Justin Trudeau

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member would like to know when we regained confidence in this government. It is quite simple. We did not have high hopes that the government would be able to put forward an attractive budget, one that would help Canadians. Throughout the fall, Conservatives were in denial about the problems, the environmental challenges, the need for Canadians to spend, and we were no longer confident that this government could act accordingly.

So we applied pressure. We formed a coalition that was ready to take back power if the government could not meet Canadians' needs. After consulting with Canadians and those who support us, we saw that the budget they presented was not perfect but that it did provide tangible assistance to Canadians. Yes, there are big holes in this budget. However, the challenge is to get money out to Canadians and that will be done.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this issue, which ties into a much deeper issue of what we are doing here.

First, as a lifelong paddler, I am deeply concerned about the changes the Conservative Government has packaged into their budget on the NWPA.

Before we even get around to that, let us talk about the responsibilities we hold as parliamentarians to represent our constituents and to govern adequately and for the future of our families and our people.

The government and members of Parliament must respond to Canadians' needs. We have to be there for our fellow citizens, and we must always make responsible decisions. It is easy for the NDP and the Bloc to stand in the way, to oppose without ever having to propose, without ever having to make judgment calls and difficult decisions.

I recognize we had plenty of difficult decisions to take when faced with this budget. Throughout the fall, the Conservatives continued to say that there was no economic crisis, that they would be in surplus, that everything was well. We had to push them extremely hard to get them to admit it. We then had to get them to start spending, to start giving to Canadians some of the stimulus, some of the response that they desperately needed.

Was it enough? No, it probably will not be enough, but it is a damn site better than delaying, than putting off our interventions, than dragging Canadians through another expensive election, which would probably return a very similar result of a minority Parliament of some sort, while Canadians are losing their jobs, families are struggling to plan for the future, kids are anxious about what their parents are arguing about late into the night as the bills come in and the job prospects look less and less likely.

Canada is in a crisis. The NDP members announced even before the budget hit the table that they would in no way support it.

The Bloc Québécois proposed unrealistic, unacceptable amendments.

The Liberal Party took a good look at what the Conservatives have done. This is basically a Conservative budget; we understand that. However, the Liberal-NDP coalition, with the Bloc Québécois' support, was able to push the government to take positive steps for our economy, to propose measures we really need.

At the same time, the Conservatives have chosen to sneak some measures that will not be good for Canada into the budget. For example, it includes measures that are not good for pay equity for women, not to mention some real flaws when it comes to protecting navigable waters.

Even so, the Liberal Party decided that it was in Canadians' best interest to get the money flowing right away.

However, navigable waters is an issue, and it is an issue for me. The powers granted to the minister would allow the government to bypass some of the triggers for environmental assessment. It removes the words “dam”, “weir”, “log”, “bridge”, ”causeway” from the automatically triggering environmental assessment procedures. This is a strategy of bringing more power to the ministers. It is similar to the power brought to the minister in the Immigration Act, which the Conservatives adopted last year. This trend is absolutely troubling.

The rights of Canadians to explore their waterways is one that goes into our very identity as Canadians. Our ability to explore this great land, as generations before us have, which was allowed through our waterways, is one that predates Confederation. It goes all the way back to Roman times. To have free access to waterways is essential.

However, the NWPA is over 100 years old. It was brought in 1882. It does need a little reworking, which is why the Liberals worked hard in committee last year to bring about some positive impacts. However, the Conservative government slipped in these changes without any possibility of discussions, debate, back and forth for positive consensus. Then it said if we did not accept the package it put forward in its entirety, regardless of the fact that it is not all about stimulus, we would go into an election.

We are facing tough choices here. We can either try to protect our jobs and not protect the jobs of Canadians, or we can say that Canadians need help and they need help now. They need us to reach out to them. They need us to stimulate them economically to allow them to have safer jobs, to allow them to train for the future and to allow communities to spend on much needed infrastructure.

