Nycole Turmel

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today, and I thank my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster for his motion, which is so very important to the health of our democracy.

I must say that I find it very disappointing that we have to move this type of motion today to try to improve democracy and bring some order to the discussions in the House. I am also thinking about the general public and how cynical they are about the discussions we have here in the House. It is very unfortunate.

Moving a motion like this today in order to allow Canadians to get clear answers to their concerns makes perfect sense. Nowhere in society do we tolerate people we interact with answering questions inappropriately. For example, one of my granddaughters is studying law at the University of Ottawa. Imagine if during an exam she is asked to discuss the rules of law that apply to a specific case and she responds by summing up the rules for Monopoly. How many marks do you think she would get for that answer? It has gotten to the point where we have to wonder. People are wondering. She could always try to convince her professor that her answer is relevant because the question was on rules, but between you and me, I doubt she could convince him. She would certainly fail her exam.

If we do not tolerate such ridiculous answers from our students, why do we accept them from our government? The fact is, we are accountable to our constituents and the general public for the actions and decisions of this Parliament.

I think we can agree on the fact that, last week, the government's answers to rather simple and non-partisan questions reached an all time level of absurdity. It is high time that that ended.

The motion moved by my colleague today seeks to put an end to this dialogue of the deaf that is undermining our democracy. The motion proposes changing the Standing Orders to truly give the Speaker of the House the power to crack down on members who persist in irrelevance or repetition. This is a simple yet effective measure that would bring meaning back to question period by ensuring that the opposition parties get clear answers to the questions they ask on behalf of Canadians.

As journalists and others have said time and time again, members of Parliament do not just represent one person. They represent an entire riding. Canadians have the right to expect that the person who is asking the question, the member who represents them, is shown some respect. I think that that has been forgotten over time.

I hope that all the parties will support this proposal. The Conservative government must be accountable for its actions. That is essential to our democracy. As I mentioned, this motion also seeks to combat cynicism and apathy among Canadians.

Our democracy is based on the fact that the government must take responsibility for its actions and be accountable to Canadians. One way it must do this is by answering the questions it is asked by the opposition parties That is not really difficult. If government members know their stuff, they should be able to answer questions. Canadians expect straight and honest answers from their government. I do not think that that is too much to ask.

Nevertheless, last week, when the leader of the NDP asked the government important questions in a clear and non-partisan manner about the deployment of Canadian troops to Iraq, the answers he got were ridiculous and completely unrelated to the questions asked. This was an exercise in futility.

I believe I can count on one hand the number of times since I was first elected that the government has provided a clear answer to one of our questions. Whether we are talking about the deployment of troops to Iraq, the Senate expense scandal, the robocalls or the Mike Duffy affair, the Conservative government has been stonewalling us. Canadians deserve better, and the NDP is not alone in believing that.

I will give some examples in which journalists even expressed some concerns. My first example is from Tasha Kheiriddin at the National Post. She said that the events of last week had given rise to a bigger debate. She wondered whether Parliament and question period should be reformed, so that there is more substance. She said it was disappointing to the Canadian public that is watching and wondering why our elected officials cannot answer such obvious questions and why they try to avoid them.

Chantal Hébert also touched on this situation last week. She said:

“But there is a larger issue. Even when you do have a minister answering, you are still not getting real answers to questions that are legitimate and part of the job of the opposition parties to ask...”.

This is unacceptable, and we must take immediate action to change things if we want the public to have faith in what Parliament is doing and must do to represent them.

The Standing Orders already provide for ministers to answer oral questions to the best of their knowledge, but that does not seem to be good enough. A number of speakers have said that they did not have the procedural tools to require that the government answer the questions it receives.

In the previous Speaker's statement in the House, on January 28, 2014, the Speaker said that the Chair had previously ruled on the content of questions, but not answers.

That is very clear. No matter what the government says, speakers of the House are the only ones with the power to challenge or stop a question if they do not feel it is on topic, but they do not have the power to stop an answer or to force a government representative to answer the question. Our motion would change this by giving the speaker of the House and chairs of committees of the whole clear procedures to put an end to irrelevant comments.

This motion is also very important because question period is the part of our work here in Parliament that draws the most media attention and that therefore reaches the most Canadians. Just look at how many Canadians are here in this place during question period. Imagine their reaction when they see what goes on in the House.

What message does it send the public when the leader of the official opposition asks a direct question to the government in the House of Commons, in front of the media, and does not even remotely get an answer to his question? It is simple: it sends the message that the government is untouchable and that it does not listen to the public.

