Élaine Michaud

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Conservative members have been making many comments and criticizing the NDP for not wanting to grant the commissioner increased powers. They say that the bill will solve all the problems and it directly addresses harassment.

Could my colleague elaborate on how a clear anti-harassment policy could help the commissioner do his work, more than giving him full discretion as to whether to dismiss a member or keep a member on the force?

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 12th, 2013]

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

Some people may point out that I do not sit on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Nevertheless, I should be able the answer the question.

Yes, my NDP colleagues proposed amendments, which the government flatly rejected, as it always does.

As a new MP, I am very disappointed. I was a parliamentary guide for a while before starting my career as an MP. I used to take great pleasure in telling visitors that the work needed to advance Canadian issues really happened in committee, where all the parties worked in collaboration.

Now that I have become a member of the House, my speech would be totally different, were I to give another parliamentary tour. Openness is non-existent, and meetings are very often held in camera. In that context, keeping our constituents informed of what is happening is a major challenge. On top of that, we have to deal with this government's amazing arrogance and intransigence.

I touched briefly on my experience on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Being part of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security must have been extremely similar, as the orders all come from the same source: the Prime Minister's Office. People can imagine for themselves how this government deals with opposition members in committee. The government keeps Parliament from doing the real work it should be doing.

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her excellent question.

I completely agree with her. We are not fulfilling our responsibility as elected members if we do not take direct measures to address the issue of sexual harassment in the RCMP. The suggested training is a proactive and effective way of reducing the incidence of sexual harassment.

We also need to realize that we can use this information to help people become more conscious of the fact that certain actions or words that they believe to be innocent can be perceived in a negative way. This awareness needs to be honed because it does not always come naturally, depending on a person's education or work environment. These kinds of situations arise for many reasons.

We can inform people and describe in detail the types of situations that can be perceived as sexual harassment and the solutions and measures that can be put in place to keep it from happening. The fact that the government does not want to take those steps is truly disappointing and almost incomprehensible, because it is so easy to do.

All members would take this training when they join the RCMP or at some point. This type of training happens all the time in the Canadian Forces and it even exists in the RCMP. So why not now?

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I rise today to speak to Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. This bill is the Conservatives' response to the many complaints of sexual harassment in the RCMP and to recent scandals, following disciplinary measures that were too lenient for officers accused of serious misconduct.

Unfortunately, as my colleague for Vaudreuil-Soulanges clearly explained, the government has come up with a very weak response to serious issues and problems for RCMP members and Canadians.

Bill C-42 is almost identical to Bill C-38, which was presented during the 40th Parliament. It proposes three major changes to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. If the bill is passed in its present form, it will give increased powers to the RCMP commissioner in the area of labour relations. Among other things, it will allow him to appoint or fire members at his discretion, which is a rather major discretionary power. The bill also seeks to change the process governing disciplinary measures, complaints and human resources management for RCMP members. It provides for the establishment of a new civilian complaints commission to replace the RCMP Public Complaints Commission.

From the outset, the NDP has supported the intent of Bill C-42. We felt that this legislation would modernize the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and bring solutions to issues such as sexual harassment in the organization. However, it is now obvious that this good intention—the intention perceived behind the bill—did not translate into a true legislative measure that would provide concrete results for women in the RCMP, and for other members of that police force.

As it stands now, the bill has some major flaws. It does not go far enough and it does not really improve oversight of the RCMP. Worse yet, it does not even deal directly with sexual harassment in the RCMP, which is a central concern for women across the country—whether they are members of that police force or not—and for all Canadians. Every day, Canadians learn about new cases in the media. They hear about this problem, they see what is going on in that police force and, in the process, their trust in the RCMP erodes. Yet, the men and women of that police force are very invested and they make sacrifices to protect the public. Some action should be taken immediately to restore this trust. However, that is not what Bill C-42 proposes.

The Conservatives only looked at the issues relating to discipline and sexual harassment in the RCMP, after being questioned on many occasions in the House and in committee. They never adopted a leadership role when it came to proposing solutions to the problems identified in the RCMP.

