House of Commons photoLost her last election, in 2015, with 26% of the vote.
Business of Supply February 28th, 2012
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to support the Liberals' opposition motion.
We have been talking about protection of the rights and freedoms in the charter for a long time, particularly in terms of the protection of individual rights.
There seems to be a lot of noise in the House.
Canada Labour Code February 17th, 2012
Madam Speaker, it is a great honour for me to rise in support of this great piece of legislation, which is essential. I also want to congratulate the hon. member for Trois-Rivières for proposing it. As previous speakers have mentioned, this bill addresses a deficiency. The fact that no member from the government or from the other parties has risen to support this bill makes me wonder. Why do they not support it? I would appreciate an explanation.
I am going to talk about the purpose of this legislation. I represent the riding of Terrebonne—Blainville in the beautiful province of Quebec. When I travel to other parts of the country and tell people I come from Quebec, the first thing they think about is French.
People who do not live in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada would be surprised to learn that there are places where the working environment is English-speaking. Why? It is because our laws are flawed, and this is what the bill seeks to correct. In short, this legislation is useful because it would apply the province's language requirements to federally regulated businesses. As my colleagues who have spoken before me have pointed out, French may be the primary language of work in a small telecommunications company. However, there could be a business next door like Rogers, which is federally regulated, where employees are forced to speak English.
I totally object to this situation and to the fact that an employee may be told by his employer that he must learn English to work there. This is completely ridiculous. We must stop thinking in those terms and correct the flaws in the legislation.
I have some facts for those who criticize this bill on the ground that it is unnecessary. There are 200,000 workers who are not covered by the Charter of the French Language. We are talking about 200,000 people who go to work and may be forced to speak English, that is, to work in a language that is not their first language. This can create a working environment in which workers are less happy. It is important to point this out.
The Quebec Labour Code does not apply to federally regulated businesses, and this flaw must be corrected. Someone mentioned that the hon. Minister of Industry has set up an advisory committee. Perhaps this will correct the situation, but who will appoint the members of that committee, how much will the consultation process cost, and how long is it going to take? Will a report be produced? Will something come out of that exercise? A committee is just a half-measure to correct the situation. We must move forward and support Bill C-315.
I remind hon. members that Quebec was recognized as a nation in the House by all hon. members and by this government. If we believe in the concept of nationhood, it is essential to respect the language rights of Quebec's francophone majority. I want to tell members from Ontario, New Brunswick—actually not New Brunswick, because it is not a good example—and British Columbia, where the anglophone population forms a majority, that this bill will not apply to their provinces. It will only apply to Quebec, where the rights of the linguistic majority are not respected the way they should be. The bill directly addresses this issue.
I have a quote for those who think that this bill is unnecessary. It is taken from an article on the issue of English at National Bank in Quebec: “According to several sources, English has become the primary language of work for a large number of National Bank employees, particularly in the information technology or IT sector.” This is a major problem. When we think “Quebec”, we think “French”, but with such flaws in the legislation, we cannot move forward and correct the situation.
This is all I have to say on the bill. However, I want to congratulate my colleague again for proposing a great piece of legislation. I urge all hon. members to help our members and the workers in Quebec who must learn a language other than their mother tongue in order to work and keep their jobs. I urge all hon. members to rise in support of French.
Standing Orders and Procedure February 17th, 2012
Madam Speaker, I do not have much time to respond, so I will simply say that, once again, I agree entirely. It is an excellent idea and we should revisit this issue.
Standing Orders and Procedure February 17th, 2012
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I agree entirely: the time for statements by members should be reassessed because, lately, we have witnessed personal attacks on members. That is not the intended purpose of these statements; they are supposed to be an opportunity to share with this House the good work done by residents in our ridings.
So I think that is an excellent idea.
Standing Orders and Procedure February 17th, 2012
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
The debate really will be productive if we decide to discuss how to reform question period. I am pleased to note that the government members and members from the other parties are prepared to discuss potential improvements to question period. Personally, I understand that ministers are busy and that they cannot always be present, as we all have commitments in our ridings. I think that all of these questions can be considered, and I hope that the committee does so.
Standing Orders and Procedure February 17th, 2012
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to rise in this debate, as I am particularly concerned about the lack of people interested in politics, especially our youth. I am delighted, therefore, to be able to discuss changes to the Standing Orders which, believe me, will improve this political institution.
