Alexandrine Latendresse

[Petitions, April 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting a petition signed by over 2,000 people from the municipality of L'Ancienne-Lorette, in my riding.

These residents are protesting the closing of the Canada Post office in their municipality. They are worried about losing their local service. That is why they have mobilized, and why several thousand of them got together—the people who signed this petition, and who number over 2,000 individuals, as I said—to let the decision-makers in this House know that their penny-pinching must not be allowed to affect people's local services.

Therefore, I am very pleased to present this petition on behalf of the people of L'Ancienne-Lorette.

[Groundwater Contamination, April 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Louis-Saint-Laurent, the riding next to Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, I am pleased to support the people of Shannon in their fight for truth and justice.

The motion moved by my colleague is the first step the government must take to establish a new relationship of respect and trust with the residents of Shannon. I think adopting this motion is imperative, not just as a gesture of solidarity, but as a recognition of the then federal government's responsibility for the contamination of the groundwater in the municipality of Shannon and the Valcartier military base. Those communities need that recognition in order to get justice and to move forward.

We know that in 1997, the Department of National Defence detected TCE in the groundwater under CFB Valcartier and that, a few years later, that same toxin was found in the private wells of citizens of Shannon, the municipality next to the base.

To better understand the context of the motion, we have to go back a number of decades to a time when TCE, a toxic industrial solvent, was used on the military base. People used to dispose of the used solvent by simply burying it in the ground. TCE, or trichloroethylene, is a chemical that was used for many years for metal degreasing, as was the case on the military base, for dry cleaning and for extracting organic products. With the discovery of its toxicity, the chemical agent was gradually replaced with less dangerous products. Individuals are now prohibited from using TCE in the European Union.

TCE is thought to be a carcinogen that affects the central nervous system. Because of the way in which TCE was disposed of in the ground on the military base, the contaminated groundwater ended up in the wells and drinking water systems of thousands of residents. As a result, in recent years, Shannon has recorded specific health problems and a cancer rate five times the normal rate.

While time passes and the government refuses to take any responsibility for the TCE-contaminated groundwater at CFB Valcartier and in Shannon, the people in those communities continue to have physical and emotional health problems and continue to develop diseases such as cancer.

More than 350 residents have died from cancer linked to the TCE-contaminated wells in Shannon. In total, over 500 people have developed cancer in a town of barely 5,000 inhabitants. Moreover, as Marie-Paule Spieser, president of the Shannon Citizens Committee, said:

There is still a plume beneath our feet, six kilometres long and 600 metres wide, and thus, there is still a danger from gases. There is also a latency period between contact with this product and the onset of cancer.

Therefore, we can still expect an excessively high cancer rate in Shannon for many years to come. How many cancers, deaths and unfortunate events—the kind that destroy entire families—will it take for the government to act in solidarity and give tangible help to the people of Shannon who are paying with their lives for their decision to live in this town rather than another?

As my colleague's motion says, it is high time for the federal government to recognize its responsibility for contaminating the groundwater in Shannon by the Department of National Defence's disposal of TCE on its land. So far, the government has maintained its closed ears and mind, and this is unacceptable.

The scientific evidence in this matter is solid and clearly shows the causal link between TCE and the extremely high rates of cancer and other illnesses among current residents, as well as among those who once lived in the area but have since moved away. Worse yet, we know not only that the government does not want to admit its liability and compensate victims properly, but also that DND was aware of this practice and of the contamination as early as 1978, without taking any corrective measures.

A report seen on the program Enquête showed that the government has been aware of water contamination in Shannon and on the military base for 30 years. According to documents obtained under the Access to Information Act, the federal environment and defence departments were warned that waste water was being discharged into a lagoon connected to the groundwater. The people of Shannon drank that contaminated water for 22 years before discovering the contamination themselves, quite by chance, in 2000.

The NDP recognizes, of course, that this disastrous situation is not the fault of the current government. Still, as the representative of the Crown, the government is responsible for any situation on Canada's military bases, even if the cause goes back decades.

In 2007, because they were still fighting on their own to defend their rights and obtain justice, 3,000 people formed the Shannon Citizens Committee, which launched a class action suit against the government and SNC-Lavalin Group, which was also played a part in the contamination.