Now they are bringing in a bill, when they are on the defensive. This did not come about because of the Conservative Party's concerns, but rather because of the pressure of public opinion and NDP colleagues who have done an impressive amount of work to try to make the government aware of the major problems that exist in the RCMP.

For all of these reasons, the NDP will not support Bill C-42 at third reading. We moved a number of amendments at committee stage in order to ensure that Bill C-42 was truly a response to the challenges facing the RCMP. Among other things, we wanted to make it mandatory for all RCMP members to take harassment training. We also wanted to set up an independent civilian body to investigate complaints against the RCMP. In addition, we proposed adding a provision to set up an independent national civilian investigative body to make sure that the police are not investigating themselves, something that seems very logical to me. Finally, we also proposed removing some of the new draconian powers that the government was planning to grant to the RCMP commissioner, with a view to establishing more balanced human resources policies for the RCMP.

All of these amendments were based on recommendations from numerous witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

These witnesses came straight from the policing community. They are therefore knowledgeable about the context and the constraints, and they know what they are talking about. The recommendations they made to us were based on their experiences and on what they had seen, and they deserved to be taken a little more seriously than the Conservative government has done.

All of these witnesses share the NDP's concerns that Bill C-42 will never be enough to change the climate and the culture in the RCMP workplace, the two elements that allow the abuses that are routinely alleged to occur. Sexual harassment in word and deed continues to occur, but in many cases, the perpetrators are never punished.

This bill is likely to create more problems than it solves, especially since new powers are being granted to the commissioner. Unfortunately, the Conservatives turned down every one of the amendments that we put forward in committee without even wanting to discuss them. This is unfortunately not surprising. It seems to be typical of this government's attitude in committee. If the experience of my opposition colleagues on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security is anything like what I experience regularly on the Standing Committee on Official Languages, the process was probably very arduous and quite frustrating for anyone who tried to work co-operatively.

This is what the NDP has been proposing from the outset. We have always been prepared to co-operate with our colleagues from all parties in order to make proposals that are beneficial to all Canadians. In this case, our proposals would have been beneficial to the women and men of the RCMP, as well as the Canadian public, but they were rejected out of hand. Unfortunately, the Conservatives on this committee were just as inflexible and closed-minded as those on many other parliamentary committees. They refused to co-operate to make Bill C-42 a piece of legislation that genuinely responds to the needs of the RCMP.

As members of Parliament, we are responsible for acting in a way that strengthens public trust in the RCMP, but the Conservatives refuse to take the steps needed to modernize the organization. For months now, the NDP has been urging the Minister of Public Safety to make sexual harassment in the RCMP a priority, but the issue is barely mentioned in Bill C-42. In fact, the word “harassment” appears once, and it is not even in a context that aims at resolving the issue of sexual harassment.

Although the bill gives the RCMP commissioner room to create a more effective process for responding to sexual harassment complaints, it contains no proactive measure to try to combat this systemic problem, and there is no provision on adopting a clear policy to prevent sexual harassment within the RCMP.

Bill C-42 does not go far enough in addressing the very real concerns of female members of this organization, who have been waiting far too long for the government to do something tangible to ensure that they have a safer, more open work environment. Another problem we must address is the fact that these same women do not have access to the same positions and promotions as quickly and in the same way as the men do.

Currently more than 200 women who work or have worked for the RCMP have launched a class action suit against the organization for allegations of sexual harassment. There are other individual suits under way, and there are undoubtedly incidents that will never be reported, because these are difficult situations. When wrongdoers get off the hook rather easily and no real disciplinary measures are taken, there is no real incentive for anyone to report these problems.

The women in the RCMP make the same sacrifices for their country as the men, but the women are abandoned by the system every day. They deserve better than this and, as elected representatives, we have a responsibility to act swiftly. That is why the NDP will oppose Bill C-42 at third reading. We proposed solutions and the Conservatives did not want to implement them. These solutions did not come just from the opposition, but also from people who are directly involved, who know what they are talking about and who care about the well-being of RCMP members.

This is very disappointing. I think it is a real shame to have to vote against this bill.

