Annick Papillon

[Senate Reform Act, December 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for her question. Canadians are very concerned about the need for transparency and independence. It is something that seems to be important to everyone, but clearly, it is not important to this government. Indeed, its Bill C-7 will not ensure the independence of senators and will not guarantee that they can do their work of sober second thought. That is precisely the point my colleague was raising. No, the government is not keeping the promises it made, nor is it respecting the wishes of Canadian citizens for real control over their institutions.

[Senate Reform Act, December 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question. When we look at Bill C-7, we certainly wonder where the government is heading. We all agree that things are currently not going well with the Senate; Canadians do not value the Senate as an institution. This Senate reform bill would make the situation even more disastrous. I am stressing this point because it is true. It will make the Senate's situation worse and that institution will be even more inadequate than it already is.

Various reform plans are proposed here and there, but they get us nowhere. They do not allow for a real chamber of sober second thought, an upper house independent from the House of Commons, that would enable us to represent the public and to pass bills. The Senate is really an institution that Canadians cannot identify with, and this bill has added no value to it.

[Senate Reform Act, December 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I simply encourage people to look at this Angus Reid poll. They will come to the same conclusions.

Why waste time going through with a reform that no one wants and no one needs and that will likely be declared unconstitutional?

In 2007, in a speech before the Australian Parliament, the Prime Minister talked about the possibility of simply abolishing the Senate. In this speech, the Prime Minister said that Canadians understood that our Senate, as it stands today, must either change or, like the old upper houses of our provinces, vanish. Before his untimely death, Jack Layton said that the solution was to ask Canadians whether they want a Senate.

I repeat that, before wasting money and time, as we are currently doing for completely useless reforms and bills that make no sense, we could talk to the Canadian people and the provinces to simply ask them what they think.

That is what the NDP is proposing.

[Senate Reform Act, December 8th, 2011]

I apologize, Madam Speaker. I wanted to say that the Prime Minister is a hypocrite in the way he handles Senate appointments.

Why waste time—

[Senate Reform Act, December 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House today to debate Bill C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits.

The Senate was established in 1867 under an agreement between federal and provincial authorities.That agreement covered a number of aspects that still define the Senate as we know it today. At the outset, the Senate of Canada, like the British House of Lords, was an institution that was to provide sober second thought to any ill-informed decisions that legislators in the House of Commons might make. But Canada has changed a great deal, and in the past 100 years, there have been 13 attempts at Senate reform. Unfortunately, all have failed.

Under Bill C-7, now before the House of Commons, the terms of members of the upper house would be limited to nine years. The bill also contains a framework under which elections for the Senate could be held in the provinces. Those elections would provide a list of candidates from which the Prime Minister could make appointments to the Senate. Perhaps this is Senate reform, but it is not democratic reform that this government is offering, especially since the Prime Minister will still be able to choose senators himself, as he sees fit.

In fact, the bill proposes that senators be elected by a complex and ill-conceived system of elections. The elections will have no democratic value, because holding them is optional. In the provinces, the elections will probably favour candidates from the large urban centres at the expense of the regions. Bill C-7 also invites provinces to conduct elections at their own expense and under their own rules. Do we not find it strange that elections for the Senate, a federal institution, will be set up by the provinces?

Furthermore, the bill is not at all well regarded by the provinces, especially Quebec. Premier Jean Charest has already indicated that he is willing to contest it in court. Ontario, British Columbia and Nova Scotia go so far as to directly suggest abolishing the upper house.

Wanting to have the upper house made up of elected representatives also does away with the main difference between senators and members of Parliament. If senators are elected, they too will have political responsibilities to their constituents. So the one aspect that sets the Senate apart from the House of Commons, its independence, will be lost. Elected senators will be useless additions to elected members of Parliament.

The NDP is also opposed to this Senate reform because, within the next generation of senators, it would create a complicated system with half the senators being appointed and the other half being elected. The Senate, which is already discredited, would become even less functional, if not completely non-functional. There would be a division between a new category of senators elected for a nine-year term and the former category of senators appointed until age 75. The elected senators would have to follow the same party lines as the members.

We must not fool ourselves. It would be difficult to be elected to the Senate without the active support of a political party. The Senate will therefore be even more politicized than it currently is. A senator elected provincially could say that his mandate is stronger than that of a member because he would have more voters and a longer term.

