Élaine Michaud

[Offshore Health and Safety Act, May 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech.

In his speech he spoke about creating an independent stand-alone authority to handle offshore health and safety issues. Unfortunately the current government completely dismissed this recommendation.

Could my colleague tell us why this recommendation is so important to the NDP and how implementing such a recommendation could affect working conditions for our workers?

[Points of Order, May 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today on a point of order to draw your attention to an incident in the House this week that I find particularly troubling. I am not sure what you can do about the situation, but since it happened in the House, you will at least have the opportunity to clarify what the precedents are in this regard and what you expect of members of the House.

On Tuesday afternoon of this week, the member for Edmonton East put a document in English only on the desk of each member. After speaking with my colleagues, I understood that it was a newsletter on the work the member for Edmonton East does in Turks and Caicos.

My remarks today are not about the content of the newsletter but the fact that the document was in only one official language instead of both. As we all know, the House takes respect for bilingualism in Canada and our two official languages very seriously. Documents cannot be tabled or distributed in the House if they are not in both official languages. If the simultaneous interpretation is not working in the House or in committee, business is interrupted until the problem can be resolved. Although the document in question is not an official parliamentary document, I do not think that we can turn a blind eye when members fail to respect the importance of Canada's two official languages. That is totally unacceptable and, frankly, I consider it to be a serious lack of respect for francophone parliamentarians in the House.

All members of the House know that they need permission from their whip to distribute documents like that. I checked with my party whip and she confirmed that no approval was given to distribute the document in question. I also checked with the table clerks, who told me that the member for Edmonton East was putting the document on all of the desks himself. It is clear that the member for Edmonton East knew he was bypassing well-established protocols and showing a complete lack of respect for the bilingual nature of the House and Canada's official languages.

Mr. Speaker, I want to add that I know you may not have any specific recourse in this case. However, I find this situation very troubling. I did not want to let it go unmentioned, and I hope that you will clarify what you expect of members when it comes to respecting Canada's two official languages.

I would love to ask for the consent of the House to table the document in question, but since it is only in English and I respect the rules of the House and Canada's two official languages, I will not do so. I will, however, give you a copy of the document so that you can decide for yourself.

[National Defence, May 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the minister responsible for the file cannot even confirm or deny whether Canada will take part in a missile defence program. It is simple: either we intend to take part, or we do not intend to take part.

The cost of a system like this is astronomical, and the system's success has yet to be proven. Could the minister please tell us whether his government intends to take part in a ballistic missile defence program? If so, could he also explain where he intends to find the money?

[National Defence, April 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, in their 2008 defence strategy, the Conservatives promised significant investments, but nothing ever came of that because of their incompetence when it comes to managing defence procurement.

Now the Department of National Defence is in the same boat as the other departments: it has to make cuts so that the Conservatives can hand out pre-election goodies in 2015. The senior defence staff has proposed a terrible solution, namely to cut personnel.

Can the minister promise that he will not reduce the number of full-time members of our armed forces?

[Situation in the Republic of South Sudan, April 29th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for the excellent question, which shows her experience in international relations. We can also see that she is very knowledgeable about this subject.

I think she is quite right in saying that Canada could have a leadership role. It could bring other countries to the table so that they could make a direct contribution by providing UNICEF with the money it needs. This request for money is not to be taken lightly as the funds will be used to address a major humanitarian crisis.

As for the number of children that could die this year, that is horrible, absolutely horrible. When we hear figures like that, I do not see how we can say that we have spent enough, given enough, tried enough, and that it is over and it is up to others to continue. I believe that our responsibility does not end there. As I mentioned earlier, it may seem difficult sometimes for people to understand, but we really do have a responsibility as members of the international community.

We have the power to negotiate with our international partners with whom we already have economic, cultural and other ties. We can use our connections to get people to contribute if they have not already done so, or to contribute more if they have already committed to giving a certain amount. The work in South Sudan has just begun for the international community. The international community has been very involved and has put in a lot of effort, but there is still much to be done. We cannot rest on our laurels and be satisfied with the money, time and resources that have already been invested. For that, every country in the world will have to work together and make a firm commitment.

[Situation in the Republic of South Sudan, April 29th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent question, which is related to my comments in response to my government colleague.