I would also like to see a substantive reform of this organization, but that is not going to happen with Bill C-42.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and would like to return the compliment. I know that he works hard in his riding and it is very much appreciated by his constituents.

Indeed, investment in passenger transportation in rural regions is one aspect of this issue that is unfortunately too often ignored and that should be put at the forefront. As for access to public transportation, my region is comparable to Pontiac. The only public transportation that exists is the bus. The people in this region set it up themselves. They arranged for access to these services, which they did not have before.

There used to be passenger rail service, but that was many years ago. The train goes to one community, which is at least an hour from Quebec City by car. The train is the only way to get to Saguenay. We really need a plan so we can ensure that our rural regions will have access to the same public transportation services available in other areas of the country.

It is similar to the commuter train principle in Montreal. It could be developed in the regions. This would benefit everyone and would revitalize our rural communities, where this is desperately needed. We need to provide this access to the major urban centres. It is environmentally friendly and will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Families will be able to move back to the regions, communities will be rejuvenated and there will be economic growth and development. This measure would benefit the ridings of Pontiac, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier and others across the country.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question and his anecdote about Saint-Basile. I agree that this can cause problems. However, to give hon. members a better idea of where to find Saint-Basile, it is located in Portneuf, not in Quebec City. Perhaps that will help a little the next time.

It is of the utmost importance that we continue to try to work with CN and CP to improve rail service across the country. I cannot stress this enough. In my speech, I mentioned that there are several large companies in my riding that depend on the rail system in the region to ship and receive the materials they need for production.

I am thinking about Alcoa, among others. The manufacturing of aluminum requires the transportation of a huge amount of raw and other materials. Every shipment that arrives late or not at all harms our companies' productivity and Canada's competitiveness on world markets.

This problem must be resolved quickly so that our rural communities, such as those in my riding and in the ridings of many of my colleagues from all parties, can continue to grow, develop and retain jobs. These jobs are extremely important for our rural regions.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to join my colleagues in speaking to Bill C-52.

Because I represent a rural region, this issue is very important to me and my constituents. I thank my colleagues who spoke before me and who have done a good job of highlighting these very important aspects.

If the bill is enacted as it now stands, it will require a railway company, on a shipper’s request, to make the shipper an offer to enter into a contract respecting the manner in which the railway company must fulfill its service obligations to the shipper.

Bill C-52 also provides for the creation of an arbitration process to establish the terms of such a contract, if the railway company and the shipper are unable to agree on a fair and equitable agreement after lengthy negotiation.

The bill comes in response to numerous pleas from shippers all over Canada and the hard work and unflagging efforts of my colleague from Trinity—Spadina, whom I would also like to congratulate.

After years of discussion, through both the panel of experts and consultations with stakeholders, and after my colleague’s bill was introduced last year, the Conservatives realized they had a duty to present this bill, at last. It is an attempt to respond to the complaints from rail shipping services customers who are being offered poor service by the biggest companies, which have a virtual monopoly over the market.

It is really high time that this government examined the problems in this situation, because the difficulties experienced by shippers everywhere in Canada are quite real and have a direct impact on the economy, particularly in rural regions.

In Canada, as several of my colleagues have said already, over 70% of freight is shipped by rail. However, a study of rail shipping services shows that 80% of shippers are dissatisfied with the services they receive. This is probably because 80% of the commitments the big companies made to them were not honoured. Clearly there is a problem and it is time for the government to take action.

Here we have the rough outline of a bill; there is still much to be done.

At present, the situation is hard on the shippers. Rail freight customers have trouble obtaining fair and reliable service. Some customers cannot even obtain contracts with a major railway. Some with contracts have other difficulties, such as serious delays, the insufficient number of railcars available to transport all the goods their industry requires, or the countless interruptions in service that decrease their profits and may eventually result in lost jobs.

The fact that shippers often do not have a choice of carrier is also a serious problem. They have access to CN or CP, but not always to both. Those who have a choice between the two companies still have to pay too much, especially small businesses in rural ridings. Such small businesses often are just getting by and then have to pay these fees. That makes it very hard for them.

