Guy Caron

[Business of Supply, September 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the member will pay closer attention to the speech I am about to give than he did to the question I just asked him. I will be sharing my time with the member for Hull—Aylmer.

The motion has already been read in the House. We are asking the Prime Minister to show some leadership for once and meet with the premiers who are members of the Council of the Federation during a conference to be held this November in Halifax about how to address the economic uncertainty that Canada is still experiencing. Such proof of leadership is critical given that, contrary to what the government would have us believe, there has been very little communication between the federal government and the provinces and territories concerning economic issues.

The government can talk about individual meetings all it wants, but some issues need to be discussed and explored in depth by all of the regions together. Unfortunately, despite the promises it made in the past, the Conservative government has done nothing to make this happen. We think that this is critical to raising awareness of the flaws in the Conservatives' economic policy regardless of all of the claims they have made so far today and will likely continue to make for the rest of the day.

At the end of the day, the Conservatives did nothing and brag about being responsible for getting Canada through the last recession—even though things are still uncertain now—and for getting Canada through this period relatively unscathed in comparison to the global economy.

But according to most economists and analysts, this is not because of the policies they are implementing, but simply because of Canada's existing financial, economic and banking structures.

Before I continue, I will give some examples of bad Conservative economic policies, policies that represent opportunities the Canadian economy could have had if the right decisions had been made. I will start with their arrival to power in 2006. Members will recall that we had a budget surplus. During their first mandate, the Conservatives decided to reduce the GST by 2%. This was a political and economic move that they bragged about, even though economists said that it was probably the worst way to stimulate the economy. They did it. Since 2006, this has represented a dead loss for the Canadian treasury of between $8 billion and $10 billion a year, so nearly $60 billion overall.

But the Conservatives chose the worst way to invest this $13 billion surplus to best stimulate the Canadian economy. That is what economists told them. That is what we told them. And that is what everyone who knows a thing or two about economics told them.

I mentioned in one of my questions that for every dollar lost in GST revenue, the Department of Finance and most people who study the multiplier effect of such decisions are clear: only 30¢ is put back into the economy. This means that economic growth represents only 30¢ on the dollar of what we lose in revenue.

If the Conservatives truly wanted to effectively stimulate jobs, if they wanted to go in this direction by eliminating the surplus, they could have made other decisions. They could have invested in infrastructure. Canada has an infrastructure deficit of about $130 billion. If they had taken every surplus dollar and invested it in Canadian infrastructure, every dollar would have brought in $1.50 in economic growth. That would put us in the black.

If they had wanted to invest in housing, the return would have been $1.50 for each dollar invested in housing infrastructure. If they had wanted to take measures intended directly for the disadvantaged and the unemployed, the return would have been even better still: for each dollar invested in these measures for the least fortunate, the unemployed and the most disadvantaged people, $1.70 in economic growth would have been generated.

By lowering the GST, the government generated economic growth of 30¢ for each dollar lost. In addition, in terms of revenue from the tax on company profits, the economic growth is also 30¢ for each dollar eliminated or lost.

So the choices the Conservatives made are economic. They tried to justify them but, at the end of the day, instead of investing the $13 billion surplus in paying down the debt, they could have made better choices that would have done more for the Canadian economy.

The government's choices were not made in consultation with the provinces, even though this government and the members who have spoken so far are talking about great communication. It is a unilateral gesture.

I was talking about the $13 billion surplus that had been eliminated in a year and a half because the GST was lowered by two percentage points, among other things. We were in a deficit situation even before the recession, even before the economic stimulus packages. This government claims to be the appropriate manager of public finances. But it must realize that, aside from that period of a year and a half when this government had a budget surplus that it inherited when it was elected and that it changed into a deficit, we still have a deficit. We are celebrating a very important anniversary in 2012. It is the 100th anniversary of a balanced federal Conservative budget, because the last balanced budget under the Conservatives, before the one they inherited in 2006, was in 1912. Do you know who the prime minister was then? Robert Borden.

