Jean Rousseau

[Business of Supply, February 28th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I agreed to speak to this motion here today for several reasons, one being to demonstrate the importance of freedom of expression. Freedom of expression and opinion is fundamental to the reality of our nations and our peoples today. This freedom is governed by certain fundamental rules that allow people to express themselves and to thrive in a civilized society. As an artist, when my freedom of expression and opinion is breached, I cannot help but fight back. The way Bill C-30 is now drafted, it is really hard to know just how badly these arbitrary, abusive rules could infringe on people's privacy and the privacy of artists.

Artists today often communicate over the Internet. They even create works collectively over the Internet. If a text is not to the liking of an inspector—that is the word used in Bill C-30—the authorities could seize that text or the computer belonging to an artist in the process of creating something, whether literary, musical or theatrical. I find it very worrisome that a government would give itself such powers.

I will to come back to the hon. member for Toronto Centre's motion because it includes a number of things that are extremely important to the lives of all Canadians. Given our charter, it seems imperative to me that the House recognize that all Canadians have the fundamental right to freedom of expression, freedom of communication, and privacy. However, the fact that we have come to a point where we must clearly state that these rights must be respected in all forms of communication is rather absurd for a so-called civilized country. I do not understand how Canada has come to this point in 2012. What happened to the nearly 150 years of history and evolution of Canadian society?

The expression of rules of human rights and freedoms dates back to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in 1948 by the United Nations General Assembly, in which Canada participated. This first modern text was intended to be a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this declaration constantly in mind, would strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures—not outdated and regressive measures—to secure their recognition and observance.

I would like to list several of the principles that helped to shape a number of other texts, including the Quebec and Canadian charters. They are that:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion [on any topic]...

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest...

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference...

Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

A number of these basic principles are included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it, “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”.

Under section 2 of our charter, everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

Those rules are essential for a society and the people in it to flourish.

However, over the past few weeks, Canadians have expressed deep concerns, in various ways and media, about Bill C-30. They are concerned about being accused of being friends of child pornography or advocates of criminal activity just because they do not share the same opinion as the government. It is an aberration. If I were to write my opinions in a document and send it to my colleagues, it could be intercepted and I could be found guilty of an offence because the government wants to use the Criminal Code to increase invasions of privacy.

Bill C-30 would require Internet service providers with the necessary means to allow national security and law enforcement organizations to use their authority to intercept communications.

Artists and many social activist groups communicate over the Internet. Is this a continuation of the paranoia we saw a few years ago at the G8 and G20?

Part VI of the Criminal Code, which includes sections 183 through 196, lists the rules that apply to invasion of privacy in cases of interception and spying. I am not an expert in this field, but the Criminal Code refers to the authorization to intercept a private communication by means of any device used to intercept this communication. Individuals can be found guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for five years.

We are in a bad way if we no longer trust the authorities in place. The individuals who form a nation and a people must feel safe in their country, particularly when it comes to freedom of expression and association. That is vital. As I was saying, the communications of public interest groups, social activist groups and communities with specific needs could be intercepted and their computers and equipment, which are very important to them, could be seized.

I will now come back to the arts, which I wanted to speak about. From Robert Johnson to Jimmy Hendrix, artists have sung about the right to freedom; from Moses to Martin Luther King, leaders of all nations have wanted to free their people and have advocated freedom of expression and, above all, freedom of choice and social justice. That is what we are discussing today in the House, which considers itself to be modern and democratic. On all the stages of this world, whether musical or political, leaders have strongly condemned the injustices afflicting the people. Our former leader was one of them. Like him, I will continue to speak out until our voices are heard by the decision-makers, who are ignoring the legitimate calls for rights and freedoms.

The Who sang, “Long live rock, I need it every day”. I need freedom of expression every day because it is my right, and I want to enjoy this right until the moment I die.

[Financial System Review Act, February 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her speech.

What does she think about the fact that the middle class has been forgotten once again? As she put it so well, a slight increase in the interest rate in Canada could have a disastrous impact on the middle class. The middle class has also been affected by the financial scandals of the past few years and, yet again, we are not talking about including these sorts of crimes or monitoring the banks. What does my colleague think about that?

