Annick Papillon

[Ethics, November 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, last week, I asked the government a crucial question. However, as usual, I did not get a response. It is a question that has been on everyone's lips, particularly during the Conservative convention that took place this past weekend. It is a question about the Senate.

It is clear that a number of senators have to further justify their expenses. We have every right to be concerned. I would like to mention one senator, Mike Duffy. He was caught up in a story involving two cheques. Not one, but two. The Prime Minister's chief of staff, Nigel Wright, wrote him a cheque for $90,000. All of that took place under wildly suspicious circumstances.

Let me recap the facts. Together, we will try to find out the truth and understand what happened in the Prime Minister's Office. The Prime Minister is aware of what happened. Did Nigel Wright resign or was he dismissed by the Prime Minister? I personally think Canadians have a right to know. They have a right to better understand what the Prime Minister did, how he did it, under what circumstances and especially in whose interest. What is the nature of the relationship? Why are Mike Duffy and Nigel Wright involved in a story like this? Clearly, other senators could benefit from a slush fund. Some people are wondering about the Conservative Party fund and taxpayers' money being mixed up. Is that the case, yes or no?

When the Prime Minister shrugs his shoulders and has trouble answering questions, we see that he lacks courage. He is not even able to say whether he fired his chief of staff or whether his chief of staff resigned because he did something unacceptable. The Prime Minister is not able to be frank and say what happened. The Prime Minister does not uphold Canadian values such as sincerity and respect for Canadian taxpayers, who are struggling to make ends meet each month.

I know that, right now, the Conservatives are saying that this story is fishy and that it will clearly haunt them long after Halloween and All Saints' Day. I personally urge the government once again to tell the truth. I want to know the truth. I want to know whether Nigel Wright, the Prime Minister's former chief of staff was fired or forced to resign. This is a legitimate question and I would like an answer. I am happy to be here tonight, because I want to know the answer. I think Canadians deserve to have an answer.

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, November 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

Consider the example of the maritime search and rescue centre in Quebec City, which is being shut down, apparently because the Conservatives still have not figured out that it was a bad decision, one that perhaps should be reversed. The problem is that they are not talking to the people affected. They are incapable of listening to the municipalities or citizens. I am convinced that they are not even listening to the members of their own party, because the Conservative association in Lévis—Bellechasse has even asked them to back down on this matter involving the Quebec City maritime research centre. When you cannot even listen to members of your own party, you must be pretty obtuse, if I may say so.

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, November 4th, 2013]

On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, we in the NDP feel that the government must stop cutting Canadian Coast Guard services. We feel that the government must stop making cuts, cuts and more cuts, and developing very simplistic regulations. That is not working. We think there is more to be done.

Tanker traffic has gone up and therefore so has the risk of oil spills in Canadian waters, but the federal government is reducing the programs provided by marine communications and traffic service centres and by environmental emergency centres. Tanker traffic is forecast to triple in volume by 2016, the way it did between 2005 and 2010. That is what we want the person on the other side to understand. The pipeline expansion projects would also increase crude oil shipments from 300,000 barrels to 700,000 barrels a day. That is why we feel that the regulations must be taken a step further, considering the speed at which things are going.

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, November 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, after my colleague’s speech, there is not a great deal more for me to say. He clearly outlined what we want to know about Bill C-3, An Act to enact the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act, to amend the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Marine Liability Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

There is a great deal of confusion at the present time over Bill C-3 and Bill C-57. We all know that is because the Conservatives prorogued Parliament. Today we find ourselves debating legislation that was outstanding when the last session of Parliament ended. Bills were brought back before the House and given new numbers. That explains the confusion. I just wanted to mention that in case anyone following these proceedings might be confused.

That being said, I do want to point out that the NDP is supporting this bill at second reading because it provides for modest improvements to marine safety. Obviously it is difficult to be opposed to something positive. Because it provides for modest improvements, we are prepared to move forward. However, the bill clearly falls short of what we had hoped and expected legislators to do, and obviously of what needs to be done.

Before voting in favour of Bill C-3 at second reading, the NDP had called for it to be referred, prior to second reading, to a committee where consideration could be given to incorporating more comprehensive measures to protect Canada’s coastlines and to neutralize or reverse to some degree the impact of Conservative cutbacks and closures affecting marine safety and environmental protection.