Are there faults in the budget? Absolutely.

It is wonderfully easy for the Bloc and the NDP to stand on their high horses and shout out that it is terrible this is going through. They do not have to make any of the tough decisions. They have absolved themselves of responsibility that way. They are happy to oppose. However, the Liberal Party intends to form the next government. Because of that, we need to be responsible. When Canadians turn to us and ask us why we do not support the budget or the money that will come from it, we will have no answer if we block it.

Pressure by the Liberal caucus and in committee allowed for a mandatory five year review clause in the NWPA, which means this implementation is not automatically forever. Indeed, the Liberal Party feels that it is time for a comprehensive overhaul of environmental assessment to ensure that we are properly protecting Canadians, that we are properly balancing economy and environment. There is no question that the economy and the environment need to be built together in the future. However, to jump and pull the trigger right now because this is not a Liberal budget would be irresponsible.

We have to give the Conservatives credit. They went a long way in acting against type by actually reaching out to help Canadians and spending on them. For that, we applaud them. However, the challenges we face mean that we need to work together. It would be wonderful if, for once, a party like the NDP would read something before it decided to vote against it. It gives the NDP members the idea that they can stand there and be defenders of the people, the way the Bloc members are defenders of Quebeckers.

We need to be actual defenders of the people. That means taking action. It means making compromises. Like it or not, Canadians voted a Conservative government in last time. What we have to do is make sure that Parliament works. That is what the Liberal Party is doing. It is making sure that this imperfect budget serves Canadians. It is making sure that the naysayers who want to trigger an election or an unstable coalition do not get their way and that Canadians get the help they need.

[Youth Voluntary Service, February 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I do.

[Youth Voluntary Service, February 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, obviously when I came in and realized that I had this lottery win, I got all excited. I said, “Great. I'm going to force the government to implement a national youth service policy”. Then I found out that we cannot move things that require the spending of money.

Therefore the best goal and the most exciting thing for me is to get this room talking about national service, to get this room talking about youth and about the opportunity to invest in them, and to open a dialogue with all these organizations that are frustrated because they cannot seem to get the government and previous governments to invest adequately in young people.

The opportunity to start an important dialogue to get people going on this is what the motion is all about. It seems perhaps modest, and I could have made a bigger splash in a different way, but I want to get something done, and that requires dialogue.

[Youth Voluntary Service, February 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question indeed is a good one.

The reality, however, is that young people do not always have the opportunity to serve. Going to northern Canada to help out in a community that needs help is not something many young people can do on their own.

The idea of recognizing and valuing a service framework is such that young people would buy into a culture of service because there would be opportunities for it. About 10,000 young people a year apply to a program like Katimavik to try to serve. Unfortunately, only 1,000 of them get to serve through our national youth service program, because the funding simply is not there.

What do they do? Some of them volunteer in their communities, on and off, but many of them are in school and many of them are working in part-time jobs because they have to pay the rent or allow for their education. What we need to do is give them opportunities that are structured.

[Youth Voluntary Service, February 25th, 2009]

moved:

That the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities be instructed to consider the introduction in Canada of a national voluntary service policy for young people by analyzing existing programs and using the work done by the Voluntary Sector Initiative in 2003 as its point of departure; by holding public hearings; and by presenting a report to the House no later than October 2009 that would contain among other things a review of similar policies in the rest of the world and a summary of the evidence heard.

Mr. Speaker, when I ran for office, I made promises to the people of Papineau. I promised that I would be a strong voice for them in this House and that I would be equal to the task when it comes to taking steps that will really help the people in my community. This economic crisis brings huge challenges, but at the same time huge opportunities.

I have often said that the strength of Papineau resides in its spirit of people helping people. As we face this crisis, mutual help is becoming increasingly important. What is good for Papineau is also good for Canada. It is one of the values that bring us together. Among Canadian values is being there for one another. That is precisely what is needed these days.