Canada has a responsibility to help people in need. In addition to providing financial and material resources, we can also take action on political and diplomatic fronts. We have to act quickly and put pressure on South Sudanese authorities to ensure that action is taken and that peace negotiations resume.

The ideal solution would be a negotiated peace. Armed intervention is not necessarily the best solution, but negotiation requires willingness on the part of the parties to go to the table, sit down and start over. I think the onus is on Canada to use its diplomatic influence to try to include women and members of civil society in the negotiation process to achieve a peace agreement that is good for everyone.

[Situation in the Republic of South Sudan, April 29th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, I would like to begin my thanking my colleague for providing those details. We needed to hear that information. We needed to hear that there is more to this than just empty promises, that the money is currently being distributed to competent partners who are already on the ground. That is good news. I would like to thank the member for sharing that information with the House, and I would like to thank the government for finally responding to the various requests from society and members of the House to help the people of South Sudan. It is a necessary step that is greatly appreciated.

As for additional aid, the issue is worth discussing in other debates. We need to assess the areas of need, and we should start by looking at the effectiveness of the aid currently being distributed. There are certainly other needs, and Canada will continue to be called on for assistance. We may be asking a lot of our citizens, but this is our responsibility because we are so privileged.

Earlier, a Conservative member said that some of his constituents did not really like the idea of sending Canadian money abroad. He gave them a good answer, which was that we do not really know what the situation is like in other countries, we do not know how difficult it can be, and we have a responsibility.

That was from a government member. I hope that message will come not only from an MP and that the government will step up to meet other needs and other appeals from the international community, regardless of the constraints. We have a responsibility to do that.

We have to work together to figure out how much we can give, but we do have a responsibility to help that country. The federal government's investment is much appreciated. However, if there are other needs, we will be asked to respond.

[Situation in the Republic of South Sudan, April 29th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, this evening, I would like to add my voice to those of my colleagues from all parties the House in expressing both our great concern about the crisis that is presently gripping South Sudan and, of course, our unconditional support for its people.

This evening's debate is very sad and troubling. I have had the opportunity to hear my colleagues from different parties express their views on the situation. The message from all parties in the House is very clear: we have a responsibility to act. We have a responsibility as members of the international community and as human beings to come to the aid of the people of South Sudan. That is what this evening is really about.

The situation is happening far away from us. It may seem very distant, but it is impossible to remain unmoved by the atrocities reported to us by the media and by people with links to those still living in South Sudan.

Before starting my own speech, I would like to take a moment to thank my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber for his presentation earlier. His speech was full of compassion, and he specifically recalled the 20th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide that is being commemorated this year. I found that comparison very appropriate.

Among other things, he mentioned our duty to be vigilant. With the terrible conflict in Rwanda, we came to realize the impact that much quicker intervention on the part of the international community could have had. We learned some lessons from that conflict that we should use today to come to the assistance of the people of South Sudan, who really need us to do so.

I represent the constituency of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, where the forces base at Valcartier is located. That is one of the places where General Roméo Dallaire worked and continues to work. Partisan questions aside, I feel that each of us has been touched by his account of the tragic events that he witnessed, by his desire to provide assistance, while having his hands tied and being powerless. It troubled and affected us all. All around Quebec City, and in my constituency in particular, we have been especially affected by General Dallaire's distinguished presence. In addition, all Canadians were touched and gripped by the atrocities that were perpetrated in Rwanda.

It is in that context that I want to address what is presently going on in South Sudan. Unfortunately, some parallels can be drawn between what is happening at the moment in that new country and what went on in Rwanda. It is very unfortunate and very disturbing for each of us here.

The current situation in this country developed after a very long conflict that had been going on for several years, which led to the referendum to declare independence and the creation of South Sudan. In 2011, close to 99% of the voters voted in favour of independence. There a was a clear desire for self-determination by this people, which took action to create a country for itself. There was new hope that the people would finally be able to live together as a people and have the institutions they wanted.

Unfortunately, the situation has taken a turn. On December 15, 2013, violence really erupted in South Sudan between pro-government forces, who remain loyal to President Salva Kiir, and the soldiers who support the former vice-president. That is when things began. Unfortunately, there are reports of ethnic massacres in the conflict. In other words, some people are being targeted directly because of their ethnicity.

Since the conflict began, thousands of people have reportedly died. The UN is investigating possible violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. Civilians have been attacked and civilians and peacekeepers have been killed.

