telecommunications companies to do business in Canada for the first time. This is found within these 425 pages.
I am sure that the majority of Canadians are not even aware that such a change is on the books because it is hidden. The government is trying to push this bill through quickly in the hope that Canadians will forget about this change, but this change will have real repercussions on the viability of telecommunications companies in Canada. We have to weigh this change and its repercussions and take the necessary time to study it.
What is more, the voices of scientists and academics here in Canada will no longer be heard. They will be completely muzzled.
I participated in the budget consultations that were held across Canada. One scientist in particular told us that she was afraid of working in the environmental field. She said that she was afraid of losing her job because she speaks her mind and she speaks out for science. I am really shocked by these comments. Things are in a bad way when a scientist says that they are afraid to voice their opinion. I believe that is a problem. However, it seems that this government could not care less about scientists. The opinion of Conservative ministers is much more important.
The government will also be eliminating environmental assessments. It will muzzle the people who have a real interest in these matters and who are worried about having a pipeline in their riding or close to their homes and who are worried about environmental hazards. We have seen that environmentally significant sites may be destroyed as a result of what has happened in Alberta. There are people, such as scientists, who are right to have questions and who should be allowed to participate in public consultations. Unfortunately, they will no longer be able to do so. Once again, it does not appear to warrant debate.
As the digital issues critic, I would once again like to speak about cuts to the community access program. At the same time, huge cuts have been made to public services and the public sector. These are direct services to citizens. What are people told to do? They are told to check the Internet, where all the services they need are available. Except there is a problem in rural areas. There are small communities and some people may not have enough money to pay for Internet access at home. They used to go to the library to use the Internet services, but that program has been cut.
These people, who now have less access to social services because of cuts to the public sector, many not even have access to the Internet at the library. These cuts really are illogical and irresponsible and they have been made without any consultation.
I would also like to talk a bit about the fact that we have withdrawn from the Kyoto protocol, which has embarrassed us internationally. That is really something.
The Conservatives claim to be the advocates for job creation and of the economy. However, I would like to say that there is a company in Boisbriand, which is not in my riding but in the neighbouring riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, that lost a contract because Canada withdrew from the Kyoto protocol. The purchaser did not want to deal with a country that is not responsible and does not think about the environment; it did not want to have anything to do with a country like that. That is significant.
So, when the Conservatives say that the economy is the most important thing, they need to realize that the economy and the environment go together. How can we invest in long-term prosperity, as it says in the title of this budget, when we do not have an acceptable environment? We are leaving a huge ecological debt for future generations, and that is something of great concern to me. I hope that all the Conservatives are concerned about it too.
Since I do not have much time left, I would like to close with a quote from our former leader, Ed Broadbent, who said, “This federal budget should provoke a public debate about the kind of Canada we want.”
Not only do I not want that kind of Canada, but we did not even have the opportunity to have the debate.
BUSINESS OF SUPPLY June 5th, 2012
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my Conservative colleague the following question.
He talks about his initiative. I would like to congratulate him because putting all government data online is a good initiative. However, if there are no data because of all the cuts that the government is making in research and at Statistics Canada, what data are they going to be putting online?
BUSINESS OF SUPPLY June 5th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on her very thoughtful and well considered speech.
During our budget consultations, I met with residents of Vancouver and spoke to them about the budget, this Trojan Horse, since the Conservatives do not want to consult Canadians. One scientist told me that he did not want to reveal his views on the environment for fear that this government would arrange for him to lose his job.
Could the hon. member respond to that comment? What does this tell us about the academic community in general when a scientist is so afraid of talking about his information and his research? What message is being sent to the scientific community?
Petitions June 4th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from Canadians across the country, including from the riding of the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
They are calling on the Minister of Canadian Heritage to continue providing the $14 million in funding for Katimavik, since it is a program that helps communities across Canada and that has a positive impact on Canadian youth.
Business of Supply May 31st, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.
Workers who receive employment insurance are not lazy. I think it is truly a disgrace that the government has suggested that in this House and that it is accusing people who have unfortunately lost their jobs, or who have seasonal jobs, of being lazy.
Someone who does not want to take a particular job might have a very good reason. Perhaps the working conditions are inadequate. We cannot ask someone who works in the manufacturing sector with machines all day to go and pick strawberries. That would not be acceptable. That is not suitable employment for someone who works with heavy equipment. Everyone agrees on that.
Honestly, it is a disgrace that this government would say that people who receive employment insurance are lazy. It is truly a disgrace.
Business of Supply May 31st, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I talked about this in my speech. However, to answer the member's question, I would say that the following must be considered. If someone works in a seasonal sector and is forced to endure these Conservative measures, this will give some sectors and some jobs a negative image. Employers will have to worry about the fact that perhaps someone who has been trained, who is reliable and who returned to work at that company every year, perhaps that person will no longer come back because he or she found a job elsewhere.