The issue of marine safety is obviously one that is very close to my heart, as the member for Québec. In fact, I have been calling on the Conservative government since 2011 to reverse its decision to shut down the Marine Search and Rescue Centre in Québec City. More importantly, it is the only officially bilingual centre in Canada and in North America.

I also have to say that the centre in Quebec City, which was established more than 35 years ago, was put there specifically to accommodate staff with intimate knowledge of the geography of the St. Lawrence River, the Gulf of St. Lawrence and all its nooks and crannies. The expertise developed there was substantial. I realize that for the Conservatives, expertise represents a cost that you have to slash to achieve a zero deficit.

Yet expertise is a value that contributes much more than that. That is why in this case, too, I am concerned when I see cuts made with no thought given to the investment required to protect our fellow citizens on land and at sea.

When the Quebec City maritime search and rescue centre was established, it was also a means of protecting essential services in French, now threatened by this Conservative majority government, which believes it can get away with anything.

We also know that in Quebec City, fully bilingual staff are not to be found in the centres. The decision was made to close the centre in Quebec City and transfer half the calls to Halifax and the other half to Trenton. It was also decided to transfer calls from Cap-à-l'Aigle west to Trenton, and from Cap-à-l'Aigle east to the centre in Halifax.

However, the decision made in 2011 has so far generated huge costs in logistics, competitions and job offers to find people who are competent. Efforts have been made to recruit people, but experts do not come in a Cracker Jack box. Experts are really hard to find because it takes years of experience, specific qualifications and academic credentials to build that kind of expertise.

When they sought to transfer the centre from Quebec City to Trenton, they relaxed the selection criteria in order to find recruits. According to the latest information, they nevertheless still have not found the staff they need in Trenton to handle the calls. In Halifax, the people are not yet sufficiently qualified.

In Halifax, a rescue drill was held last February. I gave a press briefing, one of many about the Quebec City centre. The rescue drill, which was billed as normal procedure, was a complete failure because, for a normal operation, it seems that they unfairly increased the number of people assigned. In spite of that, the bilingual coordinator was reportedly overwhelmed; people involved who thought they could operate just as well in French as in English were completely powerless to cope with the work to be done; there were also complaints about a lack of familiarity with the St. Lawrence, a river with a long history.

Even in the time of Jacques Cartier, there were difficulties in navigating some parts of the St Lawrence. It is a distinctive river. There are strong currents in some locations, and some parts of the river have yet to be charted. Some parts are familiar to people who use the river, but are not necessarily to be found on the numerous technical applications for navigation. That tells you how much we need experts familiar with such details, which are not always incorporated into any kind of device.

Despite the failure experienced last February, the Conservatives had decided to press on, even with failure after failure. They are transferring the Quebec City centre to Trenton and Halifax, even though nothing is right, and nothing is working after so many years. Yet they were told. What is more, there was no public consultation on the matter and there was no impact study before the decision was made. We understand, moreover, that the minister never visited the centre in Quebec City to see the work being done on site.

Whatever bill we are discussing in the House, whether it relates to transport, health or employment insurance, I am always surprised that impact studies are not carried out, and people are not consulted: neither the provinces, nor the municipalities, nor the experts in the field. No. The government believes it is right, and goes ahead and makes the decision. This is regrettable, however, because what leads us to make wrong decisions is the belief that we are right, and that we are capable of handling everything ourselves.

Nevertheless, hundreds of resolutions were adopted across Canada by associations of pilots, fishers, enthusiasts, pleasure boaters and front-line people in favour of keeping the Quebec Marine City Search and Rescue Centre open. A motion was adopted unanimously in the Quebec National Assembly. Resolutions by a number of municipalities, including the City of Quebec and everywhere else, even in eastern Canada, for example, called for maintaining the centre. Despite this, the government always turns a blind eye.

You cannot reduce services and claim to maintain them by saying that nothing will change. It is untrue. Whenever I hear the Conservatives talk, I get angry because I say to myself that they understand nothing.

In this case, whether it is the Coast Guard or the veterans that are involved, there is no app for it. You cannot say that people will manage by going on line, and everything will be done automatically. No, you need experts, you need people who can answer questions and who operate in the field. That is what is important. That is what needs to be understood in the case of Bill C-3, but also in all the decisions the government may make.

In closing, the bill seems to be part of a concerted effort by the Conservatives to address their lack of credibility in the area of transport safety. We in the NDP know very well, however, that transport safety is not something the Conservatives do.

[Ethics, October 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know better. They know very well that the Prime Minister and his entourage tried to hide something from them.