I know that the Conservatives really enjoy talking about the NDP's economic performance. If we look at the Department of Finance's own figures in the performance analysis of the federal and provincial governments in terms of balanced budgets and proper management of public funds, we can see that all the NDP provincial governments have the best performance economically, as well as in fiscal management and balanced budgets. They are far ahead of the Conservative and Liberal governments. It has been so since 1982 or 1987, depending on which year you choose as a reference.

Once again, in terms of sound management of public funds, the Conservative government has nothing to teach us and we have nothing to learn from it.

We also have to realize that what the Conservatives are doing—once again, generally without consulting the provinces and using a completely one-sided approach—is an impediment to the country's potential growth. I am talking about the restraint measures during this period, among other things. Let me refer you to the last budget and probably the upcoming budget, if we rely on the rumours going around. The Conservative government has started to promote its restraint measures and to talk about cutting 20,000 jobs in the public service, as well as cutting the budget of various departments by 5% to 10%.

Once again, we are talking about general cuts of 5% to 10% at all levels and no notice is being taken of whether we are cutting the fat, as the Conservatives are fond of saying, or whether we are cutting into the bone. I can tell you that, in plenty of departments, many of the austerity measures implemented—the budget cuts—were cuts into the bone. The Conservatives do not care. They are applying the 5% to 10% cuts to everyone, regardless of the impact it will have.

The Conservative government's austerity measures have been criticized by this side of the House, of course, but also by rating agencies. Fitch and Moody's condemned the austerity measures and warned the government not to go too far because austerity measures are dangerous in times of economic uncertainty, such as those we are still facing in Canada. However, the Conservatives turns a deaf ear to all the economic wisdom that is shared with them. We on this side of the House are not surprised. The government refuses to listen to anything we say. We saw this before with the budget consultations and in the different stages of Bill C-38, the mammoth bill. The fact that the Conservatives are turning a deaf ear to wise advice such as that provided by Fitch and Moody's is completely irresponsible.

I would like to end by talking once again about the lack of leadership and communication with regard to employment insurance. The measures proposed in Bill C-38 are there to address a local labour shortage problem that is affecting western Canada and other areas. We agree on that. We are waiting for the minister to provide administrative regulations for employment insurance. The implementation of a Canada-wide employment insurance reform with all these measure that have a negative impact on regions such as eastern Quebec demonstrates a blatant lack of vision for the different economic realities of the specific regions. Although it is becoming more economically diverse, my riding of Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, like those of the Atlantic provinces and others, still depends on seasonal work, whether it is in the forestry, fishing, agricultural or tourism sectors. The Conservative are blind. I will tell you who opposed this reform: most of the provincial premiers, including those of the Atlantic provinces.

For us, it is essential that the government choose the path of co-operation, of working together with the provinces, and that is why we are moving this motion calling on the Prime Minister to attend the economic summit being held by the Council of the Federation in November.

[Business of Supply, September 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca seems to have a rather selective memory since he comes from the same region as the Prime Minister, who, not all that long ago, described the Atlantic provinces as having a culture of dependence and talked about building a firewall around Alberta. We have no lessons to learn from this government on issues of national unity and how to create a balanced economy in this country.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Finance alongside the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca, and I found that interesting. We want to have national policies that help all Canadian industries, but the Conservatives seem to have forgotten a few things. One example is employment insurance. Last spring's reform has resulted in labour shortages in some regions. I completely understand the problem, which the member has explained several times.

But the changes hurt regions like mine, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, and the Atlantic provinces. Business people are telling me that they are going to lose skilled workers they trained themselves. These workers are leaving the region for various reasons related to the development of seasonal work, which still accounts for a significant number of jobs.

I would like the member to comment on the changes that were supposed to help the economy as a whole but are helping just some regions and hurting others. That is what the Conservatives have offered up to date.

[Business of Supply, September 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the hon. member for York Centre.

First, we agree, on both sides of the House, that you need sound facts and strong evidence before you develop economic policies. When the Conservatives came to power in 2006, they inherited a budget surplus of about $13 billion. In a year and a half, even before the recovery program and the recession, that surplus had been used up, largely because the GST was reduced by 2%. We are talking about a loss in revenue of $8 billion to $10 billion a year. If we look at the Department of Finance's own figures in terms of the benefit of reducing the GST for economic growth, we see that, for every dollar lost in revenue, only 30 cents of additional revenue in gross domestic product was actually created.