[Financial System Review Act, February 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster. He knows a great deal about finance, unlike many of us. That is why I would like to ask his opinion.

How should we interpret the fact that the government wants to change extremely complex rules, laws and legal provisions? The government is changing five or six laws governing financial institutions and banks, laws that are 300 to 400 pages long. And the government says that we cannot even debate these changes. I would also like to know why the minister will now have the power to authorize things that were previously within the purview of objective organizations. Now it will be subjective. These things will be subjectively interpreted however the Minister of Finance wants to interpret them.

[Financial System Review Act, February 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know why the Senate, an unelected chamber, was given the responsibility of examining and developing an extremely complex bill when 60% of Canadians voted against this government. We deserve answers and we deserve to be able to debate this extremely complex subject. This morning, we heard the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons refer to the chaos that would ensue if we do not examine this bill. It does not make any sense.

Why was this bill introduced in the Senate rather than in the House?

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

We must protect these jobs. The importance of barriers—they are not barriers, but conditions—is that they ensure that the jobs created in Canada are stable and viable in the long term. We cannot do nothing; we must protect a social fabric, a society with a long history. If we do nothing, if we bow down every time we enter into a free trade agreement with another country, this will just happen all over again. We are losing entire sectors of our economy at the hands of foreigners who appropriate our technology and take it elsewhere. It makes no sense.

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the government is not prepared because it does not have a plan. It does not have a clue as to what is happening in the world right now.

The economy is struggling. We have to take action now to protect our Canadian and our foreign investments. We have to protects our jobs. We have to do the proper thing and not give big tax deductions to big corporations. There is no benefit to that.

We must take action in the industrial and manufacturing sectors because we need the jobs right now.

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question, even though I am not sure what kind of investment or what sectors he means.

No matter, foreign investments are welcome in all sectors. That is not the problem. We believe that when it comes to investment in Canada, the Canadian government must protect these jobs and ensure that they will be there in the medium and the long term. In the short term, there are no benefits because there are no immediate returns. There are immediate returns when we make medium- and long-term investments in industries, no matter which ones. The investments will ensure the long-term survival of a social fabric and a community. They will ensure that the convenience store stays open, that the restaurant stays open, and that these communities will thrive.

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleagues from all parties to support this motion. It clearly condemns Caterpillar's decision to close its locomotive assembly plant, which has resulted in the loss of 450 direct jobs. Another 600 jobs were lost when White Birch Paper, in Quebec City, closed its doors.

We are calling on the government to table, within 90 days—which is feasible because we will surely have the time with all the time allocations it is moving—draft amendments to the Investment Canada Act to ensure that foreign buyers are held to public and enforceable commitments on the net benefit to Canada and on the protection of Canadian jobs. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians work in the manufacturing sector, which is in decline, but which is nonetheless important to a modern industrial society such as ours.

The Investment Canada Act is the main mechanism we have to review foreign investment proposals and approve or reject them. The act came into force in 1985 with the main objective of ensuring that foreign acquisitions represent a “net benefit”, a benefit to Canada. However, since it came into force, more than 1,500 foreign acquisitions have been approved under the act, and only two have not. More than 12,000 others were not reviewed under the act because they did not exceed the thresholds of $5 million for a direct acquisition, $50 million for an indirect acquisition, and $330 million for acquisitions by or from WTO investors.

The act has often been criticized for its lack of transparency, consultation and effectiveness, and for certain shortcomings with respect to its enforcement. It has very strict provisions concerning confidentiality, which make it difficult to disclose information. However, I have heard the Prime Minister say that he wanted an accountable, responsible and transparent government. This is definitely not evident in his recent actions.

The NDP's 2011 election platform contained several proposals regarding the Investment Canada Act, including reducing the threshold at which it would apply, increasing transparency, clarifying the meaning of “net benefit”, holding public consultations and ensuring public disclosure of all relevant information, particularly with regard to the quality and ethics of foreign investors. There are communities that are affected by these investments, and we must ensure that there will not be any negative impacts on the social fabric of these societies and communities, which are often rural but can also be major centres.