During the briefings on the Senate scandal, the Prime Minister must have known that Nigel Wright did not act alone. He must have know, for example, that Arthur Hamilton, Benjamin Perrin, Ray Novak and Jenni Byrne, among others, were involved.

That being the case, why did the Prime Minister wait until October 24 to confirm that Nigel Wright did not act alone? Why?

[Small and Medium-Sized Businesses, October 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this is BDC Small Business Week, and we are celebrating the contribution that small and medium-sized businesses make to the Canadian economy. Each year, we celebrate entrepreneurship with some 200 activities that draw nearly 10,000 business people.

Small and medium-sized businesses in Canada represent 99.8% of all businesses and are a vital economic development driver. There are many success stories in my riding of Québec.

I would like to take this opportunity to draw attention to the Chambre de commerce et d'industrie de Québec, which was recently given an entrepreneurship award by the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec in recognition of the success of the first Foire des entrepreneurs. In Quebec and across Canada, there are women and men who are living their dream. They are our entrepreneurs. They are innovators, builders and, above all, job creators.

Please join me in paying tribute to these hard-working people who, time and time again, make our country stand out internationally.

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, people in Quebec City, like Canadians everywhere, think that taxpayers are already paying a lot. The burden on Canadian taxpayers has grown enormously. Household debt has reached 168%; this is terrible, and in the midst of it all, these scandals emerge.

As federal MPs, obviously, we find this reprehensible. What I hear, particularly in Quebec City, is that things are not working in Ottawa; whenever you open the paper and read news about Ottawa, you read about the dysfunctional Senate, which is nothing but a symbol of corruption, collusion and so on.

People in Quebec City and across the country deplore the situation. I would so much like to offer a more positive image of what we are doing here in Ottawa. That is why I am very sincerely inviting my Conservative colleagues to support this NDP motion, which is actually a very fair and very honourable position. If everyone here in the House voted unanimously for this motion, perhaps a sin confessed would be half forgiven.

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague and other NDP members, many of us went to our constituencies because we are riding-oriented MPs. We asked people what they thought about everything that was going on in the Senate. They are disgusted with what is happening. It has become a farce, and we absolutely have to put an end to the farce and all the scandals.

We New Democrats know how difficult it is to make ends meet every day. None of us would ever think of spending $100,000 here and another $100,000 there. We know that every penny is earned by the sweat of our brow. Frankly, it is time to put an end to this and to show Canadian taxpayers a little more respect.

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2013]

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

It is true. We know that the Conservative government did not want to have to deal with questions about the Senate because the Senate is clearly its Achilles heel. That is where the government has failed on every count. It appointed a number of senators who have been playing politics for many years, probably at taxpayers' expense in some cases. Perhaps that is not true and we will have to see what the RCMP investigation says, but this is clearly a serious problem.

With regard to the Speech from the Throne, it is true that the Prime Minister did not see fit to address the issue. When I asked the Minister of Transport a question about the throne speech, she said that I was not supposed to speculate on the speech. That is strange, because everywhere in the media, whenever I turned on the radio or television, there were questions about the government's intentions. Let me just remind my Conservative colleagues that the whole point of the Speech from the Throne is to make the government's intentions known, so it is only natural for people to ask questions.

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with my wonderful colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

I am extremely pleased to be back in the House after this Parliament was prorogued for a month, a decision made by the Conservative government. The Conservatives decided to take an extra month because they did not want to talk about the Senate. Now that we are here, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the NDP's motion on Senate accountability.

First of all, with this motion, the NDP is proposing practical solutions to the problems in the Senate and is asking that the government put an end to the partisan work done at taxpayers' expense. Senators should no longer be able to attend weekly caucus meetings, engage in fundraising or political organization, or promote a political party using Senate resources.

Second, the government needs to put an end to travel that is not directly related to senators' legislative duties and is paid for by taxpayers. Current Senate regulations clearly indicate that partisan activities are an inherent and essential part of a senator's parliamentary duties. The regulations also provide details concerning what a senator may or may not be reimbursed for.

Last May, the Senate Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration made 11 changes to the rules on travel. However, the new rules still allow senators to take part in various partisan activities. Basically, the Senate's origins go back to the time of Confederation. The mission that the Fathers of Confederation gave to the Senate was to review and enhance the legislation passed by the House of Commons.

In fact, the Senate was created under the Constitution Act, 1867, primarily to protect regional interests, but also to provide what George-Étienne Cartier called a power of resistance to oppose the democratic element.

