House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2021, with 54% of the vote.
Employment May 9th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, every month, this government wastes $100,000 of taxpayers' money on media monitoring to track its own MPs. It is incredible.
In the meantime, it is eliminating jobs for our young students who are looking for work, putting a greater burden on the families that support them. This $100,000 represents 30 students who will not have a summer job.
Why is this government wasting taxpayers' money in such a partisan way instead of finding jobs for our young students who so badly need them?
Petitions May 9th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition signed by a large number of constituents. It concerns the closing of three Canada Post offices: one in Westmount, one in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and one in Snowdon.
These post offices were closed without public consultation the way public consultation should occur, and are at the heart of the communities that are affected by the closing.
I would ask the government to reconsider its decision.
Petitions May 6th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition against the closure of the post office located at 4895 Sherbrooke Street, in Westmount. This post office is an important part of the community; many residents of my riding have been using it for decades and would like for it to stay open.
Taxation May 6th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, after creating the largest deficit in Canada's history and running up six consecutive deficits, the government is now going to raise taxes on Canadian families in order to pay for its incompetence.
With their 2013 budget, the Conservatives are increasing taxes on almost 1,300 goods that Canadians use on a daily basis. This is a tax on everything, from baby strollers and kitchen gadgets to toothbrushes.
Why is this government bombarding Canadian families with all these taxes?
Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1 May 6th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague what she is telling people in her riding about the fact that by 2015, after seven or possibly eight deficits in a row, there will be over $150 billion of debt added to the national debt. What does she tell her constituents with respect to the national debt?
Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1 May 6th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague speaks a lot about reducing taxes in certain areas, and everybody is in favour of reducing taxes, particularly when the economy is in a good state and we are in a surplus.
However, when we reduce taxes in a deficit situation, there is a downside to doing that. We are currently aiming for over $150 billion of added debt in 2015 due to this government.
I would like to hear what the member or the government have in mind in terms of taking care of this massive debt, for which interest payments are going to continue to increase over time.
The Environment May 2nd, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple math question for the Minister of the Environment. He keeps falsely claiming that the government is halfway to its 2020 targets on greenhouse gases. Let us do the math.
The 2005 level was 731 megatonnes. His target is 607 megatonnes. Halfway to that is 669 megatonnes. Therefore, the minister is saying that we are at or below 669 megatonnes. Can he provide proof of this?
Language Skills Act May 1st, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak about this bill. It seems that everyone supports it, even though the government unfortunately made some amendments to it. It is quite obvious that officers of Parliament must be bilingual. In an ideal world, we would not need a law for this. However, it seems that the Conservatives need such a law because they recently appointed a unilingual Auditor General. We therefore need a law to remind the government of its responsibilities. That law will be Bill C-419. I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent for sponsoring it.
In committee, the Conservatives used their majority to make useless amendments to the bill. On behalf of his Liberal colleagues, the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville voted against each of these amendments, which served to eliminate the preamble and two of the four clauses from the original bill.
Despite these amendments, we still support Bill C-419 since the most important element of the bill remained intact. The most important thing is that officers of Parliament be bilingual when they are appointed.
It is essential that the Auditor General of Canada be bilingual when he or she gets the job. The Chief Electoral Officer of Canada must also be bilingual. The Commissioner of Official Languages, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Information Commissioner of Canada, the Senate Ethics Officer, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada, the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, and the President of the Public Service Commission of Canada—all must be bilingual on the day that they are hired.
The Conservatives' amendments weakened the bilingualism requirement. However, the requirement set out in the amended version of the bill is still meaningful. It states that anyone who is appointed to these positions “must, at the time of his or her appointment, be able to speak and understand clearly both official languages”.
The Conservatives also did away with clause 3, which stated: “The Governor in Council may, by order, add offices to the list established in section 2.” That is unfortunate because, if they believed in bilingualism, they would have made it easier to expand the list. It would have been nice if the government had been able to take the initiative to add new positions to the list of those with a bilingualism requirement. However, at least we can rest assured that the government will not be able to remove any positions from the list without parliamentary approval.