The situation I have described affects many sectors of the economy, including natural resources, agriculture and forestry. To a large extent, these industries produce goods for export, but they are at a great disadvantage because of the poor quality of the rail services they depend on.

The cost of services, the major gaps in the rail network and the way the system operates are all detrimental to Canada's overall competitive position on the world's markets, in addition to causing job losses and costing our economy hundreds of millions of dollars.

The most seriously affected industries are found mainly in the rural areas of the Canadian west, and in British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario. It is a widespread problem and will affect thousands of people across the country. They need the government to act quickly and they need legislation that goes further than Bill C-52 does currently.

I think of my riding, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, where a number of large businesses employ thousands of people all over the area. Although they are located far from the major urban centres, they are served by rail lines—for freight, at least.

I think of the many small and medium-sized businesses all across my riding, and some large firms as well, such as Alcoa in Deschambault-Grondines, Ciment Québec in Saint-Basile or Graymont in Saint-Marc-des-Carrières.

At one time, the Bowater plant in Donnacona was served by a rail freight line. Now, unfortunately, the business has shut down. It has declared bankruptcy and limited the former workers' access to pensions. That is another matter we can debate at another time, I hope.

As I said, these businesses represent a large part of my riding's economic activity. They need good-quality, reliable rail services in order to plan their freight shipments, to be efficient, to grow and to contribute to economic growth and development in the region.

I also think about the farmers who depend on railways to ship their produce all across the country. I think about the forestry industry. which has been such an important part of the economy throughout the region, particularly in Saint-Raymond de Portneuf, Sainte-Brigitte-de-Laval, Lac Beauport and Stoneham-et-Tewkesbury. This industry has been neglected by the government and, on top of that, suffers from the problems affecting the railway network.

As I mentioned, Bill C-52 is a step in the right direction. It has some good elements in it. This is why I will be supporting it at second reading, so it will be sent to committee where it can be considered and improved.

Among other things, some consideration must be given to the safeguards that Bill C-52 sets out. These safeguards will not cover existing contracts between shippers and railways, which will leave many clients with no recourse. A few shippers will be able to benefit from certain safeguards when they negotiate their new contracts, but all the others that have already signed contracts with the big companies will have to endure the unfair treatment that already exists. They will have very few options, just the very limited ones available now.

In addition, the arbitration process set out in Bill C-52 must also be given further consideration. The process is very limited and is likely to be prohibitively expensive for the shippers. They will not necessarily be able to go all the way to the end of the process and defend themselves against big corporations, which often have many more resources. This aspect of the bill must therefore be re-examined.

Another troubling element is the fact that Bill C-52 totally ignores the issue of the high rates that shippers are charged by transportation companies. This has been one of the most important demands by shippers for years now. As I mentioned, they have to deal with a virtual monopoly, and sometimes even with a real monopoly because they have no options, aside from one of the two main railway companies in their area. Small shippers and small companies that need railway services have practically no bargaining power. They have to accept the rates they are charged without being able to fight back against the railways. This issue has been ignored by this government for many years now. It is still ignored in the bill that is before us today at second reading. I hope the Conservatives will support the amendments that the NDP will be putting forward, because it is high time that action was taken.

Canada’s trade deficit is increasing. If I am not mistaken, it was $2 billion in November. We are losing ground on international markets, but the Conservatives continue to drag their feet when it comes to rail transportation. We need to go beyond Bill C-52. We need to protect our shippers, and we must also provide our country with a genuine nation-wide strategy for rail transportation, both for passenger and for freight transportation.

In my riding, only one municipality has rail service: the municipality of Rivière-à-Pierre. It is located in the northwestern corner of the riding, on the rail line that goes to Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean. These trains provide services primarily to hunters who go out into the wild and enjoy nature up there. There are very few passengers. The government must take action.

Let us start with Bill C-52, but let us go further and develop a real strategy for the railways.

[Rehabilitation Residence, February 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today the people of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier received some very sad news: after six years in the Quebec City region, La Colombière residence, a place for social and educational rehabilitation, will have to close its doors for good for lack of funding.

