Mylène Freeman

[Petitions, February 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition today is about creating a national public transit strategy.

Like me and the people of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, the petitioners believe that Canadians deserve a reliable, fast and affordable public transit system, especially because of traffic congestion, which causes loss of productivity for those who commute in and to Montreal every day, and because of environmental pollution.

[Petitions, February 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions for you today.

The first petition deplores any budget cuts or rail service reductions in eastern Canada. That will have many adverse consequences for the region's economy as well as for the viability of a number of businesses and business people. Rail is one of the safest, most economical and most environmentally friendly means of transportation.

[Intergovernmental Relations, February 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is appalling that the government and the parliamentary secretary are hiding behind the designation of “historic event” instead of “historic site” to justify their refusal to protect this canal.

Regardless of the designation used by the parliamentary secretary, the community and heritage groups consider it a priority to protect the canal. In 2009, the canal made Heritage Canada The National Trust's top 10 endangered places list. I will share a quote from the organization's website:

Without immediate action this historic site will be lost forever.

There is far too much work required to reopen the canal for a municipality like Grenville, which has about 1,600 residents. They cannot take on the cost of this work alone. Although the RCM of Argenteuil has provided assistance for short-term solutions, we could end up completely losing this canal in the long term.

Describing a canal as an “event” as a result of its state does not prevent it from deteriorating even more.

Why do the Conservatives want to let this historic canal deteriorate, when it represents an economic opportunity for my region?

[Intergovernmental Relations, February 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to return to the question I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages last November 28. My question was simple and the importance of the government’s commitment should be clear. I asked whether the government would commit to investing the funds needed to restore the Grenville Canal in my riding.

First, I want to take some time to give you the background for this request. The Grenville Canal is a significant historic heritage site for my region, and for all of Quebec and Canada. Its importance comes from its potential for economic, recreational and tourism development in the Argenteuil area. The canal, which extends along the Ottawa River between Montreal and Ottawa, is one of the earliest examples of military canal-building in Canada. Construction began in 1819, in order to facilitate navigation to Kingston and the Great Lakes.

It was initially designed for military purposes in response to the Anglo-American War of 1812. It was built as part of a transportation network that included the Carillon Canal—still in operation in my constituency, being run by Parks Canada—as well as Chute-à-Blondeau, which is in my constituency as well.

Although they have no qualms about using the War of 1812 for publicity for their members and their government, the Conservatives do not seem to want to take a stand on protecting the heritage of that historical era. That is the case for the Grenville Canal. The walls of the canal have been deteriorating for years, and this has led to its closure because of the obvious lack of safety for local residents and the general population.

The municipality of Grenville and its 1,600 residents cannot absorb the entire cost of maintaining the canal. The federal government has owned and managed the canal for 161 years; it has a duty to protect Canadian heritage and should assume responsibility for preserving this navigable waterway along the Ottawa River.

For that reason, and as the NDP member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, I demand that the federal government take action to preserve the Grenville Canal.

I will therefore put my question to the government once more: will it undertake to invest the money required to save the Grenville Canal?

[Navigation Restrictions, February 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of Parliament, I take my role as a legislator very seriously. I believe that we all need to remember that we are here in Ottawa to propose measures, laws and regulations on behalf of our constituents.

All of our ridings vary in size and population, but I think we all agree that there is a lot of distance to cover and there are a lot of people to meet in this great country.

My colleague, the member for Laurentides—Labelle, a riding next to mine, moved a motion to ensure that our regulations are appropriate for different communities across Canada. I believe that that is the very essence of what we do.

His motion builds on the local knowledge and expertise of municipalities, which would be able to adjust the regulations to their own specific situation. I will read the motion:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should, following consultations with provinces, territories, municipalities and First Nations, carry out a review of the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations with the objective of facilitating and accelerating the process allowing local administrations to request restrictions regarding the use of vessels on certain waters in order to improve how waters are managed, public safety and the protection of the environment.

In his view, that is the way to properly handle this issue, which is important for his riding and mine. First, not only does the government need to consult and work with other levels of government and first nations, but it also has to have a critical yet positive attitude toward regulations.

Whenever I work with the RCMs, the mayors of various municipalities in my riding, the people's representatives and various local organizations, such as NPOs, I see their passion for their communities and all the opportunities to get them involved in positive and fruitful initiatives to benefit their constituents.

The various waterways used for recreational boating are governed by a hodge-podge of regulations at all levels of government. Navigation falls under federal jurisdiction, whereas riverbanks, rivers and the environment fall under provincial jurisdiction. Municipalities can ask the federal government for additional restrictions and are ultimately more present on the ground to deal with the various problems that arise.

Since the municipalities are the level of government most directly present on the ground and closest to their communities and their people, they are clearly in the best position to act quickly and effectively in response to each local situation.

This motion in no way changes the levels of jurisdiction. It simply improves the process of adapting regulations to local contexts.

One mayor from my riding, Scott Pearce, mayor of the Township of Gore, is particularly involved in and concerned for the protection of lakes and rivers. Here is what he had to say about the role of municipalities in the management of boating:

Larger boats with heavier motors are being purchased more and more frequently for use on small recreational lakes across Canada. These boats, wake boats, are produced to create very large wakes. Many of the cottage lakes are not large enough to withstand the erosion caused by these wave-producing boats.

For example, Lake Barron in Gore is only 3.5 kilometres long and only a half a kilometre wide at its widest.

As currently legislated, any property owner, due to the fact that the lake is navigable, can put a 60-foot luxury liner on the lake.

