José Nunez-Melo

[Seniors, May 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we celebrated Mother's Day. I marked the occasion with a number of mothers who live in one of the many seniors' homes in my riding.

Although we were all celebrating the day, a number of the mothers were worried about their future. They told me they were worried about what the government has in store for them. With regard to pensions, more than 30% of these retired mothers are in debt and 40% of them will soon go into debt. Their access to health care and medications is increasingly in jeopardy.

On top of that, as I just mentioned, there is the bill introduced by the Minister of State for Democratic Reform.

The mothers were happy, and I hope that they will be for a long time. Happy Mother's Day.

[Fair Elections Act, May 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North for his comment and question.

He is absolutely right. He reiterated what we have been seeing in most of the committees with a Conservative majority. What is more, the Conservatives are pushing through their bills and anything else they want.

The member is right about our caucus, and our representation on such a committee. If memory serves me correctly, a hundred or so amendments were proposed. I think that fewer than half were read, consulted, verified or anything. The Conservatives made it clear from the outset that they did not want to listen. They keep moving time allocation motions and limiting the speaking time of our representatives but never make any mention of that.

My colleague from Winnipeg North is absolutely right. That is their strategy. That is what they want to do.

[Fair Elections Act, May 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent.

What happened in committee is troubling. I am not sure if you watch the news on television very often, Mr. Speaker, but nearly all the political commentators have said they are shocked by the attitude of the committee's Conservative majority. The Conservatives did not listen to anyone. They practically muzzled everyone. They said we could bring forward some witnesses, who would each have their turn to speak, but the Conservatives did not listen to them and adjourned the meeting. We put a lot of work into this. We must thank our honourable colleague from Hamilton Centre for standing up to them. That is what happened.

The Conservatives showed a rather arrogant attitude by imposing this reform and making it appear as though they were giving people the opportunity to express themselves. That was not true.

[Fair Elections Act, May 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Mother's Day, was a very happy day in my riding. I had the opportunity to visit a seniors' residence, which hosted a number of wonderful activities. Everyone was happy and was having a good time. The weather was nice as well. People were happy and content.

I could not help but think that this was a break for those who had told me they were worried about the election reform introduced by the Minister of State for Democratic Reform. Just a few minutes ago, my hon. colleague from Mississauga South mentioned seniors. Yesterday, older mothers were celebrating, but they also told me that they were wondering where the government was going with this election reform.

They are very worried because they have been voting with their voter information cards for quite some time and there has never been a problem. Furthermore, most seniors' residences have a polling station in the lobby. Everyone knows each other and knows who lives there. These people do not need all kinds of other ID cards.

These people are very worried, and they shared their concerns with me. Furthermore, they are discouraged by this government's attitude, especially in committee, where it imposed time allocation to limit debate. They listened to the testimony from the witnesses who were called at third reading.

The amendments proposed by the Conservatives—we will see later today—do not reflect the amendments our caucus proposed. This leaves much to be desired, since our caucus's slogan is “Working together”.

Unfortunately, members on the other side of the House do not share this perspective. They are stubborn and, since they have a majority on all the committees and even here in the House of Commons, this arrogant attitude leaves much to be desired. My constituents tell me this on a regular basis when they respond to my mail-outs or call me directly. Voters took advantage of my presence in my riding two weeks ago to come and see me. They told me that changes need to be made in the House of Commons.

Because of the way these people shared their concerns, I do not believe that they intend to wait until October 2015 to see such changes. They are concerned because this electoral reform is going to cause major upheaval. The arrogant and negative attitude of our colleagues opposite bothers people. They think it shows a blatant lack of respect for Canadians.

The Conservatives have demonstrated that lack of respect on more than one occasion, when they have attacked the Chief Electoral Officer, the former auditor general and many politically savvy people with strong opinions. These individuals have told the Conservatives directly not to take this reform any further because it is unconstitutional and undemocratic. However, the Conservatives are not listening.

I would also like to talk about the terrible provisions set out in this bill. I am very concerned about the fact that the Chief Electoral Officer is having some of his authority taken away. Historically, the Chief Electoral Officer has had the mandate to coordinate any action required to elect a government in Canada. If that person has to deal with a lot of statutory or regulatory obstacles, democracy will be dealt a severe blow. Many people are concerned about this.

In previous years, Canada had a very good international reputation. Our country was an almost perfect example of democracy. Human rights were recognized here. Everyone was free. People could work and live comfortably.

In my opinion, this will definitely be the last Conservative government. As we have seen in the past, the Conservatives do not seem to want to let go. The government is being stubborn and wants to cling to power. Since they have a majority, the Conservatives are making all sorts of changes so that they might have the chance to stay in power longer.

A prime example is the Conservatives' current reform of the Elections Act. Their plans will give them every advantage. They are increasing the amount that an individual can donate from $1,200 to $1,500. Additionally, candidates can inject $5,000 of their own money into their own election campaign. This will obviously benefit the wealthy in our society. They will be able to run for office and will have a better chance of winning, no matter the riding.

There is something else bothering many people in Laval and across Canada. I frequently receive letters from people in Ontario, especially members of the Latin American community who know me. They tell me about their concerns, which I forward to their MP. They are concerned that the Commissioner of Canada Elections will lose some of his rights. That is unacceptable.

We are opposed to these election reforms.

[Canada Post, April 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the residents of my riding are concerned about the future of their mail system. Small businesses are watching their operating costs skyrocket.

Seniors and those with reduced mobility will have to walk long distances on ice, in the snow and in the rain to get their mail. The price of stamps has increased between 35% and 59%.