This reform that the Conservative government is proposing could also lead to the same kind of legislative deadlocks that we are seeing in the United States, where Congress is composed of two elected bodies—the Senate and the House of Representatives. The situation could even be worse than in the United States, because our Constitution does not include a mechanism for conflict resolution that would make it possible to resolve the differences that are very likely to arise between the two elected chambers.

These days, the only reason for keeping the Senate is to provide lawmakers with the intellectual support of an assembly of outstanding people with various backgrounds who would have a non-partisan look at bills introduced in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The Senate has never really played its role as a chamber of sober second thought. Although some senators take their role seriously, the Senate is filled mainly with party cronies and has largely served as a comfortable retirement home for former politicians where many vote blindly along party lines.

Canadians increasingly think that the Senate should purely and simply be abolished. A little over a third think that the House of Commons should be the only federal legislative entity. Angus Reid has released a new poll on what Canadians think of the Senate. This is the fourth poll on this topic that this company has done since February 2010.

Poll after poll, one idea seems to be growing in the minds of Canadians: abolishing the upper chamber. Based on the latest poll, 36% of respondents agree with the statement that Canada does not need a Senate. All legislation should be studied and passed by the House of Commons. This percentage has been constantly going up since February 2010. Meanwhile, the statement that Canada needs a Senate and that Canadians should be allowed to participate in selecting senators is less popular than before. Support has gone down to 40% from 44% last November and 50% in July 2010.

The Angus Reid poll shows that the rejection of the status quo has been a constant. Only 5% of Canadians would be happy with the current rules governing the Senate, and 71% of Canadians would support a national referendum on the topic. So there you go. That is the NDP's position exactly.

Clearly, Canadians want a referendum to determine the Senate's future. And they are not alone. Senator Murray, who has held his position for 32 years, says that the Senate reform put forward by this government is a fiasco. In his view, this will lead to a real debate on the issue.

That is why the NDP thinks that Canadians must be asked whether they need a Senate, and if so, what type of Senate. If Canadians could have the right to vote on the best way to allocate $100 million in public spending, it is very likely that the majority of taxpayers would opt for something other than funding the Senate.

The Senate has lost its credibility in the eyes of many Canadians. Many of them are wondering what is the advantage of keeping an institution that is too often a country club for government members.

Those who doubt senators' loyalty towards their parties would only have to read the letter of Conservative Senator Bert Brown to be convinced:

Every Senator in this caucus needs to decide where their loyalty should be and must be. The answer is simple; our loyalty is to the man who brought us here...

The Conservative government, just like the Liberal government before it, takes pleasure in appointing senators based on their political affiliation. Despite repeated criticism of the appointment process in the past, this government, right after the May 2 election, sent three failed candidates, including Josée Verner, to the Senate, when it already had the majority in that chamber. This type of attitude is what has led Canadians to call the Prime Minister a hypocrite on the issue. Actually, an Angus Reid poll showed that 57% of respondents think Stephen Harper is a hypocrite in the way he handles Senate appointments.

[Port of Québec, December 6th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou for bringing forward Motion M-271, on the Port of Québec.

This port is also partially located in my riding. Therefore, it is my pleasure today to support this motion to recognize the Port of Québec as a hub of international trade in opening new markets for Canadian business, creating jobs for people back home, and generating significant economic benefits.

As the member for Québec, I had the opportunity to meet with many stakeholders—along with the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou—regarding the port and its development. I am convinced of its importance for the economic growth of Quebec City and the surrounding areas.

Modern ports are critical elements of transportation systems in Canada and around the world. In the context of global trade, Canadian ports must be competitive in several activity sectors in order to continue to hold their own against international competition.

In order to clearly understand the challenges faced by Canadian ports, one must know that Canadian port authorities were created by an act of Parliament enacted in 1998, the Canada Marine Act. This legal framework set a local governance structure for the management of port authorities. These authorities were designated by the Government of Canada as essential to domestic and international shipping. Indeed, Canadian port authorities, which include 17 ports, deal with over half of all the ocean freight in Canada, or goods evaluated at over $142 billion.

Under the Canada Marine Act, port authorities are responsible for their own funding and they must be self-sufficient. Moreover, the act closely monitors authorities by setting strict borrowing limits and, as a result, it is not always easy for a port to get a loan. Finally, the Canada Marine Act requires port authorities to give part of their gross revenues to the Government of Canada. Since Canadian port authorities operate under federal laws, it is our duty to ensure that relations between the government and these authorities are not only maintained, but also strengthened.