Journalist Michael Den Tandt, of the National Post, did a good job expressing this perception last week. He said:

First, by this logic, it now becomes acceptable for a government MP to say anything at all in Question Period. [The member for Oak Ridges—Markham] could, when confronted with an opposition question, begin chanting in ancient Greek. He could speak in Sanskrit, or in tongues; he could say “Lalalalalalalala” while plugging his ears, the way kids do. He could read his grocery list. He could recite the ageless “To be or not to be” soliloquy from Hamlet.

It is time for that to stop. In my riding, at events that took place over the weekend, people told me that they feel it is impossible to talk to the government. They feel that Parliament has become a media show because the concerns of those who do not think like the government are never taken into account or never taken seriously. A number of people quite simply are no longer interested in following politics. There is a great deal of cynicism and apathy, especially among youth.

Last spring, I held a forum on democratic reform. In their presentations, young people said that they feel as though they do not have the power to influence decisions, because when a majority government is elected, it can do whatever it wants without consulting anyone.

By providing any old answer to questions asked in the House, the government is only reinforcing this perception.

Democracy does not happen just once every four years. It must be evident every day in our communities and in the House.

I am now ready to answer my colleagues' questions.

[Taxation, September 22nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, last year, Bill C-377 was widely criticized. Experts said it was unconstitutional to force unions to disclose their expenses. Unions are already accountable to their members.

Now we are told that the Conservatives are back at it and this time they are even going to try to limit the time for debate.

Does the government not find it ironic to call for more transparency from unions as it tries to pass a bill quickly and quietly?

[Canada Revenue Agency, September 22nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, no one is buying what the minister is selling.

The truth is, by laying off 50 experts in the aggressive tax planning branch, the government is reducing our ability to combat international tax fraud.

Canada loses $8 billion annually to tax havens. Instead of attacking the criminals, the Conservatives are attacking the investigators. It is ridiculous.

Will the minister admit she got it wrong and cancel these cuts?

[Justice, June 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, let us stick to the subject of Conservative bungling.

We know that this is not the first time that the Minister of Justice has made sexist remarks. What he said was really shameful.

Last Friday, the Conservatives appointed 11 judges, but there was only one woman among them. Instead of trotting out his dime-store sociology and saying that women enjoy children too much to become judges, the Minister of Justice should have a clear process for achieving gender equality on the benches.

Will he put that process in place?

[Employment, June 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment's catastrophic management of the temporary foreign worker program made these abuses possible.

The Conservatives ignored the fact that Canadian workers were being replaced by cheap foreign workers. They deliberately did not seek out valuable information about the state of the labour market, and that led to an inaccurate assessment of needs.

Why should we trust them to fix the temporary foreign worker program? After all, it was on their watch that the program went off the rails.

[Community Organizations in Hull—Aylmer, June 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, Entraide familiale de l'Outaouais is following in the footsteps of Soupière de l'amitié de Gatineau and Centraide Outaouais and calling on the public for help.

The Conservatives' irresponsible cuts to the public service have jeopardized our region's economy. As a result, hundreds of families that were able to give in the past are now the ones getting help from these organizations.

Because of that, Centraide Outaouais has had to reduce its contribution to the 68 organizations it supports by $300,000. That means $300,000 less for the poorest families in our region.

The situation is serious, but our organizations are extraordinary. Despite their challenges, they always manage to do more with less. They work tirelessly and passionately. The people of the Outaouais are generous. In hard times, we know how to pull together.

That is why today, I am asking for help on behalf of our community organizations. We can all show our support by donating time or money.

I would also like to take this opportunity to wish my Hull—Aylmer constituents a lovely summer.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we can look at what witnesses said. When organizations such as the Canadian Red Cross oppose the position of the government in power, that says it all.

Furthermore, the chief negotiator of the convention, who negotiated with the groups, is also criticizing what the government is doing. That speaks louder than any comments by my colleagues opposite.

I do not believe that following other governments is the answer to the problems we are currently experiencing.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by my colleague and neighbour from the other side of the river.

However, experts believe that by signing this convention the signatories are violating the agreement they made with other countries. That is regrettable. By saying that we cannot find a way, we are not keeping an eye on the objective.

In my opinion, there is a way, and we have to demonstrate leadership in order to comply with the agreement we made when we signed this convention. I find it regrettable that we are holding back, doing nothing and saying that we cannot do anything. On the contrary, there is always a way.

Wars are started because people did nothing and decided not to take action. They did not show leadership.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-6. Several of my colleagues have already spoken about it. Although we essentially agree with the agreement that was signed, we can no longer support Bill C-6 because of the additions that the government made.

Over the course of our careers, we have heard a lot of talk about land mines and we have been made aware of that issue. My colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan spoke about the images that we see on television and the stories that are told about people who have been affected by these weapons and children who have been maimed by this type of explosive years after the conflict has ended in many countries. Even today, even after the wars have ended, this problem still remains. That is very unfortunate, and we should take a lesson from that.

