Jean Rousseau

[Veterans, November 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, with Remembrance Day just around the corner, I would like to take this opportunity to honour all Canadians who have served our country over the years. These brave men and women have given up so much, with many of them paying the ultimate price of their life for peace and freedom.

Special thanks to the veterans of our community and to their families for their contribution. We must ensure they are always taken care of, in service and in retirement.

I particularly want to commend the members of Branch 46 of the Royal Canadian Legion in Bury, who recently celebrated their 80th anniversary. The men and women of Bury had the highest participation rate per capita in the two world wars.

I also want to mention Lennoxville Unit 318 of the Army, Navy & Air Force Veterans in Canada, one of the last of its kind in Quebec, which celebrated its 60th anniversary.

I was honoured to participate in their celebrations, as they continue to work on helping veterans of recent battles, as well as their communities.

Long live Branch 46. Long live Hut 318. Lest we forget.

Lest we forget.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, October 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, these are indeed examples of environmental legislation that should not be lumped together in a Sears catalogue or phone book, especially since those things are nearly obsolete. Legislation on biodiversity, which is so important for the environment, cannot be properly addressed in this way.

We were talking about belugas in the St. Lawrence. Studies and research have been done, but once again, the scientists who conduct this research are being muzzled and all of their hypotheses and evidence are being refuted.

Whether in western Canada, on the Pacific coast or on the Atlantic coast, this research is vital to Canada's future and to the environment. The study of climate change begins with studies of seabeds in our national parks. Changes have been observed in the migration routes of ducks, geese and Canada geese in the fall, specifically because the biodiversity and flora have changed in the lakes where they once stopped over before heading further south. There are many in my riding and some on the land right beside where I live. It seems as though these birds no longer know where to go.

The impact of climate change is measurable, which is why we need research. This kind of legislation should definitely not be included in such an omnibus bill.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, October 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent question.

Scientific research on the environment, biodiversity and how pollution affects biodiversity, including the research in the Experimental Lakes Region, is critical to our future. It is just as important as healthy agriculture. Healthy agriculture needs water, as it happens.

Enabling research means having scientists who are at the cutting edge of all innovations. Consider all of the information needed to create projects to protect water, a rich natural resource. Canada has one of the largest reserves of fresh water on the planet.

The government missed an incredible opportunity to continue that research and to ensure that we have scientists on the leading edge of knowledge about both the environment and biodiversity.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, October 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this is a dark time.

It is a dark time indeed, because we are confronted by parliamentary non-democracy at its height. As a result, we have a number of reasons to be significantly concerned for our future, not only as Canadians, but also as human beings who are part of the evolution of this great planet we call Earth.

We are all one on our planet and Canada plays a big part. Canada has long been a leader in environmental and democratic matters and in all kinds of areas that contribute daily to the evolution of our society and allow all Canadians, from coast to coast to coast, to reach their potential in a healthy, well-balanced and democratic setting.

That is why I want to start my remarks by focusing on the consequences for our society and our civilization as we know them today.

I will discuss the tax on public services that the Conservatives have imposed and the unacceptable impact this will have on the workers who contribute to our society.

I will also talk about this government's inertia on environmental matters, an area in which we have long been leaders, and about the muzzling of its own scientists. Scientists working in a number of departments are seeing their research interfered with or cancelled for all kinds of reasons or their reports simply sitting on shelves unpublished.

I would also like to discuss the government's inaction on rail transportation, in terms of both safety and the underfunding of infrastructure in Canada. This is a subject that is particularly close to my heart.

Also unfortunately missing completely from this bill is the next generation, the young people who are the strength of the future, of our future. Young people are faced with a government that wants to put an end to any debate as soon as it begins, whether in the House or in the committees. However, in both the House and the committees, there is goodwill and good discussion.

When the government starts feeling the heat, it shuts down debate. That is unacceptable in a modern country that is a world leader in democracy.

This document is almost 300 pages long; the provisions of this budget implementation bill affect 70 pieces of legislation. Nevertheless, the government is putting an end to the debate as quickly as possible.

As for the public service, all departments are being asked to tighten their belts with, of course, one objective: balancing the budget. The consequences for the quality of the services provided to Canadians are a matter for concern. This is dangerous.