This is illogical as the shoreline erosion caused is irreversible and the fish fraying areas are greatly damaged.

If the federal government will not allow local governments to legislate for watershed protection, they should at least classify lakes across Canada by surface acreage and legislate maximum size of boats, motors, and all other motorized water vehicles.

Local governments often have on staff biologists who can monitor and recommend changes that could be instituted to protect our waterways for future generations.

I think Scott's position clearly demonstrates the problem at hand and demonstrates the importance of having local government leaders who are knowledgeable about the situation, have proximity to the situation, and are committed to finding practical solutions for their communities.

I also want to share with the House words from another municipality in my riding, Morin Heights, which is right next to Gore. They passed at their city council meeting a motion in support of the resolution by my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle. Here is its assessment of the situation.

Considering the present process which allows for a municipality to ask Transport Canada for restrictions on waterways is long, complex and costly;

...the requirements hinder the speedy settlement of disputes and open the door to many disagreements in the communities and have often been criticized by municipalities;

...municipalities are closer to citizens and therefore in a better position to propose changes regarding how waters are managed throughout their territories;

[the motion] would allow for better management of the waterways and better protection of the environment, improve public safety, and lessen a number of local conflicts over the use of the lakes and waterways;

The solution that my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle is proposing is to cut the red tape.

When it comes to managing recreational boating, that is what needs to be done. My Conservative colleagues should be pleased to hear the NDP talk about faster and more efficient bureaucracy. I hope there will not be any doublespeak because we know that bureaucracy cuts both ways.

By the way, I think it is a shame that the Conservatives will tackle bureaucracy when it gives them more power and refuse to get rid of certain rules to make them better suited to the different municipalities. I sincerely hope that there will be no holdups regarding this motion and that the Conservatives will support it.

Unfortunately, there were a lot of budget cuts that affected our lakes and rivers. I do not want this to make them blind to our local needs in terms of lakes and rivers. These needs are very important for the local development and identity of our regions. I absolutely want to emphasize that point to my Conservative colleagues. The environmental protection of these navigable lakes in my riding, such as Lake Parent, is important on an economic level.

In closing, I want to come back to the role of the legislator, which is at the centre of this motion. Our primary mission is to improve the laws and regulations for all Canadians and Quebeckers and to make them more effective and efficient and better adapted to the different communities across this vast country of ours.

The motion's goal and subject matter, as well as my colleague's approach, demonstrate a positive and inclusive vision of public affairs and politics. It demonstrates a desire to divide the work among levels of government and, at the same time, a desire to work together to get better results for Canadians.

It should be easier for municipalities to make legislative changes in relation to their waterways. They know the people in their municipalities and are well positioned to ensure social peace. There are often local conflicts about how the lakes should be used in the municipality of Morin-Heights. Municipalities should also be allowed to better manage navigation on their waterways and to limit the presence of motorized vessels. It would help us do a better job of protecting the environment. Social peace and environmental protection are our main goals.

In addition, this motion is designed to reduce red tape. The current regulatory framework shows that the system is slow and inefficient.

To conclude, I would like to point out that this motion would not cost anything. It simply states that we can do better and it gives us the tools to make that happen. This motion is another example of the work being done by the NDP to improve government for everyone.

[Petitions, January 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, these petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to cover the cost of repairing and restoring the shoreline and retaining walls of the Grenville Canal in my riding.

Even though it is considered a national historic site, the canal was forced to close in 2008 because of its decrepit state. For the past four years, elected officials and members of the local community have been joining forces to call on the federal government to preserve this historic canal, which is so important to the region.

I want my constituents to know that I fully support them in their efforts. It is time to demand symbolic recognition for this important canal.

[Aboriginal Affairs, January 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is not enough, and it is time for more than just words.

Many groups have spoken out at the committee about the flaws. We have seen no change from the Conservatives. It is clear that aboriginal women deserve more than just another report that is going to gather dust. They deserve answers.

When will the government agree to an inquiry and to concrete steps to end violence against aboriginal women?

[Aboriginal Affairs, January 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the work of the Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women is coming to an end, and the conclusion is obvious: we need to take action to avoid having to start over and produce another report that will simply gather dust.

The NDP has taken action by moving a motion calling for a concrete action plan to put an end to violence against women.

Will the government support our plan?

[Violence Against Women, December 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, on December 6, we will observe the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.

I was born in 1989, the year of the massacre at the École Polytechnique, and I am the same age as many of the women targeted in that tragedy. However, unfortunately, even 24 years later, we still have a very long way to go.

Whether in the form of domestic violence, physical and psychological abuse, harassment, poverty, denigration, racialization or fear, violence is still part of all of our lives, all around the world, generation after generation, because we are women.

We must never give up and accept violence as a reality for women. Each and every one of us has a duty to take real action, to stand up against and put an end to all forms of violence.

[Housing, December 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today, hundreds of people braved the cold to ask the government to help the homeless find decent and affordable housing.

Meanwhile, the senators are still wondering about the location of their primary residence and how much money they can claim from Canadians so that they can have more than one residence, even if they are not entitled to it.

While the Conservatives and the Liberals are defending the entitlements of their friends, while the Conservatives are using taxpayers' money to hire Bay Street firms to cover up the cover-up, while they are busy deleting emails and are caught up in their web of lies, they are forgetting the reality of those who are not as fortunate as they are.

All that these people are asking for is access to housing during the harsh winter months or access to employment insurance benefits because the plant where they worked for 20 years just closed down.

The NDP will always put people first. We will leave it up to the old parties to protect their privileged friends.