With global competition fiercer than ever, Canadian port authorities have to work harder to achieve the objectives of social and economic development for their regions. Canada has key marine transportation corridors on the St. Lawrence Seaway, which is one of the main corridors. Marine transportation generates $3 billion in economic activity. According to a study by the St. Lawrence Economic Development Council, shipping on the St. Lawrence is the most efficient means of transportation both financially and logistically.

The same study estimates that in 2010, Quebec's ports and marine activities sustained 27,350 jobs. Again according to the St. Lawrence Economic Development Council, Quebec's port industry's spending translates into a contribution to Quebec's gross domestic product of roughly $2.3 billion annually. In taxes, the governments of Quebec and Canada brought in $500 million and $180 million respectively in 2010.

The quality of its port services, its rail links at every terminal, and its 15 metre low tidal waters, make the Port of Québec a key element of the St. Lawrence Seaway and a gateway to the Great Lakes.

The Port of Québec is open 12 months of the year, is located roughly 1,400 km from the heart of North America and is less than 300 km from the first lock leading to the Great Lakes region. The Port of Québec has efficient links to the industrial and agricultural heart of North America. What is more, thanks to its port infrastructure, Quebec City's maritime community connects to roughly 60 countries. In 2010, the number of cruise ship passengers who set foot in Quebec City was 102,274, which is an increase of 18% compared to 2009. That has a considerable impact on Quebec City considering that those cruise ship passengers left behind some $80 million in regional spinoffs.

If the activity came to an abrupt end on Quebec City's docks, the economic shock to the region would be brutal.

Overall, some 5,000 direct and indirect jobs are associated with the Port of Québec. It generated almost $800 million in economic spinoffs and $163 million in taxes in 2010. The port also pays $900,000 per year in fees to the federal government.

Finally, since the turn of the century, the Port of Québec has increased its activity by approximately 75%. Today, the Port of Québec must invest $400 million to modernize its aging infrastructure and increase by 50% the quantity of goods shipped along the St. Lawrence River.

With limited borrowing capacity and no grant program tailored to Canadian ports, the Québec Port Authority has problems and solutions, but rather limited financial means to ensure its development and to stave off U.S. competition. This is what the CEO of the Port of Québec, Mario Girard, has said in the past.

It should be understood that, despite the popularity of the port facilities, the port itself spends a portion of its profits on activities in the cruise industry, the marina and recreation and tourism. Since 2006, these activities have cost approximately $10 million. Unfortunately, according to forecasts, these figures will continue to rise in 2011.

Mario Girard recently stated that cruises were a money-maker for the Quebec City region, but that it was the port that was footing the entire bill. Although the Port of Québec is in good shape, its infrastructure is aging. At present, the authority is looking at how it can finance $370 million in work needed to maintain facilities at the required levels. Canadian ports are not really funded by the federal government and must generate their own revenue, as I explained earlier.

Nevertheless, we hope that this government will realize that going with the status quo is no longer possible and that the Port of Québec must find funding to start its renovation projects. It is even more important because, as we have shown, the port is an important component of Quebec City's economy and geography.

Among its potential solutions, the Port of Québec is counting on private businesses to pay a good part of the bill because they are the first to profit from the facilities.

Marc Dulude, executive president of IMTT Québec, a company specializing in liquid bulk, says that business people clearly understand that and are prepared to contribute to the modernization of the port. However, he is asking the governments to do their part. He says that the lack of space, the lack of access to the piers will eventually inhibit the growth of activities and revenues that contribute to the vitality of the local economy.

The port of Quebec City hopes to see an increase in the transit of goods, from 25 million to 37 million tonnes annually, to generate new revenues. However, to achieve that objective, an initial investment is necessary to reorganize space dedicated to solid bulk, liquid bulk and grain, three local commodities supported by world demand.

In this regard, it is important to mention that a regulatory amendment would allow Canadian ports to borrow more easily. Currently, Canadian ports cannot offer their land as collateral because it still belongs to the community. Port authorities must prove to lending institutions that all their projects are self-financing. That is a problem in many cases. Moreover, ports have basically no liquidity, and again, that makes investments difficult.

So, the biggest challenge for the port of Quebec City is to find ways to generate new revenues to ensure the future of the city's port facilities, while also taking into account social and environmental considerations. It is important to point out that, while this motion primarily proposes to support the port of Quebec City and its development, these improvements must be done with the support of the public.