If an economic crisis is difficult, it also represents an opportunity for the government to help Canadians. However, the way we choose to help Canadians needs to be effective in the immediate, but has to also carry through a lasting impact that will make a difference in the generations to come.

The opportunity to invest in our communities and non-profit organizations, that do such a tremendous job already of helping out Canadians in times of need, is extraordinarily important. We need to make sure that our community organizations and the charitable entities, that work so hard to help out our seniors, youth, people in difficulty, working families or single mothers, receive stable sources of help.

At the same time, on the other hand, we have young people across this country who are facing a crisis of relevance. They are asking questions about how they fit in to this increasingly globalized, massive world, where every day they are told in different ways that they do not matter, that one day they will be important but for now they just need to keep quiet and do their thing. They turn to us and ask what that thing is and we have no answers for them.

We need to look at investing in our youth as something that is essential, not just for them but for all of society. If we can pair up young people who are seeking for ways to matter in our society with communities and community organizations, that need help to allow Canadians to get through the tough times that exist particularly now but will exist always in good years and in bad, then we are creating a way that Canada can be stronger in a genuine, long-term fashion.

Young people get a bad rap often for being apathetic, disconnected and cynical about the world. The reality is that sometimes they are a little cynical, apathetic and frustrated at the way the world is around them, but it is not because they do not care about the world. On the contrary, it is because they care so much that they are deeply frustrated that they do not have ways to make the world a better place. They do not have a voice that gets heard to shape the world that will be theirs some day, they keep being told.

The motion I am putting before the House is to ask the human resources committee to study best practices from around the world, to listen to community partners, provincial partners, municipal partners, NGOs, universities, schools, people who work with young people and young people themselves, all of these groups, and come up with a national service policy for youth in Canada.

A national youth service policy would simply say to any young Canadian who wanted to serve their country, we will provide them the opportunity to do so. It seems like an obvious thing, that if a young person would want to serve, they would be given opportunities to do so. But the reality is that tens of thousands of young people apply to programs and organizations across the country, organizations that have their impact nationally, locally, provincially, regionally, and see themselves turned away from the help they can offer simply because of lack of funding and lack of a willingness by the government, by the House, to invest in our young people to give them the tools, the skills, and the understanding that they can be powerful, committed, and engaged citizens.

The details of this policy need to be worked out in consultation. I am certainly not pretending that I have all the answers. Far from it, but there are many Canadian organizations, individuals and groups, who fought long and hard about ways to involve young Canadians in active service, in engaged long-term volunteerism, that allows this country to meet the needs of so many communities and individuals who find themselves struggling.

It is important to understand that I am proposing that we establish a policy to ensure that any young person who wants to serve our country is given the opportunity to do so.

We are not working towards a program to that end. We are not saying that this is what Canada, its communities and its provinces need. We are simply establishing a framework to give young people a choice, many choices. They could see how they would like to serve and there would be a framework to approve the provinces, municipalities, NGOs and charitable community organizations, which would then find volunteers—young Canadians who perhaps live in that community or who perhaps come from the other side of the country—to provide all Canadians with the services that are so well delivered by community organizations.

It is not up to us here to say that a certain region needs young people to plant trees, or that another region needs this or that. It is a question of providing a means to respond to the needs of our communities.

Providing communities with volunteer efforts for young people to serve is a way for the government to respond to the very real needs that our communities face across the country. This is an extraordinary opportunity.

Many different models and choices need to be looked at and should eventually be offered.

First of all, what is service? There are two great ideas out there about how service to one's country would look. There is the typical model of the gap year, which is in place in many parts of Europe, including England, where the Russell commission report came out a number of years ago recommending the adoption of exactly this, a national policy on youth service.

Within a gap year, typically between the end of high school and the beginning of post-secondary education or one's career, young people take time to travel and work in various communities. They learn a number of jobs and skills that will not necessarily be the careers they will be choosing, but that will form habits of engagement in their communities that one hopes they will keep for the rest of their lives as active, engaged adults. The gap year provides an opportunity for young people to figure out what they like to do and often what they do not want to do. When young people go out into the world and start becoming powerful agents of change in their communities, those experiences make a big difference.