If they had really wanted to spend the $13 billion on something other than paying down debt, they could have taken a more efficient approach. For instance, they could have developed an infrastructure program that would generate economic spinoffs to the tune of $1.50 for every dollar invested.

Could the hon. member for York Centre comment on the seemingly unwise budget choices of the Conservative government? Also, since he says that the NDP lives in a fantasy world when it comes to policies, could he tell me if he agrees with the polluter pay principle that the NDP has put forward for the whole country?

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, September 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we are indeed disappointed because a little consultation is all it would have taken for us to share with the Minister of Public Safety some critical elements that could have helped refine this bill and made it easier for us to support. It would not have taken much effort. However, what we have once again is a botched bill that is supposed to fix problems with another bill. Bill C-42 replaces Bill C-38.

The minister could have done a better job if he had consulted the opposition. Had he done so, we would not have to redo the work at second reading, and we would be able to move the bill through as quickly as possible. As things stand, at least we support studying it at second reading so that we can pass a bill that will make the RCMP more accountable and prevent certain types of incidents from happening again.

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, September 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this is an important matter.

I would say that it is conducive to a culture of passing the buck, or avoiding and delegating responsibilities. There are some problems in that regard. Therefore, a review of the bill in committee is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that everything that has happened and that has been allowed to happen by the current culture in the RCMP is changed. In my presentation, I spoke about the great powers given to the commissioner. They are major powers and major responsibilities. But if the commissioner can delegate very sensitive powers to shirk his responsibilities, the culture will not change.

In that sense, this side of the House considers Bill C-42 to be a step in the right direction. It is probably not enough, and that is why we will propose a number of amendments to strengthen the mechanism for accountability and transparency. This will ensure that those who commit abuses within the RCMP—sexual harassment is definitely an abuse in the Canadian society of today—will be accountable to a commission that in turn is accountable. In the end, there will be better oversight with more specific duties and responsibilities. All Canadians will benefit because their confidence in the RCMP, our police service, will be restored and there will be no fears for the future.

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, September 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the systemic shortcomings. In order for Canadians to have confidence in the RCMP, the police force that protects them across Canada, they must also have confidence in the complaints mechanism. When the RCMP oversteps its mandate or does not take all necessary precautions with respect to a Canadian citizen—Maher Arar in this case, or any other citizen—there must be a mechanism to examine its actions. The proposed mechanism will not result in a full review. For that reason, the NDP will propose amendments in that regard at second reading.

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, September 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I touched on this in my presentation. Canadians still recognize that the RCMP represents one of the most respectable and respected police forces in the world. The number of cases is not high compared to the total number of members in the force, but even one case of sexual harassment is one too many, whether it occurs within the RCMP, or in the public or private sectors.

We must take steps to ensure that situations such as this do not happen again. Regardless of the number of cases, the problem that we saw with the RCMP was that there were flaws in the system that allowed such situations to reoccur.

It is therefore essential to table a bill that will re-examine how the RCMP can act transparently in order to reassure the public. In our opinion, Bill C-42 addresses this issue fairly adequately. Even if we vote in favour of this bill, it is still necessary to demonstrate that the RCMP can regain public support and to ensure that Canadians' trust in this organization is well placed. That being said, the review proposed by this bill is a first step in the right direction even if it does have some shortcomings.

We urge the government to take note of the various complaints and situations. The existing structure in which such cases of harassment can occur must also be examined and the system must be fixed so that Canadians can continue to have confidence in the RCMP.

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, September 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment and on assuming the Chair today.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. The NDP will support Bill C-42 and will vote in favour of it at second reading. However, we want to make some considerable amendments, in order to fix the most problematic areas of the bill, particularly in order to improve oversight and to ensure that independent investigations are conducted. We would also like to increase the independence of the new Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police from the RCMP and the minister.

Canadians' confidence in the RCMP has been shaken over the past few years by the many scandals the police force has been involved in. Now a number of bullying and harassment in the workplace cases are once again tarnishing the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's reputation.