People are always saying that we need to remember history and that we need to talk about it in order to prevent those sorts of things from happening again.

The effects of the cluster munitions that we are talking about today are just as devastating as those of the land mines we are all so familiar with. It is important to point out that 10% to 40% of these submunitions do not explode immediately. They remain in the ground for many years.

This reminds me of a file I worked on. A veteran came to see me. He talked about the explosion that happened at Valcartier 40 years ago. By the way, there will be special memorial ceremony this summer to mark the 40th anniversary of that incident.

Some young cadets were transporting grenades, and one of those grenades was live. Some of these young people died, while others lived but still carry emotional and physical scars 40 years later.

This man, who was in charge of the cadets, was still crying as he talked to me about it.

When I hear talk about land mines or cluster munitions, as a mother, a grandmother and a person who sees the destruction caused by war and the use of these weapons, I think that we should learn a lesson from this and that we should immediately stop doing this type of thing. We have the opportunity to do so today. We have the opportunity, as leaders, to refuse to say that we have no choice because the countries that we work with did not sign the agreement and have the right to use them. Yes, we have a choice. Instead, we should be working to dissuade those countries from using them.

I would like to give an example. Paul Hannon, the executive director of Mines Action Canada, said:

Canada should have the best domestic legislation in the world. We need to make it clear that no Canadian will ever be involved with this weapon again but from our reading this legislation falls well short of those standards.

Why would we pass watered-down legislation? Why would we not take this opportunity to show the world that we can take a leadership role, using the examples I mentioned earlier, to demonstrate that this should not be happening? We need to stop it. It is our duty.

We also know that 98% of injuries caused by cluster munitions are inflicted on civilians. Civilians who give of their time to work on destroying these mines are injured.

As I said, we just need to think about the examples that my colleague gave earlier, the stories we see on television and what we hear from people who have been affected.

It is clear to us that these weapons need to be banned. We need to show some leadership.

We have stood by Canadian and foreign civilian organizations that are calling for this bill to be amended.

I am very disappointed that the government rejected the amendment we proposed last Tuesday to clause 11 of the bill. It was very important.

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre spoke about it in the speech he gave earlier today. The amendment was designed to prohibit Canadians soldiers from being directly involved in the use of cluster munitions. The government wants to allow them to be indirectly involved in their use. That comes back to what I was saying earlier, that Canada would be following in the footsteps of countries that have not signed the convention. That is unacceptable.

We need to demonstrate once again that Canada is a country that can show leadership. Canada may never have experienced a civil war, but we are familiar with the consequences. Immigrants and new Canadians have lived through war and share those experiences with us. We never want to go down that road.

We want to maintain our soldiers' ability to work with other countries. However, we need to be sure that the Canadian Forces will never use cluster munitions.

Earlier, I spoke about one stakeholder in particular, and I would like to mention a few others who have similar concerns about this bill. Many experts share our view. I would like to share a few examples that some members have already mentioned. It is important to repeat them.

Earl Turcotte, the former senior coordinator for mine action, who was the head of the Canadian delegation that negotiated the convention, said:

In my view, the proposed Canadian legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the convention, to date. It fails to fulfill Canada's obligations under international humanitarian law; it fails to protect vulnerable civilians in war-ravaged countries around the world; it betrays the trust of sister states who negotiated this treaty in good faith, and it fails Canadians who expect far better from our nation.

When you sign a convention, you have a duty to comply with it and not find roundabout ways to avoid fulfilling the obligations you committed to in that convention. That is what is going on here. That is what this government is doing, which is truly unfortunate for Canadians. It is also truly unfortunate for the leadership of our country and for Canada's image on the world stage. We must reject this; it is not too late.

The government should understand the consequences of what it is doing. We disagree with the bill because it does not honour the commitment that we made. This government has the means and the time to fix that. We must not accept the proposed changes, and we must move forward to protect our soldiers and the families, children and civilians who would be affected by this bill.

Mr. Turcotte is also concerned about the diplomatic consequences this flawed bill could have. He said that Bill C-6 constituted an about-face on several key commitments Canada made during the negotiations and when it signed the convention in 2008 and that the bill is an affront to the other states who negotiated in good faith.

Mr. Turcotte even resigned his position after 30 years of service at that organization. He could not accept that Canada would impose such a weak implementing legislation. That is what we must condemn.

We have experts, so why not listen to them? Why not pass the best bill possible?

Since my time us up, I will now take questions from my colleagues.

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, June 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time we have faced this situation, so I just want to be sure of the Speaker's ruling when members arrive in the House and may or may not have heard the question. The hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound arrived after you began your presentation.