This is why the NDP wants to ensure that the Quebec City port authority will continue its consultation efforts with the public, because it is essential to meet with citizens and to hear their views on the renovation projects that are currently on the table.

That public consultation is necessary because in addition to the economic nature of the Quebec City port, about 20% of its facilities are used for recreation and tourism. So, a number of these facilities allow tourists and families from the area to have access to the St. Lawrence River. The port of Quebec City wants to become a model for profitable port-city relations, as well as an example for the development—

[Quebec City Public Transit, December 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, in November, the City of Quebec released the final report of the working group on sustainable mobility. Extensive consultation was done on this plan, which is an initiative to make public transit more efficient in the context of a long-term vision of sustainable development for generations to come.

Quebec City is proving that it is sensitive to the needs of families and people with lower incomes who, as the cost of gasoline rises, will be able to benefit from a more efficient and accessible public transit system.

I commend Quebec City's spirit of innovation and leadership in this plan for sustainable mobility. This initiative goes hand in hand with the NDP proposal that Canada create a national transit strategy.

I want to take this opportunity to assure my constituents and Mayor Régis Labeaume that they have my support for this forward-looking project. I wholeheartedly invite the Conservative government to support our municipalities and take part in this project.

[Veterans, November 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it took a veteran's desperate act to make the minister agree to establish a consultative committee on veterans' health.

The minister promised Pascal Lacoste that the committee would be set up by December 8. That is in two weeks' time. However, we have heard absolutely nothing since he made the announcement. All we know is that the first topic of study will be the effects of exposure to depleted uranium.

Can the minister tell us who will sit on the committee in question and can he commit to tabling the committee's report in the House?

[Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, November 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-215, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act (deletion of deduction from annuity).

This bill is very important to my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore. For over six years now, he has been working, with the support of hundreds of thousands of army and RCMP veterans from across the country, to ensure that the Government of Canada provides compensation for the reduction in pension benefits that applies to our veterans and members of the RCMP. My colleague told me that over the years he has met with veterans and former RCMP members who have spoken about a persistent problem: their pension is reduced at the age of 65 and the Canada pension disability is reduced.

To reiterate what my colleague already explained in more detail, it all started in 1965-66, when the Canada pension plan was created. The government proposed what it called a blended plan, because at the time, people had contributed to a retirement pension. When the Canada pension plan was created, the government said that its purpose was not to increase contributions for men and women in the armed forces or for members of the federal and provincial public service. The government therefore blended the program and determined how many people had to contribute to the Canada pension plan and a retirement pension. However, this was done without the consent of the men and women of our armed forces and the RCMP, and without their full understanding of the impact of these new measures.

In the past, the government has asked why we are giving priority solely to veterans of the Canadian Forces and the RCMP given that all sectors of the federal public service are affected by this clawback. It is important to recognize that the men and women of the Canadian Forces and the RCMP play a different role from all other members of the country's public service. They have an enormous responsibility. They are ready to risk their lives to defend Canadian ideals and to protect our country. They also ensure that our communities are safe. I have the utmost respect for the incredible work done by our men and women in uniform.

Every federal government worker is affected by this pension clawback, except senators, judges and members of Parliament. The pensions of the men and women of the armed forces and the RCMP are clawed back, but this does not happen to members. It is unacceptable that members, senators and judges are not affected by this rule, but that the men and women who protect us are.

If the government is concerned about how much this measure would cost, the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore has already broken it down. He has been looking into this issue for over six years. During that time, he has had the opportunity to discuss it with pension experts across the country. This bill presents a very interesting proposal, and we have a plan to minimize additional costs for taxpayers.

As the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore has already explained, if veterans are allowed to keep both of their moneys at age 65 or on disability, they would receive less old age security and guaranteed income supplement. Including old age security and the guaranteed income supplement in the argument that they do not lose any money is simply incorrect. Those payments come from general revenues, not from defined benefit pension plans. There is nothing stopping the government from cancelling the employment insurance deduction, taking that amount and putting it in the veterans' superannuation. That would cover the cost of the bill.

