Jean-François Larose

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of comments. I thank the committee members for all the work they have done. Being a former police officer and corrections officer myself, I have seen a lot of the problems we have, and I find the dynamic they had to open their hearts and look at all the tools and what needs to be brought forward was excellent.

That being said, I have seen so many opportunities and so many situations where we ended up having the tools, but because we did not have the budget, we could not actually use those tools. Time and time again, be it training, be it powers of arrest, even the equipment, the uniforms and so on, it is stacked up. It is not being used.

The fact is that we have municipalities saying they want the tools, they need the tools, but there is a problem concerning the finances. I have seen in this House where even the Criminal Code was amended and we have given more tools to police officers, but when it came to transfers to help those professional divisions, they were not there.

I do not think the fact that we are supporting this but saying, “What about the money?” is bad. I think it is an excellent point. We need to listen to the professionals who need that help.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, becoming a member of Parliament was a very proud moment for me.

From the time I was child, I had watched the Hill operate as part of a democratic system. I did not always agree with the debates, but there was certainly a process that commanded a great deal of respect. Since I have been here as a member of Parliament, I must say that I am truly ashamed. I am ashamed to see how things work. I am ashamed of the process. I do not understand.

My question for the minister is quite simple. When did he lose faith in debate and decide it was not important? He is talking about a motion. He has some nerve.

When do the Conservatives ever make any sort of effort? When they decide to control the situation, then things go their way. As far as we are concerned, we want to have an ongoing, constructive debate. We are always prepared to work with the government. Unfortunately, they do not listen to anyone. They cut off debate and rhyme off all sorts of excuses every chance they get.

I would like to understand where the minister is coming from because I no longer understand the government. Personally, I think some therapy is in order—for the government, I should say.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague for her excellent presentation.

She talked about how this government seems to be attacking workers. In my riding, Electrolux workers are losing their jobs, while the government does nothing to help. Very little is being done, despite the promise made by the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development in question period. People are still waiting.

It seems to me that this government is doing whatever it takes to eliminate jobs with excellent working conditions, and even precarious jobs—because middle-class Canadians are having a hard time making ends meet—in order to create a class of accessible jobs.

Is the goal here to help the multinationals that want to come and take over our huge country, or to support the multinationals that are already here, who seem to be in bed with the Conservatives? This has been proven over and over. The Conservatives are very proud to say they created new jobs, but all it is is cheap labour.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have Electrolux closing in my riding. I approached the Minister of Human Resources, and she made a promise here in the House, which she did not respect, because all we are getting is silence.

My question to the hon. member is this: am I interpreting this in the correct way when I see that high wages and good conditions in jobs are being attacked because we are trying to encourage low-wage jobs, for corporations to be able to get those jobs?

That is what is happening with Electrolux. It is going to the States. Is it the government's strategy to create cheap jobs to get those corporations back to our country?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as if having something so absolutely deplorable were not enough, to add insult to injury, the government is not even letting us debate each item in this very dense and problematic budget.

We are told that we can send the bill to committee where, as the government knows, it has a majority. We are always being muzzled. Moving a time allocation motion to shorten the debate is another insult.

Since the 1960s, we have been fighting like crazy to prevent foreign takeovers here in Canada. At some point in Quebec, a very large number of private American corporations, for example, controlled the market to their benefit and not ours.

This situation created incredible poverty. People's quality of life, job security and standard of living suffered. We fought to get rid of the problem.

I wonder if my hon. colleague has anything to say about that.

I do not know why he wants to encourage takeovers. We should not sell out, period.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is cowardly and insulting.

We keep saying that every time they introduce a bill, everything gets lumped in together. This budget, yet again, contains a large number of provisions. Of course we oppose some of them. That stands to reason. Since they do not have the courage of their convictions, they lump everything in together and try to hide things.

Once again, they want to speed up the process and shove this bill down our throats, assuming that we are all idiots. I cannot understand it. Either this is urgent or the government needs therapy.

If this is urgent, is it because there is a zombie invasion? Is it the end of the world? Is that why we need to hurry and cannot take time for debate? If the government needs therapy, honestly, I would be happy to give out hugs.

[Petitions, May 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of Development and Peace.

Unfortunately, in response to the cuts and changes to CIDA programs, this petition seeks to change the government's attitude. As we well know, CIDA is about to disappear. Development and Peace has proven itself time and time again, and it would be good for the government to change its attitude and respect the direction international aid is going in.

[Business of Supply, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, before becoming an MP, I had the opportunity to meet a number people in the business community through my involvement in a business venture. I heard about a new strategy increasingly being used by entrepreneurs, which involves having a middleman in China in order to do business there. I would often hear that China was an unusual country, where it is extremely difficult to exercise one's rights. When it comes to the agreement before us today, I wonder why Canada is putting itself in a position that benefits China even more. I get the feeling that Canada is prostituting itself to a growing nation that is trampling on the rights of nations around the world more and more.

How can the government tolerate that? Why did it not hold consultations with our people in Canada to find out how they felt and what they want? We certainly do not want the treaty before us.

[Employment, March 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, 2013 is a very difficult year for my riding of Repentigny. Two thousand jobs have been lost because Mabe and Electrolux have closed down. This is having a negative impact on families. Some people have even tried to commit suicide.

For years now, people have been working very hard to find solutions to help workers. Easter is approaching; it is a time for families.

Is the Minister of Human Resources finally ready to sit down with us and discuss how we can help these workers?

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my question is simple. I believe that all Canadians are seeing more and more that the international picture is becoming darker and bleaker. Nuclear proliferation is a growing problem. All the associations that exist among the various governments around the world seem to be saying that there is an increasing amount of negligence in putting meaningful measures in place.

Why did the government, which seems to be so proud of being in touch with all these people around the world, take so long to put such a measure in place? Why is it coming from the Senate and not the government? Why is the government now open to something that has always been obvious and needed to be regulated?