Why are the Conservatives attacking small businesses and the people of Laval?

[Debt, April 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I took part in a few community events over the past two weekends. Many of my constituents told me that they are very concerned about the lack of available jobs and the increased cost of living.

What really got my attention is that some of them spoke about a drop in their credit rating. These people are deep in debt. They are unemployed students, people who cannot find a better paying job, part-time and low-wage workers, and victims of fraud. Canadians who are in debt are not necessarily potential thieves or fraudsters. On the contrary, most reported frauds are committed by people taking advantage of high credit ratings.

These people are caught up in the maze of bureaucracy and a business philosophy that advocates increased premiums and interest rates for the most vulnerable.

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the two points raised by my colleague from Winnipeg North. I want to point out that integrity begins with the member. When someone is minister, that person must show even more integrity, and when that person is prime minister, even more still. The member understands.

The second point is that we truly represent integrity. I remember that in late 2012, when we were still on budget 2011-12, the Ottawa Citizen listed the names of the 10 MPs who had spent the least out of their budget. I was on the list, and that proves everything.

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect for my colleague, I do not consider this a favour. The definition of favour is different than that. I do not think it has anything to do with what happened in a post office.

Honestly, a lot of Laval residents come to my office and ask me why we are allowing the current government to make cuts and make decisions about certain allowances, budgets and grants without slapping its wrist. The reason is simple, and in 2015, these people will have the chance to unseat the Conservatives, and they will see what a good government is.

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, on May 2, 2011, when I was elected, I had to come to Ottawa right away to attend the training and orientation sessions for new members of Parliament.

Those few weeks of intensive training were very useful. What really stood out was the role that all members of Parliament must fulfill in their respective constituencies and here in the House of Commons. It became clear to me that the magic word was “integrity”.

I realize that all of us here, as elected representatives, are faced with all sorts of constraints and personal ethical problems when authorizing expenses or making choices as MPs. Integrity seems to be the obvious answer.

I also realize that individuals appointed as ministers have the budget of a department available to them and sometimes must make choices and authorize expenses. There are more and more constraints. However, integrity must always guide our choices.

What is worse, when an individual becomes prime minister, that person must act with the utmost integrity. Otherwise, that individual could easily be criticized for misconduct. If the individual starts to make choices and approves certain expenditures because of a lack of judgment or a political agenda, and that results in poor decisions, he or she must answer for it.

All of that to say, I was surprised and disappointed to hear the news that motivated our party to look into this issue today in order to manage or direct the use of certain resources that are meant for use by elected officials.

I understand that the Department of National Defence manages the Challenger. The department likely receives specific instructions from the Prime Minister's Office about having a certain plane travel with certain resources—such as pilots, for example—or about fuel, time on the tarmac, aircraft maintenance and so on. All of that is paid for by taxpayers.

It is even more disturbing that this is coming specifically from the Prime Minister, who fiercely attacked the practices of previous governments, such as the Liberals during the sponsorship scandal.

That surprises me, and I am honestly disappointed to see how easily integrity can be tainted when an individual does a favour for a friend or someone close.

I had to laugh because I remember an expression my grandmother used to use when I was very young: “If you need something, always try to reciprocate. Never ask for a favour.” Why? It is because a favour is priceless and it is very difficult to refuse to reciprocate when someone has done you a favour. Personally, I did away with favours a long time ago. That is what everyone should do, from the Prime Minister right down to the last MP in the House.

In terms of the arguments I have heard today about the motion we brought forward, that National Defence should have a more suitable and legitimate procedure for the use of aircraft, the Challenger in this case, I have no idea. Reporters never paid attention to the use of those famous planes in the Liberal government's time. However, it seems to me to be very much the same thing, as the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine explained so well.

She mentioned that we should look at other important factors, not just travel costs, because they are not the crux of the issue. It is not about going through the expenses; it is about knowing why they approved the use of taxpayers' resources for partisan matters or for other things that have nothing to do with the functions of government.

I was surprised to hear the comments from my esteemed colleague from Oak Ridges—Markham. He was trying to muddy the debate with arguments that made no sense. In addition, the hon. member for Winnipeg North, for whom I have the greatest respect, also tried to muddy the debate by accusing our party of having incurred bizarre expenses for satellite offices, among other things.

I am proud to say that our caucus is a model of integrity. None of the claims they are making are true. They will see how things are. They cannot act without integrity and then claim to be calling for more transparency in members' expenses. I do not agree with that.

Why do we have to move a motion to manage the Prime Minister's travel in an aircraft that belongs to Canadians and is operated by a major department, the Department of National Defence?

We already know what once happened with the current Minister of Justice. He was also the target of a lot of attacks because he used a helicopter for personal reasons. That is unacceptable.

I believe the motion makes sense, because, if someone cannot do something, it should come from the House of Commons.

[Air Passengers' Rights, March 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, a year ago, Bill C-459 on air passengers' rights in Canada was defeated in this place by the members opposite. Unlike Canada, most developed countries in the world have adopted laws on the rights of air passengers. As a result of the Conservatives' inexplicable decision, thousands of Canadians across the country have already been affected and will continue to be affected by this legislative void.

Some of these passengers are seniors, people with disabilities, students and people with limited financial resources. These travellers have been penalized because airlines have humiliated them by not recognizing their right to legitimate compensation.

We wonder why this government refuses to defend consumers. The actions of this Conservative government and its usual and systematic negligence must be condemned and give us further incentive to restore Canadians' dignity and well-being in 2015.