To date, the government has invested $35.8 million to hook up part of the municipality of Shannon to a new water supply system. That is very good and we commend the government for this action. However, as I mentioned earlier, access to drinking water is a fundamental human right. In short, the government has taken a very small step toward solving a big and ongoing health and contamination problem.

In the meantime, residents have had to pay out of their own pockets for wells and bottled water, not to mention the fact that their property values may also decline because their homes are built directly over a contaminated water table. Furthermore, the facts remain the same: the government stubbornly refuses to accept its responsibility. The Crown is not to blame because it does not acknowledge any link between the TCE contamination of the groundwater and the health problems of the residents of Shannon. This long and arduous legal battle, which has cost the group $4 million, is not over yet. They are waiting for the decision that will be handed down by the summer or fall of 2012. While waiting for the outcome, the government could be gracious by immediately adopting the NDP motion.

These people have already had to deal with many health issues, not to mention financial troubles. They feel betrayed by the government that is supposed to protect them. The state has an obligation to provide services that are safe and meet certain standards, and it also has an obligation to take the necessary measures to resolve problematic health situations when it becomes aware that people are at risk. That clearly did not happen in this case.

The federal government must act on its acknowledgement of responsibility by implementing measures to support and compensate current and past residents of the municipality. It must monitor the filtration system currently being used by people dealing with contaminated drinking water. To ensure the participation of all stakeholders and complete transparency, the citizens committee should be included in this process and in any environmental efforts the government undertakes.

The government may not have acted deliberately, but it did play a part in creating the problem, and therefore it must ensure that every person who was employed on the base or lived in the residential quarters during the contamination period is notified and compensated appropriately on the same basis as current residents of Shannon.

To sum up, I urge the government to show some compassion and be fair to the people of Shannon who have been living with the terrible consequences of groundwater contamination for decades by supporting my colleague's motion.

[Groundwater Contamination, April 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague. My riding is very close to hers, near Shannon, and I am very much aware of this situation. I think the hon. member has proposed a very important motion this morning.

My question follows up on that of the hon. parliamentary secretary: does my colleague agree that access to clean drinking water is something that is absolutely essential to our society? Even in the third world, it is acknowledged that it is one of the most fundamental things. It is very fine of the government to have made investments in providing the people of Shannon with drinking water, and we thank them. It is a good thing. At the same time, having access to clean drinking water is basic.

In Shannon the rates of cancer and other health problems are much, much higher than average, and we want the government to recognize it has some responsibility for that. Investing in drinking water is very important, and in fact, it is truly essential. We want even more. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on this.

[The Budget, March 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's budget punishes all Canadians. Not only does it contain zero measures for job creation, but there is nothing to improve our municipal infrastructure.

We are not the only ones criticizing it. The Union des municipalities du Québec is also calling on the Conservatives to move on to serious concerns. There is nothing in this budget for public transit, affordable housing or infrastructure.

How can the Conservatives ignore the pressing needs of our municipalities?

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is not every day that I rise to speak about international trade, because it is not really my area of expertise. I will apologize in advance to those who consider themselves to be better informed than I.

I have some concerns about the sudden proliferation of free trade talks initiated by the Conservative government, and I would like to tell the House about them.

The government has decided to enter into no fewer than 16 free trade agreements with various countries. I did say 16. It is an unprecedented and rather worrisome development. I would like to quickly list them.

First of all, there is Asia, with Japan and Korea, followed by Thailand and Singapore. These are the so-called Asian tigers, the solid, dynamic, creative and open economies, supported by reliable, democratic governments.

Then we have India, with its gigantic market and its emerging and promising strength. India is a democratic and talented country, with a future as rich as its fascinating multimillennial past. In addition, it has been a dear friend of Canada for a very long time, a partner on which we can always rely and, in the coming years, it will be an ally of choice.

I will continue with my list.

Next comes the now-famous treaty with the European Union, which comes with agreements with two countries whose economies are increasingly connected with the EU: Turkey and Morocco.

Europe represents an enormous, practically bottomless market. As well, the stabilizing force of the European Union on all aspects of society heralds lasting prospects of prosperity and fruitful trade.

Turkey, too, is a remarkably vigorous country and it is probably desirable to have closer ties with it.

I note in passing that until very recently, Ukraine also fell into that category. Unfortunately, this free trade agreement has been significantly compromised as a result of the anti-democratic actions of the Yanukovich administration, and negotiations may now never produce results.