When Commissioner Paulson was newly appointed in November 2011, he was very clear about the priorities he was committed to focusing on: accountability and leadership. Canada's largest police force must be accountable and must not give the impression of being above the law.

Bill C-42 was introduced to modernize the force's systems and make them more efficient. In particular, members accused of an offence will be punished or fired more quickly. Members who commit crimes not only violate the standards and laws that they are supposed to uphold, they also cause significant harm to the organization's image.

In a speech following his appointment to the head of the RCMP, Mr. Paulson said:

The work we do is important, but how we do this work is equally important and can profoundly impact the lives of Canadians. I get that.

In a way, it is reassuring to know that the commissioner cares about more than results. He also cares about how those results are achieved.

Obviously, the RCMP is a huge organization. That is not news to anyone. It has some 30,000 employees whose activities are frequently international in scope. The commissioner recognized that he has “a lot of work ahead of [him] as we continue to transform the RCMP.” Fixing the force is not an easy undertaking. We know that. This bill is a small step, but it remains to be seen whether it will really help the commissioner achieve his goals of accountability and responsibility.

After Corporal Catherine Galliford came forward in November 2011, many other women followed her example. The day after the media reported Ms. Galliford's allegations, another officer, Krista Carle, came forward about the abuses she suffered and the lack of assistance and empathy on the part of her former supervisors, who maintained the environment of silence and fear in which she had to work. Ms. Carle said, “I know for a fact there are at least six women that I know who have left the force or are still in that have suffered harassment.” She added, “I'm sure there are others who are afraid to come forward for fear of reprisals.” Ms. Carle's case was settled in 2007, but she still felt the need to speak up about what happened.

Then, in December 2011, Corporal Élisabeth Couture also took legal action against the RCMP for professional harassment. According to the media, the young woman is currently on sick leave because of stress caused by the incidents.

In Manitoba, another woman publicly denounced the sexual harassment and racism she was a victim of. Marge Hudson was the only aboriginal police officer in Manitoba when she joined the force. It seems that she went through some difficult years during which people were apparently plotting to force her to resign.

Then, former constable Janet Merlo launched a class action suit with the Supreme Court of British Columbia on behalf of over 150 former and current female police officers, who are making numerous claims of discrimination and sexual harassment within the force.

To his credit, Commissioner Paulson has said that he was aware that harassment exists within the RCMP and that this was unfortunately not a new thing, but that mindsets must change and that these behaviours must never be tolerated. On the day of his appointment, Mr. Paulson said, “First on my plate will be addressing the issue of harassment and sexual harassment in the workplace.”

A number of the bill's critics are wondering how this stricter system will be able to stop the specific problems of sexism and harassment in the workplace because, quite often, it is not necessarily the complaint process that is the issue, but the acknowledgement of the action and the very willingness to set this process in motion. Commissioner Paulson spoke about that himself.

He said they have good policies on how to deal with complaints, but “the trouble is ensuring compliance with these policies”.

That is why we are instead talking about the need to change the culture of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The Minister of Public Safety has defended the effectiveness of his bill in this respect by declaring, and I quote:

Under this legislation, the commander cannot allow a negative culture to continue or they will be held responsible. That, in my opinion, will make a huge difference in changing that culture.

Unfortunately, we all know that no legislation can force such a change.

Following the overwhelming findings of the Brown report in 2007, which essentially called for a full review of the entire currently existing culture, governance and management structure within the RCMP, the Minister of Public Safety at the time refused to hold a public inquiry, instead preferring to create the Task Force on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP.

The task force issued its report in December that same year. Nearly 50 recommendations were made, 49 actually, but three are essential for starting a true cultural change, improving governance and paving the way for the application of the other recommendations.

The first recommendation was to establish the RCMP as a separate entity within the government, with its own employer status, which would involve giving it the full authority to manage its financial affairs and personnel within general parameters approved by Parliament.

These new powers would require a different structure within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which leads us to the second recommendation, which was to create a board of management of the RCMP responsible for the stewardship of its organization and administration, including the oversight of the management of its financial affairs, resources, services, property, personnel and procurement. The board would be accountable to Parliament through the minister.