Whether we are talking about veterans, the unemployed, or those who receive old age security benefits, no one is answering them anymore. Wait times are so long that people get discouraged and do not follow through on their requests. However, the disabled, for instance, are entitled to tax credits, and others are entitled to weeks of employment insurance benefits or the guaranteed income supplement.

In the end, people get discouraged, because they are told to press a button, then another, then to dial another number, and then they get to wait for hours. Some have even told my office that while they were on hold, they got disconnected. There is nothing anymore. Nothing is happening anymore. In the House, where democracy is concerned, nothing is happening anymore. That is for sure.

I would now like to talk about the environment, that is to say the protection of the Great Lakes, our rivers and species such as the St. Lawrence beluga whales and Pacific salmon. There is no vision whatsoever anymore, except the one dictated by the oil industry. We hear about the extraction of shale gas and the oil sands.

Potable water is the next environmental resource we are going to have to protect. There is land that has dried up out west. Climate change is causing such disruption that in some places, certain crops can no longer be grown, since there is no more water or climate change has caused certain species to migrate. This is very serious. Water is the most vital resource for the human species. I spoke earlier about the consequences for humans and the natural cycle of things, and this is proof. The government has no vision for the environment. What are we going to do about water?

By introducing such a bill, the Prime Minister is undermining the state's ability to help and protect Canadians. That should be its role. The government should not be mistreating the middle class and the most vulnerable members of society. That is unacceptable.

I will now talk about labour law. The bill takes away the powers granted to health and safety officers by the Canada Labour Code and gives them to the minister. What is this annoying habit the Conservatives have of taking away as many discretionary powers as they can in order to turn them over to a minister? A deputy minister, senior officials, working groups and various public servants are all paid to do this work and objectively analyze this kind of thing. Instead, they decided to give the minister greater powers.

The bill will also significantly weaken employees' ability to refuse to work in unsafe conditions. Unsafe conditions cannot be analyzed from a minister's office; they have to be analyzed on the ground. I worked on the ground, both for workers and for employers. Employees and employers analyze the situation together, on the ground, working with a health and safety advisory committee. These studies are sometimes done every day, and even every hour in some industries. This is done in consultation with the employees who work in these conditions. Employers really need to give workers a safe working environment to help them work at full capacity, which will then move the entire system forward. This is important. Whatever the type of business or industry, health and safety should be a priority for the employer and the government, if the government wants to set an example. The example must be set from the top and at all levels. This is unacceptable.

I will now talk about science. The Conservatives have gutted our scientific research institutes, which are highly respected not only in Canada, but also around the world. Geographers and geologists study the environment. The Conservatives fired hundreds of scientists and researchers who are counted among the best in the world scientific community. They did all this without assessing the impact on the market and the economy. Research and development are the pillars of change and growth. More importantly, they are the economic levers that every major industrial country needs. Scientists are important.

Scientists must be respected. Moreover, funding should be provided to all science faculties across Canada.

To conclude, I would like to say a word about our youth. Young people need stable, high-quality jobs. With a budget like this, the government certainly cannot claim it wants to help young people and the next generation of workers in Canada.

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the question from the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou is an excellent one because it really does highlight the elitist nature of the chamber that, at the time, was conceived as such. Today, it does not apply at all to our current situation.

I really want to believe in the good intentions surrounding some appointments. We see people from many different walks of life in our upper chamber, including economics, politics and even sport.

However, if, at one time, we thought in terms of an elite, today, we would do better to think in terms of our population. What does our population look like; how is it made up? That is what should be better represented now. In the Senate, we should see not only people like those I have just named, but also people from every social class, people who have done community work, people who have worked in economic activities of all kinds, but also people from all kinds of ethnic groups. In fact, we have to fully accept that Canada is so different from one end of the country to the other that it would be unthinkable for an upper chamber not to reflect those differences.

What does elitism mean today? How can we quantify or qualify it? We should have an elected upper chamber and we should take a very close look at the applicants. We have to think about Canada's demographics, from coast to coast. First Nations should be represented, as should people of all kinds.

However, what the NDP wants is quite simply the abolition of the Senate, because $100 million is being spent for nothing.