A committee review of Bill C-215, as introduced by my colleague, would also be a logical follow-up to the report adopted by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs in June 2010. That committee report was on the living new veterans charter. Here is what the committee report had to say about the uncertainty surrounding veterans' standard of living at the age of 65:

Committee members expressed concern about the lack of information that would enable them to anticipate the situation of a seriously wounded veteran upon reaching the age of 65. The earnings loss benefit stops at the age of 65, and the permanent impairment allowance is only paid under exceptional circumstances. Consequently, all that is left is the Canada pension plan or the Quebec pension plan and old age security. Since the earnings loss benefit does not grant entitlement to make contributions to pension plans, it is reasonable to expect a significant drop in income for injured veterans who are not receiving a substantial pension from the CF.

My colleagues and I are committed to working very hard on behalf of Canada's veterans, and we will fight not only to protect their pensions but also to invest in their well-being. I know that many members here in the House are willing to do a lot more to enhance the quality of life of those who fought for us.

That is why I would also like to take this opportunity to say that we also need to take care of our veterans' most recent health concerns. The intensity of the combat operations in Afghanistan took its toll on front-line soldiers both in the field and on their return home. The government needs to be proactive when it comes to the mental and physical health of Canadian soldiers and veterans. More support is needed for veterans making the transition to work outside the military, as well as support for caregivers and other family members. Better follow-up with our veterans is also needed after their service, since post-traumatic stress disorder and other operational stress injuries may manifest themselves many years after their period of active service. We are all very concerned about this issue and we will continue to work for Canada's soldiers to ensure that they get the services they need.

To understand veterans' issues, we have to take the time to speak with veterans and their families. I hope the Conservative MPs will at least go visit their local legion branch and meet with veterans. They should talk to them and ask them what they want. They should talk to them about Bill C-215. Then the Conservative MPs might realize that the vast majority of military personnel, RCMP officers and their families want to eliminate the clawback of their pension by the government.

A few years ago now, a number of veterans' groups, including the Royal Canadian Legion and the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada, unanimously adopted resolutions in support of the initiative of the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore. What is more, 110,000 people from across the country have signed a petition in support of this bill. Among the signatories we have Major-General Lewis MacKenzie and Senator Roméo Dallaire. Nevertheless, this government continues to deny that there is a problem.

On May 5, 2010, the vote on bill C-201—to which Bill C-215 is identical—was successful. Unfortunately, the Speaker of the House at that time subsequently declared that Bill C-201 could not proceed because the Prime Minister had refused to ask for a royal recommendation. However, the Prime Minister has said in the past that, when a bill is passed by a majority of members democratically elected to the House of Commons, this government must honour the request.

I would also like to remind this House that in November 2006 the NDP members proudly voted in favour of the “veterans first” motion, a five point motion that would have helped former RCMP officers and their families. Unfortunately, the Conservatives were fiercely opposed to the motion.

Thus, we are giving the government another opportunity to respect not only the democratic process, but in particular, to honour the sacrifices made by veterans of our armed forces and the RCMP. Finally, we should at least study the bill in committee, which would afford us the opportunity to call experts and to have an honest, open and thorough debate about this matter.

I am proud to defend this bill today because it provides an opportunity to address an injustice that has gone on for too long. No veteran or RCMP officer, nor their families, should live in poverty after serving their country. For that reason, we must put an end to this situation today.

In conclusion, I would like to highlight the exceptional work of my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore and thank him for it. For years he has listened to veterans, visited them and tried to understand and summarize their proposals. That is what is truly important—to listen and to be grateful. Bill C-215 would be a great way, so soon after Veterans' Week, to permanently support and recognize what veterans do for us every day of our lives.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, November 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to warmly thank the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst for his question. It is official; Quebec is concerned. We are concerned that this government does not seem to have a very strong knowledge of economics since the budget has to be revised constantly. The government is always saying that there will be no deficit when, in the end, there will be one. These are reasons for concern; however, we are also having difficulty recognizing the values of this government, which Quebec does not share. I can tell you that.

In fact, the firearms registry gave the government, the police and organizations that deal with violence against women the power to act. The fact that the government will not even transfer the registry to the provinces is truly appalling. Moreover, some of my Quebec counterparts came to Ottawa to beg the Conservatives, who want to abolish the firearms registry, to transfer the registry to the provinces so that they can carry on the work.

Not only is this government failing to do its duty in terms of public safety but it will not even allow the $2 billion that was invested in the registry to be recovered. If it would, passing the bill and abolishing the registry would not be a complete waste. It would allow the provinces to do the work.