The first issue for the committee’s consideration should be Standing Order 37(1) concerning question period. This period is intended to be an opportunity for members to ask questions of ministers, who then respond, although my colleagues will agree that we have not got many answers to our questions recently. I consider this to be a serious problem. We should find ways of improving the situation. There could be provisions and even protocols with which the Speaker would have to comply to ensure that ministers answer questions asked by the opposition. This is how we can hold the government to account. It is very important that when members ask questions of ministers, they be required to answer them. Another option for consideration would be to set aside a day for the Prime Minister, during which he would be required to answer questions.
The next rule that warrants consideration is Standing Order 45(3) concerning the length of time the bells are sounded to call in the members. In January, members said that they wanted the bells to be sounded on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays for 30 minutes rather than 15 minutes, given that members are in committee and it takes them longer to return to the House. This is already something that the House adopts unanimously in January of every year. The change should therefore be written into the Standing Orders, so that it becomes the rule and not the exception.
We would like to ask the committee to review Standing Order 108(3)(a). It would be very beneficial to formalize the process in which the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs studies and reports to the House on the kinds of debates we are having today. It is important to have these debates, which take place in each parliament, but it would be beneficial if we could implement a system whereby the committee assessed the debates from previous years so that what is debated here is not lost. That could be productive for our political institution and for the committee that reviews these issues.
The next change that we are proposing concerns Standing Order 44.1(1) regarding paired members. According to this Standing Order, members are entitled to be paired with other members who intend to be absent on the same day. In the past, however, the government has paired with the Bloc Québécois, which perhaps voted along similar lines. The Standing Order stipulates that the person with whom the member is paired shall vote in the opposite manner, so that they cancel each other out. It is important to review this practice to ensure that it is indeed being followed, because this has not always been the case in the past. It is important that neutrality is maintained.
On the same issue, but relating to Standing Order 44.1(2), we would also like the committee to consider the possibility of including the time or the individual vote in the register of paired members. According to the Standing Orders, members must be paired for the entire day. We would like the committee to consider the possibility of members being paired for one vote at a time. Alternatively, the provision stipulating that members must be paired for the entire day could be completely scrapped.
Regarding Standing Order 156(2), the opposition realizes that the Speaker often reports administrative changes to bills to the House. However, it is not certain whether the Speaker does this systematically. We would therefore like the committee to consider the possibility of implementing a system to ensure that each administrative change made to a bill is reported to the House. Every member would therefore be informed of any changes made to a bill, especially those of an administrative nature.
I would like to raise a final point today. There is one particular Standing Order that is somewhat strange and truly anachronistic in the 21st century. Standing order 158(2) states that “No stranger who has been committed, by Order of the House, to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, shall be released from such custody until he or she has paid a fee of four dollars to the Sergeant-at-Arms.”
Members will agreed that $4 is not a huge sum that would make a stranger to the House of Commons think twice before entering. This Standing Order should be modernized. Perhaps there should be a requirement for the payment of an amount of money more appropriate to the 21st century, or perhaps this Standing Order could be scrapped entirely.
In closing, it was a great pleasure for me to be here and to take part in the discussion to improve our Standing Orders here in the House and to restore confidence in our democratic system.
Public Safety February 17th, 2012
Madam Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety's public life is troubling enough; there is no need to add his private life to the mix.
In addition to concerns about snooping in the personal information of Internet users without a warrant, the plot has now thickened with the announcement by Internet service providers that they are increasing the cost of services.
Will the cost of having Internet service providers act as spies be shouldered by consumers? How much will it cost Internet users to have the government spy on them?
Public Safety February 17th, 2012
Madam Speaker, since introducing Bill C-30, the Conservatives have backpedalled when faced with a wave of criticism from the public and the NDP. There is no provision to protect Canadians from invasion of privacy. Contrary to what the minister of public insecurity would have us believe, he wants to allow access to Internet users' personal information without a warrant.
Why does the minister want to treat Internet users like criminals?
Ending The Long-Gun Registry Act February 15th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, indeed, I will clarify. This bill will provide access to our geographic location without a warrant. To me, that treats law-abiding citizens like criminals, plain and simple.
Ending The Long-Gun Registry Act February 15th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I am really sick of hearing the government say that. To them everything is black and white: either you are with criminals or against criminals. We are for victims and this bill protects victims, but you want to go against the registry. I do not understand. Is the government with or against victims?