In theory, senators from different sectors of society are supposed to review bills passed by the House of Commons in an objective, non-partisan way. In practice, however, the Senate has never really played this role. Instead, senators vote in the interests of the parties they represent rather than in the interests of the regions they are required to represent.

Today, the Senate is nothing more than an extension of the government in power. It is just as partisan; it is perhaps more partisan than it has ever been. Although the Senate is supposed to give careful consideration to House of Commons bills with a view to proposing amendments to them, the reality is that senators usually support the positions of their parties. The Senate has not vetoed a bill since 1939.

Moreover, senators are chosen by the Prime Minister himself. He never misses an opportunity to appoint someone from his own party. In a number of cases, the Prime Minister has gone so far as to appoint Conservative candidates who have been defeated in previous elections, if you can imagine.

The Prime Minister, who once described the Senate as, and I quote, a “dumping ground”, now seems to find it very useful as a way to reward his henchmen. He personally has appointed 59 senators, although he promised not to appoint any.

The Senate has become a platform used by the party faithful for fundraising campaigns and to promote the agenda of the government in power. Senators are actually raising money for the parties they represent while they are being paid, housed, fed and ferried around at taxpayers' expense. With all the services senators receive, the Senate costs Canadians almost $100 million per year, not counting senators' retirement pensions. Given their insignificant role, that is a lot.

Here is what Michael Fortier, a former Conservative senator appointed by the Prime Minister himself, had to say about the Senate in a CBC Radio interview recently, in March 2013 to be precise:

I was very naive...I thought it would be a different place than the one I found. I found it to be extremely partisan...on both sides, including my own. And it was very annoying because these people were trying to be members of parliament and they weren't....[I]f I had to choose today, I would say that I'm probably closer to closing the place down. I just don't see the usefulness.

Canadians should not have to wait for the Senate to be more transparent and accountable when solutions can be put forward right now.

The Liberals and the Conservatives are defending the Senate, saying that the upper house is a chamber of sober second thought on proposed bills. However, the Senate seats are now held by organizers, financial backers and former candidates of the Conservative and Liberal parties.

The reality is that, most of the time, senators act solely in the best interests of the party that appointed them. Senators may have to travel to review legislation or even to conduct studies, but Canadians should not have to pay for senators' personal or partisan travel.

Three senators appointed by the Conservatives—Pamela Wallin, Mike Duffy and Patrick Brazeau—are, to say the least, currently tainted by a scandal dealing with housing and travel allowances that were wrongfully claimed. They are all under investigation by the RCMP.

Since 2010, Pamela Wallin has claimed $300,000 in travel expenses not related to travel to her province of origin. She has also been seen at numerous Conservative fundraising events. In question period on February 13, 2013, the Prime Minister confirmed that he was aware of the senator's travel expenses and that everything was in order. After an audit by Deloitte, Senator Pamela Wallin must repay some $140,000 that she owes. However, she feels that the process was unfair.

As for Senator Mike Duffy, he had to leave the Conservative caucus on May 17, 2013, because of the controversy surrounding his expenses. The Prime Minister's former chief of staff secretly paid Senator Duffy $90,000 so he could repay the housing allowance he claimed illegally as a senator. Mike Duffy's name also came up in another matter. According to the RCMP, the senator apparently hired a friend for phony service contracts worth $65,000.

Lastly, the Senate cut part of Senator Patrick Brazeau's salary, starting in July, since the senator had not repaid the $49,000 he owed. Mr. Brazeau had claimed a housing allowance when he was not entitled to it.

The government has only itself to blame if its Senate reform has not moved forward in the too many years that it has been in power.

The Conservatives could have counted on the NDP's openness, but they chose to put reform at the bottom of their list of priorities. They were elected seven years ago with the mandate of reforming the Senate. They have failed utterly. It is a complete failure. Like the Liberals, they are now part of the problem.

On this first opposition day, now that we are back in the House for this new parliamentary session, we are facing a critical situation. The government in Ottawa is not working because it is caught up in Senate scandals.

What does the Conservative government intend to do? Does it intend, once again, to let everything go and say that it is not a big deal and that the Senate will be reformed in five or 10 years, or does it intend to finally take action on this, as the NDP motion proposes?

We simply want to make senators accountable and capable of looking taxpayers in the eye and telling them that it is true that they do not deserve what is happening to them right now and that the government must take action.