La Colombière, located in the town of Saint-Augustin-de-Desmaures, is a non-profit organization that helped young mothers who were experiencing difficulties get their lives back on track, finish their studies and learn how to be a good mother. A team of professionals welcomed these young women to the residence, a safe place for them to build a new life with their child.

Over the years, the team at La Colombière helped over 175 mothers and children, thereby meeting a real need in the community.

I would like to congratulate and thank Claire Ménard, the founder and executive director of the organization, for her incredible commitment, her perseverance and her extraordinary compassion, as well as her entire team for all their hard work.

The unfortunate closure of La Colombière residence reminds us just how important it is for this government to do something to ensure stable, predictable funding for organizations that work tirelessly to help those who need it most.

[Homes Not Connected to a Sanitation System, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise in the House today to support Motion No. 400 moved by my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. The motion seeks to protect the water and public health of our rural communities.

It is particularly important to me to support this motion because, in addition to the fact that I represent a mostly rural riding, issues related to the contamination of groundwater and the quality of water are of particular interest in my riding. In fact, the Jacques-Cartier River flows through my region and for the past few years has had high levels of TCE contamination. Although we are talking of another kind of contamination today, it is a particularly important issue for my constituents and for all those who live far from Canada's urban centres.

I would like to congratulate my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel for presenting the motion in the House. She and I had the opportunity to attend the Federation of Canadian Municipalities conference held in Saskatoon last June. I found that her motion was well received by mayors and municipal councillors from across Canada. They appreciated her initiative.

According to some government members, municipalities are not interested in this type of program and want to continue receiving inadequate infrastructure funding. That is not true. That is not what I heard from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and that is not what I am hearing from the mayors in my riding.

I think it is worth quickly rereading the motion. I think some aspects have been misunderstood by the members opposite. Motion No. 400 calls on the government to:

...study the possibility of establishing [this is the important point], in cooperation with the provinces and territories, one or more financial support programs...that would bring up to standard the septic systems of homes not connected to a sanitation system, in an effort to ensure urban/rural balance, lake protection, water quality and public health.

One or more programs could be based on programs that the FCM proposed a few years ago.

The motion, therefore, in no way suggests overstepping provincial or territorial areas of jurisdiction. On the contrary, water quality is a matter of shared jurisdiction, and we are calling for a program to be developed in collaboration with our provincial and territorial partners. We are calling for all parties to take part in finding solutions, because this is a very important issue in our rural regions. I think that the government perhaps misunderstood this. I hope that we were able to clarify the fact that the motion is calling for co-operation with our provincial and territorial partners.

The motion deals with an issue that goes to the heart of the everyday concerns of thousands of Canadians throughout the country. It is extremely important both in order to reduce the economic burden on families living in rural areas and to protect water quality and public health.

It should not be forgotten that, often, rivers and waterways across rural regions and the urban centres get their water from these water sources, which cross agricultural areas and other regions where there are houses with septic tanks that, unfortunately, do not comply with current standards. Contamination may therefore occur in urban centres. This motion seeks to help all Canadians, regardless of where they live.

Today, as I rise to speak in this House, over 25% of Canadians do not have municipal sewage services and have no choice but to use independent septic systems on their properties. This is perhaps due to the fact that their residence is built on land that cannot be connected to a pipeline network. There may be a whole host of factors. The residences may simply be too far from major urban centres, and residents may have no choice but to have autonomous sanitary facilities. Residents must pay for this themselves, and it is often very costly to replace or render compliant their septic tanks.

Every year, the federal government invests millions of dollars to help municipalities comply with very strict standards regarding their sewage systems, and yet, over a quarter of Canadians have been completely forgotten by the Conservatives.

It is high time that the government act and stop hiding behind bogus excuses about jurisdictional issues and whatever other unsubstantiated reasons they are giving as to why they are not supporting the motion.

In rural communities, many septic facilities that service isolated residences are no longer adequate and require major and urgent work to bring them up to standard.

Outdated septic systems are potentially a major hazard in terms of water quality and the health of all Canadians. For over 30 years, sewage from isolated residences has been recognized as a major source of pollution and eutrophisation of our bodies of water.