There are reports of population displacements and gender-based sexual violence. There are places where rape is used as a weapon of war. Frankly, this situation is appalling.

Here in Canada, cases of sexual abuse and sexual harassment were recently uncovered in the Canadian Armed Forces and an inquiry was launched immediately. Action was taken swiftly. Everyone was deeply disturbed to hear that such things were happening here in Canada. When rape and abuse of women are systematically used as weapons of war, we cannot remain indifferent. We have the duty not only to act, but to act quickly.

The violence has escalated significantly over the past two weeks. Hundreds of civilians were targeted at the UN bases where they sought refuge, just because they belonged to a certain ethnic group. Just a few days later, there was another violent attack against civilians at another UN base, where more than 40 people were killed and many others were injured. We are talking about potential war crimes, but there needs to be an investigation to determine whether that is the case. The facts are disturbing, and by all accounts these do indeed seem to be war crimes.

Since the beginning of the conflict, more than one million people have fled their homes. I have heard a number of members talk about the youth of the South Sudan people. Indeed, large part of the population is under 30 and there are quite a lot of children. Many of them are separated from their families, are abandoned and have no resources. There are already some 68,000 refugees in UN bases. That is an approximate number, but the numbers are huge nonetheless. The UN bases where they are trying to accommodate these people and help them were not designed to host so many refugees and to provide essential services and assistance. The facilities are overcrowded and the basic services are rudimentary. With so many people and so few resources there is an increased risk of diseases being spread. There are different problems in refugee camps, so the UN bases have become refugee camps. The UN estimates that 4.9 million people from South Sudan are in need of immediate humanitarian assistance.

Because the camps are isolated and spread out, the UN says that it is difficult to reach many of the people affected by the conflict in South Sudan.

As was mentioned earlier, this is a very young country. It has had little time to develop its infrastructure. There are few paved roads, which makes it very difficult to reach people who are scattered across the country and to provide the resources and help they need. The rainy season is approaching, which is something else that could cause problems and delay the arrival of assistance.

Many members have mentioned the risk of famine. A number of farmers have been displaced. If they are still on their land, it is impossible for them to plant crops and to provide some sort of sustainment. Given this situation, we must act quickly. Canada has a responsibility. The government made a commitment. Members of the NDP were pleased to hear that $24.85 million has been promised. We have been calling for that assistance for a long time and we are pleased to see the government taking action.

I feel we need to do more. There are clear needs, and we need to help the people of South Sudan develop democratic institutions that will help prevent these types of situations. The culture of democracy needs to be developed. As members of the international community and as people who are lucky enough to live in a privileged country, we do not experience these types of situations. We have a responsibility to help these people and offer them Canada's resources.

We are therefore asking the government to continue supporting the international community's efforts and to act quickly to prevent the conflict from getting worse and to help the victims, who are, unfortunately, often unprepared women and children.

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, April 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Sherbrooke for his eloquent speech.

I would like to come back to something he mentioned in the answer he just gave to the member opposite. The member opposite is criticizing the NDP for not wanting to pass certain aspects of the bill we are discussing today, which have been controversial since Bill C-30 was introduced. My colleague already addressed this issue in his speech.

The Conservatives' attitude toward today's debate is the same attitude they adopt every time we try to make amendments to a bill.

My colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord proposed a national bullying prevention strategy that was defeated by the Conservatives, who wanted nothing to do with it. What is more, my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour introduced Bill C-540, which received broad support. However, the Conservatives decided not to do anything about it and to instead develop a much more complicated bill to try to pass measures that Canadians do not agree with.

I would like my colleague to elaborate on how the NDP's approach is a much better way of finding a real solution than the Conservatives' divisive approach. I would like him to explain a bit more about the advantages of working together in the House, rather than trying to divide people, as we unfortunately see with all of the bills that the Conservatives introduce.

[Public Works and Government Services, April 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, considering this is being called a public report and it was paid for using public funds, people expect to be able to access a copy in the public domain.

After completely botching the selection process for the new fighter jets, the Conservatives are making even more mistakes trying to fix their previous mistakes. The report on the options for replacing the defence aircraft will be of no use if the definition of operational requirements remains biased towards the F-35.

Why are the Conservatives refusing to release that report without cabinet approval?