The government side also removed clause 4, which pertained to interim appointments to the positions covered by Bill C-419. This clause read: “In the event of the absence or incapacity of the incumbent of any of the offices listed in section 2 or vacancy in any of these offices, the person appointed in the interim must meet the requirements set out in section 2.”
That clause was removed, undermining the clarity of the bill but, fortunately, not changing the fundamentals. Once Bill C-419 becomes law in Canada, all newly appointed officers of Parliament will have to be bilingual, whether the position is occupied by a permanent or an interim appointee.
Interim appointees will be subject to the same requirements as permanent ones. They will have to deliver the goods and fulfill all requirements of the position as set out in the law.
If the law states that bilingualism is a skill inherent to the job, that skill will always be mandatory. It cannot be optional. If the government were to make a bad decision to appoint a unilingual interim officer, it would be breaking the law and would be subject to legal action.
The Conservatives also cut the preamble to Bill C-419. They refused to say why. All they said was that the preamble was not necessary. It is not necessary, but it is useful. A preamble makes the legislator's intentions clear. In this case, the main problem with cutting the preamble is that now, nowhere does it say that the bill is about officers of Parliament.
This is what the fourth whereas said:
And whereas persons appointed with the approval by resolution of the Senate, the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament must be able to communicate with members of those Houses in both official languages;
Now that the fourth whereas is gone, nowhere in the bill does it say that the 10 positions subject to bilingualism under Bill C-419 are given to “individuals appointed with the approval by resolution of the Senate, the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament”.
Since both the preamble and the fourth whereas are gone, positions not appointed by Parliament can be subject to Bill C-419.
In committee, my colleague, the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, suggested adding the CEO of CBC and the president of the CRTC to the list in the bill. These two officials are not appointed by Parliament, but who would object to the notion that they should have to be bilingual? The Conservatives, apparently.
My NDP colleagues voted in favour of the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville's amendment, and I thank them for that. However, the Conservatives scuttled it. Let us keep that in mind in the future. Since there is no longer a preamble, there is nothing standing in the way of adding more government-appointed positions to Bill C-419 in the future.
Let me get back to the important thing, which is that, by law, officers of Parliament must meet the following criteria.
First, they should have the ability to study matters in both official languages. This is the only way to ensure fair and credible investigations and decisions.
Second, they should be able communicate with parliamentarians who are, in many cases, unilingual. One cannot provide satisfactory service to Parliament if one can speak to some of its members only through an interpreter.
Third, they should be able not only to communicate with all Canadians, but also to listen to them and follow what they are saying. The role of officers of Parliament is not only to be competent public servants, they must also be competent communicators. They must communicate the conclusions of their research with accuracy and subtlety in both languages.
We must state and demonstrate to young Canadians that some positions with national responsibilities in this country require a mastery of both official languages. We should honour the bilingual character of our Parliament, of our country and of our future by supporting Bill C-419.
Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1 May 1st, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I agree with what my colleague from Parkdale—High Park said about this government's fiscal incompetence.
Unless it manages to balance the budget, in 2015 we will have our eighth consecutive deficit with this government. The Conservatives only balanced the budget in 2006 and 2007 because they inherited a big surplus that we, the Liberals, left them. Before that, the last time a Conservative government balanced a budget was in 1912. These people do not know how to manage an economy.
My colleague from Parkdale—High Park said that measures were urgently needed to meet the needs of families.
What specific measures would address these needs?
I agree with her, but I would like to hear specifics.
Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1 May 1st, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I tried to take the speech seriously, but I had to laugh many times with the government talking about sound fiscal management. How does one equate sound fiscal management with, let us say, in 2015, about $150 billion added to the national debt, with the fact that we have 1.4 million Canadians unemployed, with the fact that 10 of the last 12 trade balances have been deficits in our country? How can government members have the temerity to stand and say that they are sound fiscal managers?