Finally, the third recommendation of the task force was that legislation be enacted to establish an independent commission for complaints and oversight of the RCMP—the ICCOR. This commission would have the same responsibilities as the ERC and the CPC, with expanded authorities similar to those of an ombudsman. It would present public reports and its decisions would be binding on the commissioner.

When the report was released, David Brown, the chair of the task force, stated that the RCMP is not just another federal department—nor should it be. In his report he added:

In many ways, the RCMP's approach to governance has been based on a model and style of policing developed from—and for—another era...none of these changes will be sustainable without the fundamental changes to structure that we are proposing.

It would be disingenuous to not acknowledge the impact of the recommendations of the Brown report and the task force on Bill C-42, the bill we are currently debating.

However, it is quite obvious that the recommendations central to the reform set out in the two reports, particularly the recommendations concerning accountability to Parliament and the binding nature of the new civilian commission's decisions, have been diluted. The Brown report does state that “confidence by the public and the RCMP family in these results can only be achieved through full civilian oversight.” We believe that this oversight requires public reports to elected officials.

As for separate employer status, there is no mention of it in the bill.

In light of the nature and importance of the responsibilities of an organization such as the RCMP, the task force stated:

Such a consideration [governance and the administration of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police] would require a much broader public policy debate as to the policing model which best suits Canada and best serves Canadians.

Although it is not within the task force's mandate to order such a debate, the simple fact that they mentioned it shows the importance attributed to the exercise by the task force members, especially since the recommendations do not seem to have had the desired effect.

We will get a better idea of the reaction of those affected during the committee hearings. We will vote in favour of this bill at second reading so that committee hearings can be held to thoroughly examine this bill. For now, comments seem to indicate that the bill does not go far enough in terms of the nature and extent of the changes made to the RCMP's structure and organization to ensure a real change in culture.

Bill C-42 thus seeks to ensure that with power comes responsibility, and members will have to realize that. However, let us be clear: this bill puts a lot of power and responsibility in the hands of the commissioner. The commissioner will be given the following tasks: to establish procedures to investigate and resolve disputes relating to alleged misconduct by a member, and to establish an informal conflict management system within the parameters established by the Treasury Board. The dual nature of the two complaints systems—one governed by the Treasury Board and the other by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act—often results in red tape and confusion within the organization.

This bill gives the commissioner two very broad mandates, which much be used very carefully and in a very analytical manner in order to ensure that he is able to fulfill them.

One thing that is surprising, however, is that the government introduced the bill without waiting for the results of the review on gender relations and the place of women in the RCMP that was ordered by the new commissioner, or the findings of the independent investigation that the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, or CPC, is conducting on workplace harassment. These two reports are to be submitted by the end of the year.

We can only hope that the commissioner will wait to consult and consider the findings in these two reports before making any other changes, since the purpose of these reports was to better understand harassment problems within the organization.

According to the Treasury Board's Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Bill C-42 “gives the Commissioner human resource management authorities similar to those of Deputy Heads in the federal Public Service and to those of heads of large police services in Canada. This includes the authority to appoint, promote, discipline, demote or terminate the employment of all members...”.

These cases would still go before a disciplinary committee, but the commissioner could appeal the tribunal's decision or change it. Furthermore, this authority could be used for a variety of non-disciplinary reasons, such as absenteeism or poor performance.

It is difficult to know how much this increased authority for the commissioner is related to the government's controversial decision to reduce the number of categories of employees from three to two. Civilian members, specialized employees without police training who directly assist police officers, will now become simple public servants, and this category would be eliminated.

First, I think it is important to say that the Brown report and the subsequent task force report were both in favour of this change. This would lighten the structure and avoid confusion about the rights and responsibilities of the various categories of employees.

These reports aside, however, there are two conflicting views here, and the decision is controversial. The 4,000 or so civilian members see their no longer being members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as a lack of recognition or even a demotion. One civilian member, speaking anonymously, said that the problem was not being part of the public service, but rather no longer being considered members of the RCMP. This would widen the gap between these employees and members, all for budgetary reasons, since this change would jeopardize their benefits and would save the government more than $190 million. However, this amount was contested by the commissioner, who estimated the savings at closer to $10 million a year.