Inadequate, outdated, tweaked, and non-compliant septic systems lead to an increase in the concentration of phosphorus in waterways, which may result in the excessive proliferation of cyanobacteria. These systems also represent a serious hazard when it comes to human health, especially when associated with the consumption of contaminated water, fish, and shellfish; the presence of waste on the shoreline; and water being exposed to contaminated sediments.

Unfortunately, due to the significant cost of replacing or standardizing a septic tank—the cost runs between $5000 and $20,000—some owners are forced to postpone the work, which results in an increased risk in terms of the quality of our waterways, and also public health.

This situation unfortunately occurs quite frequently in my riding, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, where almost all 28 municipalities have a large number of isolated residences that are served by self-contained septic systems. More than two-thirds of residences in many of the municipalities there are hooked up to septic tanks rather than to a municipal sewer system. That is a very large number.

Many of those municipalities have quite small populations—from a few hundred to a few thousand inhabitants—but are generally spread over an area of up to several tens of square kilometres. For those municipalities, which already have little in the way of resources, millions of dollars in investments would be required to extend their sewer systems to every residence in their area, which is utterly inconceivable for them.

Those municipalities take alternative measures to protect their water. The RCMs organize common septic pumping and inspection services. I am thinking, for example, of the municipality of Saint-Augustin-de-Desmaures. There were major problems with pollution in Lac Saint-Augustin, particularly as a result of non-compliant septic tanks, and the municipalities have taken steps to revitalize the shorelines and provide citizens with better information so that they can take measures to prevent lake pollution. However, those measures are not always enough. What is required are septic tanks that are up to standard and regularly inspected.

The federal, provincial and territorial governments will support the municipalities that need to build or renovate their wastewater treatment systems, but the rural communities unfortunately do not have access to those same services. It is absolutely unfair that taxpayers living in rural areas, like the citizens I represent, should have to finance the construction and maintenance of their septic systems on their own, whereas citizens living in urban centres receive a form of financial contribution for equivalent services.

At a meeting between the Leader of the Opposition and the mayors of the Jacques-Cartier RCM on January 23, the mayors stated very clearly that it was time for the government to act and stop making the false excuses we heard in the House today. In addition to calling for major investments in infrastructure in general, particularly in roads and water and sewer systems, the mayors were very much in favour of the measures that motion M-400 is calling for this government to consider.

The mayors of Jacques-Cartier and several other municipalities across the country know that this motion meets a genuine, pressing need expressed by the rural population, and they want to see tangible measures taken by the Conservatives, not just fine promises and hollow words, as we often hear.

This government has a responsibility to take all necessary measures to ensure that all citizens have access to good, high-quality drinking water, whether they live in town or in the country. The Conservatives have already told us they do not want to support the motion. They are trying to wash their hands of the matter by saying that this is a provincial issue and that there are already federal programs for this purpose. That is quite inconsistent. What is needed is action.

Like my NDP colleagues, I am very proud to support this motion. The Liberals have also told us they will support it. I hope the Conservatives will finally listen to their constituents, mayors and municipal councillors and decide to support this motion as well.

[Minister of Veterans Affairs, January 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, since the announcement of the closure of the maritime search and rescue centre in Quebec City, mariners, the local community and the NDP have repeatedly said that this decision puts lives in danger. That is why a group of Conservative supporters in Lévis—Bellechasse heard the NDP's call and dared to oppose the Conservative Party's senseless decision. They saw the truth.

The Conservative association in Lévis—Bellechasse chose the safety of fishers and boaters over blindly supporting the government's ill-conceived plans.

Today, I would like to salute the honesty of these supporters who made public safety a priority that should never have to suffer because of cuts to public services.

The Minister of Veterans Affairs, who represents this riding, has two choices: he can be a good member of Parliament, listen to the supporters and the people in his riding and condemn this irresponsible closure, or he can continue to support a dangerous decision that defies all logic and was made blindly by the Prime Minister's Office in Ottawa.

It is up to him to decide what kind of MP he wants to be.