The hon. member's motion gives two prime examples of how the government's formula for giving large companies tax credits has failed. As I was saying, Electro-Motive in London and White Birch Paper in Quebec City alone represent a loss of 1,000 jobs, 1,000 families. That is not counting the other companies that have closed or have cut their staff. The job losses in these cases are certainly smaller, but they are just as significant to the communities that welcomed these companies. Often, the red carpet is rolled out. Communities want to welcome companies. The regions need these companies and they need the manufacturing sector. The departure of these companies is brutal. This is a very poor track record for a government that boasts about valuing job creation in our communities and the economic health of our country.

The hon. member's motion gives the government the opportunity to do things differently, to not turn its back on the Canadian families that it claims to hold in such high regard. Given the abject failure of the current system, the government should have the humility and decency to admit that the Investment Canada Act, as it now stands, is not effective and should agree to work with the opposition—for once—in order to bring about change and give Canadian families a chance to get out of this crisis. We often hear the government say that it has created 600,000 jobs. Where are they?

In the current climate of budget cuts, the Conservatives are determined to keep giving gifts to their big business buddies. Canada has become the laughingstock of big international corporations. It is too easy for them.

They are well aware that they can just come here and take advantage of our system and our workers. Our workers work hard and sacrifice their health to work for these companies. Then the companies leave town after they have sucked as much as they can out of these families with our government's help. That is scandalous. When will the government side with Canadians instead of with the big companies that take advantage of them?

The motion moved by my colleague from London—Fanshawe is extremely important to the future of our manufacturing sector. Hundreds of thousands—perhaps millions—of Canadians depend on this sector for their quality of life. These people are society's middle class. They are the people who contribute the most to our quality of life because they are the ones who consume the most and keep the economic wheel—the wheel of life—turning.

The middle class has been hit the hardest by all of the economic crises we have seen over the past 30 years, since 1980. After the “glorious 30” came the “laborious 30”. What does the future hold? The industrial sector—since that is what we should really be talking about today—started to decline in the modern era of globalization, and this is having a serious impact on Canada's morale. The industrial and manufacturing sector used to flourish in this great country in several domains, including the processing of leather, textile, paper, wood and metal, as well as appliance assembly. All of these domains have been hit hard by the inaction of successive Liberal and Conservative governments.

I am well aware of the principles of economic theories that say we must do away with the weak sectors when they are not performing. But this has no longer been the case for the past several years. Businesses that are doing very well and providing immediate benefits to their communities are being shut down and their owners are leaving. Someone else acquires them and then it is all over. Contrary to what this government believes, it is not a question of labour relations when an investor hijacks our economy and takes our jobs out of the country.

The NDP has absolutely no objection to foreign investment, contrary to what people here sometimes say. We simply want to ensure some sort of framework for investments in order to better protect our interests, our quality of life and the social fabric of an entire modern society in Canada. I truly believe that this government is completely out of touch and does not care about ordinary Canadians, especially considering some of the stand-up comedy routines we hear from its members to defend policies and ideas that are completely biased by an ideology that is not shared by the majority.

Everything they say in the House is nothing but insults and nonsense. The Conservative members from Quebec should be ashamed of themselves, because they are not standing up to defend the interests of Quebeckers or the manufacturing sector. The same goes for the members from Ontario. I feel as though this government no longer wants to work for the middle class. The social fabric created by these stable, good jobs forms the foundation of a modern, advanced society. I have yet to see the Conservatives do anything to support that. No sensitivity, no compassion, no logical reasoning on the part of a 21st century government. It is with great sadness that I conclude with a quote from our former leader:

My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world.

We can do it.

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from York South—Weston on his contribution to the debate. Obviously, the government is not, but we will do our job.

I would like him to comment on the importance of keeping the knowledge these big corporations develop here, the patents they develop in heavy metal industrial companies. Why is it important for our modern society to keep this knowledge here? It is not about big corporations making profits. Profit was not the issue here.

[Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, February 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her comments. I think there is no price on saving a life. There is absolutely no price on that.

It currently costs a few million dollars to maintain this registry. It is truly useful and costs practically nothing compared to other useless expenses we could name here for which the government is responsible. I think there is no price on saving a life.

It is a statement that has to stand. There is no price on saving a life.