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2013]

I will answer the question, Mr. Speaker. When people inquire about my expenses and ask to see my expense account, they can easily consult our website, where they can follow a link to get that information. However, if they need more information, we can go over it together. I am extremely transparent about the activities and expenses in my riding, including those of my staff and my travel expenses.

Geographically speaking, my riding is vast. Consequently, my travel expenses are high. However, I always try to make ends meet in the most efficient way possible, as our expenses have been limited, or should I say frozen, in the last few years. The size of my riding makes that aspect of my work very challenging.

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take advantage of my party's first opposition day to ask the government to put immediate measures in place to put an end to partisanship in the Senate. In this spirit, I will unreservedly support the motion of my colleague from Toronto—Danforth because it is particularly meaningful when one considers the many scandals brought to light last spring.

Need I elaborate at greater length on the subject of those senators who are under investigation and those who will soon have to answer for their actions before the law?

Moreover, the first part of the motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, urgent steps [hence their urgent nature] must be taken to improve accountability in the Senate, and, therefore, this House call for the introduction of immediate measures to end Senators' partisan activities…

This is unacceptable. We in the NDP firmly believe we do not need to wait until the Senate is abolished to take adequate corrective measures in this matter. That will be done starting in 2015, when an NDP government is elected for Canada as a whole. In the meantime, concrete measures can be taken immediately to make the Senate more accountable and more transparent. We want measures requiring no constitutional amendment to be taken.

First of all, we would like to abolish the partisan work being done at taxpayers' expense. Senators should no longer be allowed to attend caucus meetings, take part in fund-raising or engage in political organization or the promotion of a political party using the Senate's resources. That is unacceptable. It is a virtual betrayal of Canadians.

The original mission of the Senate of Canada was much more to protect citizens and abandoned regions. Quite frankly, virtually all of Canada and rural Quebec feel abandoned by this government, which is indecent and unfair to the population of Canada.

One thing is clear: too much public money is being spent on partisan activities. Once again, this is not normal in a democracy, particularly in these times of fiscal restraint.

I am going to say what the vast majority of Quebeckers think about the Senate of Canada. First of all, it is referred to in one popular expression as "the senile chamber". I will not go that far because I know some senators in this chamber who have very good intentions. That is not the problem. However, Quebeckers and Canadians from sea to sea have had enough of a Senate that is unelected, unaccountable and, above all, under investigation. That makes no sense when you think of the middle class, which struggles every day to make ends meet. This is an insult to the middle class, both in Quebec and in Canada as a whole. That is one of the reasons why the NDP is proposing the only real solution: that the Senate simply be abolished.

Yes, the NDP genuinely wants to abolish the Senate because that institution is expensive, costing nearly $100 million that could be allocated to people living in Conservative misery. In the meantime, Canadians should not have to wait for more transparency, genuine accountability and the end of partisanship when solutions can be introduced immediately.

Both Liberals and Conservatives speak in favour of the Senate, claiming that the upper chamber offers an opportunity to take a second look at proposed legislation. How can the Senate play that role when the Liberals and Conservatives have filled it with their friends, party organizers and backers and former candidates? Do they really think people are that stupid?

It is unacceptable for senators to travel all across the country at election time on the public dime. It is unacceptable because, as we well know, senators typically serve only the interests of the party that nominated them.

That is why the motion suggests another valuable change: putting an end to taxpayer-funded trips not directly related to senators' legislative roles. The current practice is an aberration, an insult to our intelligence!

Senators may have to travel for their work, of course, and that is perfectly all right. However, Canadians should not have to pay for any personal trip a senator makes for partisan purposes or because of a supposed second home.

More and more Canadians tell us that there is no place in our democracy for an unelected, unaccountable Senate. As a modern society, we need to adapt to a modern democracy and a modern economy. Our democracy no longer needs a useless Senate whose very rare interventions have always been partisan. Clearly, the use of public funds for partisan work must stop.

At the end of the day, appointed senators, and particularly those who abuse their privileges, do not at all represent the interests or values of Canadians who work hard to make ends meet. We think of the budget cuts affecting employment insurance, the protection of family farms and the rural economy. The middle class accounts for over 90% of the Canadian population and the government let it down. I said before that senators' initial mission was to protect these people but they no longer do so.