This idea of removing a category of employees is nothing new. For over 15 years, the government and the RCMP have been unsuccessfully proposing this change. Regardless, this is no longer a possibility being considered. It is being put into place with Bill C-42, despite a formal rejection by over 90% of civilian members in an internal poll held in 2010.

It is true that these people do not carry out police duties per se, but they are more than administrative staff.

By agreeing to this change, civilian members will acquire protections related to their status that they did not have before, such as the right to unionize and accordingly, the right to strike. They will be protected from the commissioner's new discretionary powers with respect to human resources as set out in Bill C-42. They will no longer be treated as members, and will therefore not be subject to the same degree of severity as police officers; they will be treated like public servants. We hope that the committee's study will enable us to understand both sides of this issue and better identify the consequences of this decision.

Responsibility and accountability are central to this bill, which, according to the Minister of Public Safety, will ensure that the RCMP is accountable for its actions before its members and the public. By creating a civilian complaints commission for the RCMP, the government wants us to believe that the organization will henceforth be accountable to the public.

What will really make a difference in terms of transparency is the fact that members of the commission will not be drawn from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. That is the idea, anyway, but I think it is dishonest to say that the makeup of the commission will ensure that it renders decisions that it will have to justify to the public. That is one of our biggest disappointments with this bill. The RCMP should be accountable to Parliament, not just to the Minister of Public Safety. That would make the commission truly independent.

In conclusion, I believe that the RCMP remains one of the most respected paramilitary police forces in the world, but given the scope of the allegations and under pressure from the NDP, the Conservative government was forced to act before public trust disappeared altogether. We will have to wait until the committee has had a chance to do its work before the consequences of this bill are felt, but one thing is certain: this government had a duty to act, yet it dragged its feet. I would remind the House of the many questions that were asked during the previous session, the spring session. Indeed, time and time again during question period, we asked the Minister of Public Safety to brief us on the situation. He tended to give evasive answers anytime he was asked the question during question period.

The new commissioner frequently reiterated his intention and his willingness to intervene. It remains to be seen whether this government's proposals will help him. It is important to remember that above and beyond its responsibility to enforce the law, this government, which is ultimately responsible, must do everything it can to dispel any appearance of being above the law.

That is why the NDP will support An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts at second reading, considering the many pressing and extremely problematic allegations of sexual harassment in the RCMP. We plan to propose a number of amendments at second reading, since we believe that they are necessary to ensuring that this bill is effective in addressing the many complaints and criticisms regarding the status quo, not only by members of the RCMP, but also by people who have had to go to court in order to assert their right to dignity in the workplace within the RCMP. In order to ensure that these objectives are met, we must create the mechanisms needed to guarantee the independence of the new civilian review and complaints commission for the RCMP—and we do not think this has been achieved—in order to improve oversight and ensure that investigations really are independent.

That is why we are asking the government to allow this bill to be examined as thoroughly as possible when it reaches the committee stage. By so doing, we will be able to truly understand what mechanisms would allow this bill to fulfill this mandate. I would strongly urge the government to take note of the various working groups and commissions, including the Brown task force, and the report that was published in order to ensure that Bill C-42 meets its objectives. This will make it possible for us to finally set aside—but not forget, since we must never forget—all the abusive behaviour that had such disastrous effects on the work environment and to ensure that complaints are resolved and that situations such as the ones that these women in the RCMP experienced will never happen again.

[Petitions, September 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is in support of a national public transit strategy. There is a large gap in infrastructure, which must be remedied. We are talking about $18 billion. Most Canadians, whether they live in big cities or rural areas, would like to have much more efficient public transit. That is why many people have signed this petition, which I am very pleased to submit.

[Petitions, September 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this morning I have the pleasure of submitting two petitions signed by men and women from across the country.

The first petition is in support of reinstating and extending the Katimavik program. In Rimouski, I had the opportunity to meet with young people who benefited from the experience. Meeting young people from all over the country was an enriching experience for the youth who participated and for my community.