There is also the military reserve-style model, in which civic service would engage young people for a weekend a month during the summer over a number of years. That allows for training, framework and accessibility to a pool of young people who could be called into action with the training they receive. Service organizations can target inner cities, rural areas and small towns. They could target the far north and aboriginal reserves. We could be offering to young Canadians the opportunity to serve in many different ways, including overseas service. The engagement that our young Canadians can have, faced with this globalized world, is significant, and we need to look at ways in which national youth service would also encourage overseas service.

This motion has as its object the beginning of a dialogue and the beginning of a formal conversation here in Parliament about what we need our young people to grow up to be and what we hope the adult citizens they will become will hold dear as Canadian values and responsibilities.

How we reach out to our young people and provide them with opportunities to be relevant is extraordinarily important. We cannot just sit back and hope that one day they will feel like volunteering unless we demonstrate to them that we are willing to invest in them to provide them with opportunities to serve.

Every single person who sits in the House of Commons and has the honour of being here knows the value of service.

All of us here in the House understand the importance of service and of serving one's country. We are all extremely lucky to be here, lucky that people encouraged us and made us understand that it is important to be involved and to be present.

I deeply hope that this measure will allow more young people to understand the responsibilities of service and the extraordinary satisfaction that comes with being able to serve.

Oftentimes we say we want our young people to be our leaders of tomorrow. That means nothing unless we give them the tools to be leaders today. If we reach out to our young people right now and provide them with the tools to make a difference, Mr. Speaker, I ask you and everyone in this House to imagine the kind of Canada we would be building together.

[La Francophonie, February 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, what we want to know is what role the Minister for La Francophonie played? Was she consulted when those four countries were struck from the list? Did she give her blessing to the abandonment of all those African countries with which we have a special relationship through La Francophonie?

I would hate to think she was asleep at the switch while her colleague was giving the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie a slap in the face. Where was the minister?

[La Francophonie, February 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister for La Francophonie may be asleep at the switch once again. Her colleague, the Minister of International Cooperation, has cut off funding for a number of African countries who are our partners within the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie.

What explanation is the Minister for La Francophonie going to give to our colleagues in Rwanda, Niger, Burkina Faso, Benin and all the other countries now excluded from priority bilateral aid from Canada?

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to underscore the attitude of respect and cooperation that now exists in this House of Commons. The Conservative government promised a new era of cooperation and respect, and failed in that regard.

We witnessed a historic moment when a coalition was formed. The Bloc Québécois agreed, in the interest of the economy and in the interest of Quebeckers and Canadians, to set aside the issue of sovereignty to take care of the economy, just as we, the Liberals and the NDP, will set aside the national question to some extent to focus on the economy. That is what is important. It is a historic agreement.

The agreement between the Liberals and the NDP, which is supported by the Bloc, puts aside the questions of national unity to focus on the unity of the economy and the strength of the economy. This is a large, important day of respect and co-operation here of which we can all be proud. I congratulate the members of the Bloc for being part of that.

[Affordable Housing, November 21st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, over the past 18 months, in my travels throughout my riding of Papineau, I heard time and time again how access to affordable housing is a major challenge for Canadian families.

High housing costs mean young people and new Canadians cannot buy homes, which leads to increased pressure on existing affordable housing.

November 22, 2008, is National Housing Day. In this period of economic uncertainty, Canadians have the right to demand that their government make access to affordable, safe housing a priority.

In this respect, the throne speech was disappointing. This government has frozen funding for affordable housing and combating homelessness, while also ignoring the housing crises in first nations, Métis and Inuit communities.

National Housing Day is a reminder that we must ensure that all Canadians are able to access affordable, safe housing and maintain their dignity.