Consequently, the Senate is fundamentally an undemocratic institution and it should no longer be part of the Parliament of Canada. It dates back to the time of Confederation. The Fathers of Confederation gave that chamber the mission of reviewing and improving legislation passed by the House of Commons. At the time, senators had to be less partisan and, historically, they rarely got involved in this debate.

The Fathers of Confederation had also imagined a Senate that would ensure adequate representation of the minorities, the provinces and the regions in our federal legislative process. However, the Senate never really fulfilled that role. Senators have always voted based on their parties' interests instead of the interests of the regions that they should represent.

What we on this side really want—except for a few stubborn members who still have friends in the other place—is to abolish the Senate. That is all. We know that this objective will be hard to achieve in the short term. That is why today we are proposing with this motion that the other parties join us to begin a process that will lead to a reform and that will also satisfy Canadians, who are clearly demanding that the Senate be modernized.

The Senate must not be elected. It must be non-partisan. Senators are entitled to their political opinions, like many other observers. However, we think that the Senate was not created to be a partisan institution and that tax dollars should not be used to fund partisan activities.

As I said, we want senators to stop attending caucus meetings. It is an aberration. In Ottawa, senators should make good use of their time and of the Senate resources. They should not attend partisan activities such as caucus meetings. Rather, they should review the legislation objectively, in the true sense of the word, as was originally intended.

In closing, I congratulate my colleagues for their speeches today. I will let the next speakers provide a more detailed explanation of the second part of the excellent motion presented by the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth. In that part, we are asking that the administrative rules of the Senate be updated so that the definition of “parliamentary functions”, for example, excludes partisan work and work not related to the Senate. Subsequently, senators will no longer be allowed to use tax dollars for activities other than those related to their functions. The legislation should also be reviewed so that the regions of Canada are better represented.

[BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE AND ITS COMMITTEES, October 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to once again commend the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

He attempted to point out the lack of debate. Over the four weeks we spent in our ridings, people kept asking us why we were not in the House of Commons debating about things that Canadians need.

What Canadians need are clear and democratic debates. That means a democratic debate in which everyone can participate and discuss topics such as the Senate, employment insurance and the plight of aboriginal women.

However, we need to be here to debate such issues and we did not have that opportunity. Now, the Conservatives want to bring all those issues back in an omnibus motion in order to cut short debate, which shows an unacceptable lack of democracy in a modern society such as Canada. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

[Lac-Mégantic, October 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the work of the Minister of International Development and member for Mégantic—L'Érable and commend him for his presence and his support for his constituents. I was there. I saw him. He was there. I commend him and thank him once again.

I too would like to join with the millions of Canadians who, on the morning of July 6, 2013, quickly learned about the great tragedy that was occurring in downtown Lac-Mégantic. The people of Quebec and Canada joined in solidarity to express their shock at the magnitude of the tragedy and to demonstrate their generosity and compassion for this community.

We lost brothers and sisters, and nothing we can do will bring them back. It is our duty as elected members at the local, provincial, or federal level to make sure that this will never happen again.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the premier of Quebec and all the local elected officials for their dignity and the active role they played in providing support in the days following the disaster.

I would also like to commend all the groups and people who gave of their time and money to offer sympathy and support to the individuals and families who suffered such great hardship. I would like to make particular mention of the great contribution of Mayor Colette Roy-Laroche, who took on the role of mother of the town, gathering and protecting her children in order to make sure that no one else was lost.

The short-, medium- and long-term impact and collateral damage will have to be monitored for many years to come. With the loss of its downtown, Lac-Mégantic lost its soul and all of its history and its roots. It is now time to build, to look toward the future and take action for the common good.

[Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my excellent colleague for her question.

I took notes about why this came from the Senate.

I spoke about leadership earlier. Once again, the government is not showing any leadership in protecting the health and safety of Canadians. It just repeals a little section of the Criminal Code here in the House, no problem. It adopts a time allocation motion for this bill.

This bill originated in the Senate. How many bills have we seen from the Senate this week and last? This shows that the government is running out of steam and has no respect for the chambers. Members of the House of Commons are elected. This is the chamber that should be introducing bills that affect the lives of Canadians, especially when we are talking about protecting health and safety.