Then we come to a very small Arab country, the Kingdom of Jordan, the only Middle Eastern country on the list. With the Arab Spring in full bloom, Jordan is still the most stable nation in the region. However, there are still serious reservations about the workers’ rights situation in that country, and the interest the government is taking in it seems to stem from a magnificent exploitive egoism. But that is a discussion for another time.

I would remind this House that two hours from the Jordanian border, in Syria, people are being killed as we speak, simply for trying to exercise their rights. Short-sightedness can be corrected, and geography can be learned.

Then comes a string of small countries in Central America and the Caribbean with weak economies and governments that may or may not be exemplary. This is the Caribbean common market—CARICOM—and it covers the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua and, lastly, Panama. The only country missing from the list is Costa Rica, the most stable and most advanced country in the region, with which we already have a free trade agreement in effect.

That completes the list. It is no small number. Frankly, it is unbelievable. What conclusions are we to draw from that list?

First, that wherever the Minister of Foreign Affairs goes, a free trade agreement is never far behind. He hands them out like the Catholic church used to hand out absolutions. If he happened to go through East Timor next week and noticed the least sign of a middle class, we should expect a press briefing.

What is particularly blatant is that Canada is trying to establish specific zones of influence where its commercial activities will be facilitated: the rapidly growing Asia Pacific, Europe and its close allies, and our own backyard, Central America.

And again, Jordan is more or less the odd one out on that list. To the north there is the revolt in Syria, to the west there is complete collapse in Iraq, and to the south there is the most impenetrable country in the world, Saudi Arabia. I find it hard to see what our interest is, but fine, let us move on.

The treaty with the European Union and its satellites has been roundly criticized by nearly everyone. The European Union is much more dynamic and competitive than Canada, and the agreement will jeopardize a number of sectors of our economy and throw open all the doors of all levels of government to the Europeans. The adjustment is going to be brutal, and people are not going to like it.

As well, the tenor and wording of the agreement are secret. Even the European national governments do not know what is being hatched. So the biggest decision about international trade will be announced to us in the grand biblical style of divine revelations, and we will have to live with it because it will be law.

We may as well turn all the lights out while we are at it.

Today we are concerned primarily with Panama. This is a specific case, although the country is located in a targeted geographic group that is much larger. What is unique about this case? We already know. Harsh words have been spoken about it in the House, and I will say it again today. Panama is a tax haven and a narco-state that refuses to comply with international transparency laws. When other countries call it out, it makes some completely symbolic gestures and shirks all its responsibilities.

I am not here to put the Panamanian government on trial, and I do not want to tarnish the reputation of this small country that has a very difficult history, and with good reason. Panama was created by force and has been dominated by the United States throughout its history. It was basically exploited and constantly threatened and, when the time came for Panama to get out from under the United States' thumb, the Americans gave Panama an unbelievable and humiliating thrashing. It is a country that was colonized, insulted and betrayed. I would like to recognize Panama's difficult history. The fact that it was able to recover as it did is a miracle in itself.

However, the methods the Panamanian government used to recover were misguided. Panama is a tax haven where the government closes its eyes to the laundering of money from drug trafficking. I am sticking to this description so as not to hurt the wonderful people who live in Panama and who are innocent of this skulduggery.

This bill is an excellent opportunity to clearly state where the NDP stands on international trade. The NDP is of the opinion that agreements must be fair, equitable, humane, sustainable and responsible. Of course, the government will say that this is certainly the case and that Canada wants to help the economies of the Americas in a fair and sustainable way. The government will tell us again that, if there is a responsible country in the world, it is the great and beautiful country of Canada. That is false.

The only motivation here is a ridiculous love of profit. It is clear to anyone who is not obsessed with the sacred word “profit” that this agreement is motivated by an old colonial reflex to try to become just a little bit richer, despite already being rich. What we have here is a very small agreement with a very small country that will be forgotten next week and that will quickly make a few bigwigs a few million dollars richer. That is the plan. Period.

The NDP believes that this agreement will not benefit the people of Panama in any way. It will serve only to benefit the Panamanian government and our own government. This is completely unfair. The next time the government tells us that it wants to combat tax evasion, we will bring up Panama. The Conservatives have such a superiority complex that they are only too eager to go off and play the white man somewhere.

I have bad news. Since an austerity budget is about to be announced, today seems like the perfect opportunity to say what I think is the primary motivation behind these agreements with Central America. The Conservatives have been telling us non-stop that they created 600,000 jobs since the height of the recession. However, that is impossible for one very simple reason: Canada is experiencing Dutch disease.

What is Dutch disease? It is succumbing to the temptation to develop precious natural resources as quickly as possible with absolutely no regard for anything else. This boosts our currency and everyone thinks, my God, we sure are weathering this crisis well, and it must be because our banking system is better than everyone else's and our bankers are more upstanding, but that is not the case. It is because natural resources development is happening faster, and we are exporting our resources as fast as we can. The immediate impact of that activity is that the industrial sector, which has no connection to the development of the magical resource, is quietly collapsing and disappearing. We bolster our confidence by saying that in a global context, those businesses were not viable anyway. We shrug our shoulders and continue to dig resources out of the ground.

Then the disease spreads to the highest levels of the economy. Jobs in the service sector disappear. Aveos moves to El Salvador, research gets cut, and development is hobbled. Eventually, inflation goes up. That is the scenario. What is the government doing? It is doing whatever it can to sell the country's resources and pump more money into the machine to keep it going.

What about the imaginary 600,000 jobs that the Conservatives like to talk about? Maybe they were created in China, which is great for our relations with China, but we live here. The government needs to plan for Canada's long-term future in a global context. It has to steer clear of easy solutions, sit down and think about things. Unfortunately, thinking is not something this administration tends to do. Why waste time thinking when the government can sign free trade agreements with all comers to pump more fodder into the system? We do not like it.

To sum up, until there is something in place to ensure true sustainable development with Panama, until the workers in that country can count on better protection for their rights, we cannot support this kind of agreement.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette for his speech, because I know he really cares about this issue and he wants to work in the best interest of everyone. However, I wonder if he could clarify a few points about the bill that remain controversial, even among the people of my riding who have shared their concerns about this bill with me.

In a previous version of the bill, all the parties had agreed that the power to designate safe countries should lie with a group of specialists that should include human rights experts. With the new Bill C-31, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism has carte blanche to designate those countries.

Why concentrate so much power in the hands of just one minister instead of relying on a group of people who have the expertise needed to make these decisions?

[41st General Election, March 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the government's responses are becoming utterly ridiculous.

CBC is reporting that the voters who were sent to the wrong polling stations had clearly indicated that they would not vote Conservative. The Conservatives can try to create a distraction with their same old stories about the opposition, but the fact remains that electoral fraud benefited the Conservatives and no one else.

In order to restore Canadians' trust in our democracy, a public inquiry needs to be called.

When will the government finally act in the interest of the people and not just in the interest of its party?

[41st General Election, March 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the noose is tightening around the Conservatives in Elections Canada's investigation of their electoral fraud, but this government continues to turn a deaf ear. It is trying to shift the attention and claiming that with the exception of a young volunteer who has been magically transformed into a master fraudster, this is not a big deal.

Will someone across the way take this situation seriously and stop mocking all these voters who were cheated in the last election?

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2012]

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

I entirely agree with him. Although I was not here personally in previous parliaments, from what we saw during question period and in general, the government’s answers on this subject were absolutely shameful, particularly since we now know that they were guilty that whole time. So yes, I agree entirely.

The member asks what will be done if they vote for our motion and at the end of the day nothing happens. I think that Canadians are watching us closely right now. They are watching what the government does closely, and they are listening closely to every word spoken. If the government supports our motion and does nothing, if it does not shed light on this affair, I think people are going to stand up and protest. The government will have no choice but to shed light on this scandal.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2012]

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

If the Conservatives are so intent on protecting taxpayers’ money, in particular when it comes to complying with the Canada Elections Act, I would like someone to explain to me why they are spending $1.7 million on lawsuits that will ultimately be abandoned, when they have been found guilty of election fraud. That is ridiculous, to start with.

If we add to that the fact that political parties are going to have to pay a lot of money for the auditors who will confirm these things, and that at present, in all provinces, the chief electoral officers have the powers that the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada is asking for, we really cannot understand why, all of a sudden, what applies to the provinces is not good for Canada. The Conservatives really do not want the Chief Electoral Officer to have that power. I find it impossible to understand that, myself.

As well, we must not forget that what the Chief Electoral Officer was asking for was to have these powers generally, and not to audit each piece of paper. However, the external auditors are going to have to audit everything, and that will cost a lot more.