Nycole Turmel

[The Budget, February 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I must say, I am very pleased to hear this question. When we talk about managing a deficit, this means creating jobs, good jobs that will allow the government to work in an economic environment that generates revenues.

Our projects are about making life more affordable: reducing interest rates on credit cards, for example; and legislating the price of gas and banking fees. This would put a little extra cash in the pockets of average and lower-income families, allowing them to feed their kids, buy clothing and keep the economy going. That is what we are proposing, as opposed to what the Conservatives are proposing—namely, funding cuts across the board, which does not generate revenues.

[The Budget, February 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we also know that when the Liberal Party was in power, it slashed funding for affordable housing. That is unfortunate.

Getting back to the topic at hand, I appreciate the question because it has been raised many times in my riding. I sat on a board of directors for affordable housing and I heard the complaints and concerns about the housing authority's withdrawal. The housing authority withdrew from the program, which left the boards and co-operatives in a government legal vacuum. That is very unfortunate.

The government had a responsibility, and still does, to speak with the municipalities to ensure continuity. The volunteers who work on these boards of directors are expending all of their energy to try and fix a problem they did not create. It is up to the various levels of government to deal with this situation. These volunteers should be able to do their work of ensuring that housing is properly managed and assigned to those who need it.

[The Budget, February 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I really liked what the Conservative member had to say about living in a fantasy world. I think the Conservatives are the ones who are completely out of touch with reality. That is unfortunate because, since they took office, our beloved country has been heading downhill.

The Conservatives say that they are champions of jobs and the economy. However, as I mentioned, what we hear from the public is completely different. The people in my riding are telling me that, over the past few years, the economic situation in the Outaouais region has deteriorated. By cutting thousands of public service jobs in the national capital region, the Conservatives have destroyed our economy. It is not just federal public servants who are being affected. All public services and programs are affected by these decisions. Many families affected by these cuts now have less purchasing power and are clearly spending less.

In addition to the public service jobs that have been lost, the entire middle class has seen its income drop under this government. Yesterday, an internal study conducted by the federal Department of Employment and Social Development showed that middle-class families now have to mortgage their future to stay afloat. Government representatives are the ones who released this report. Are they living in a fantasy world? I do not think so.

Whether I am out at a restaurant or doing errands, I am hearing the same thing: it is becoming more and more difficult for merchants in the Outaouais region to make ends meet. Unfortunately, it is not unusual for me to have visits in my riding office from parents who have unexpectedly lost their jobs as a result of recent budget cuts. What am I supposed to tell them when they ask me how they are going to meet their family's needs now?

Here are some statistics. In my riding, right now, 9,000 people visit a food bank every month. Most of them—56%—are women. The sad part is that one-third of food bank users are children, and that number is growing daily. An increasing number of these organizations are running out of food because of the growing demand. However, the problem is even bigger than that. In March 2012, just over 882,000 people made use of a food bank in Canada. That represents an increase of 31% as compared to 2008. The Conservatives were in power at that time. They could have done something.

Speaking of children and growing needs, the Minister of Industry said that it was not his job to worry about how these couples were going to feed their children. However, a number of my constituents, my NDP colleagues and I disagree. It is our job to build an economy that provides opportunities for meaningful employment and leaves no one behind. It is first and foremost the government's job to ensure that its budgetary choices guarantee a decent quality of life for all Canadians.

However, the budget that the Minister of Finance presented to us is not the budget of a government that is doing its job. It is the budget of a political party that is laying the groundwork for the next election and is not thinking of Canadians in need. In this budget, the government could have taken real measures to make life more affordable for Canadians. Once again, the government is not listening to what Canadians are asking for.

Last Saturday, I toured my riding with a number of volunteers to talk about the NDP's plan for reducing the financial burden on families. We met with hundreds of people who want this Parliament to do something tangible to reduce the cost of living.

However, I am pleased to see that the government incorporated some of the NDP's proposals in this budget, including putting an end to the infamous “pay to pay” fees. However, one of the major concerns in my riding and across Canada was not addressed: lowering the price of gas. One woman I met told me that it now costs her $50 a week to get to work and do her shopping, and she does not have to drive very far. Less than 10 years ago, that same $50 would have allowed her to drive around for a month.

The government needs to do two things here: it needs to put an end to collusion in the setting of gas prices and it needs to invest in a real strategy to free us from our dependence on oil.

The government is also refusing to take responsibility for affordable housing. I cannot believe that in 2014, more than 1.5 million households cannot afford adequate housing, according to the Canadian Housing & Renewal Association. This is completely unacceptable in Canada, a country we are proud to live in.

The problem is very serious in the Outaouais, as it is elsewhere. This is not just rhetoric. François Roy, the coordinator for Logemen'occupe, regularly raises this issue, and I congratulate him for that. As he has so often pointed out, there are 900 families waiting for affordable housing in Gatineau alone.

Even though this is a serious situation, the government has not proposed any new investments in housing this year, all so that it can potentially create a surplus in 2015, an election year.

Does this mean that these 900 families will have to wait for an election year to get a little assistance from the government, as my colleague mentioned earlier? Often, it is just a matter of a little bit of money, but this government has not made this a priority. That is the reality. Will the City of Gatineau and community organizations in Hull—Aylmer have to wait until 2015 to get the financial support they are asking for to meet the public's increasing needs?

In conclusion, I want to talk about this government's attacks on public service retirees. On November 15, 2013, I met with several dozen retirees at a public forum organized by the NDP members in the Outaouais and the Federal Superannuates National Association.

These retirees shared their concerns that their health care plan could potentially be cut. A number of them were also outraged at being treated in such a terrible way after they had dedicated their working lives to serving their country.

Unfortunately, their fears have proven to be founded because this budget will cut $7.4 billion from the public service health care plan. This will almost double pensioners' annual health insurance premiums. Naturally, the government would like us to believe that it absolutely has to dig into retirees' pockets in order to eliminate the deficit.

We will say it over and over again: the reality is that the average pension for a public servant is $24,000 a year, or approximately $21,000 for women and $25,000 for men. We must accept the reality that these retirees are not rolling in money.

According to Gérald Denis, national director of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, with such low income:

...no matter the amount, whether it is $10, $15 or $20 a month, any automatic deduction from a pension cheque has a clearly direct impact.

I find it deplorable and ridiculous that the government is trying to save money at the expense of retirees while, oddly enough, it can still give $20 billion in tax breaks to big business.

After studying this economic action plan, I can only conclude that the government is not working for the people. Once again, it is working solely for the Conservative Party.

What is scandalous about this budget, is not what is in it, but what is missing. They have failed to seize an extraordinary opportunity to help families, workers, seniors and small business. This is a lost opportunity to prove that politics transcends partisan interests. It is a lost opportunity to build a better future for all Canadians.

[Petitions, February 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many of my constituents and people who live in the national capital region. The petitioners are calling on the government to pass legislation to fully protect Gatineau Park, which we love so much and whose facilities we have enjoyed over this very snowy winter.

I hope to have the government's support for my bill, which will protect the park's boundaries and allow our children and grandchildren to use it with confidence for years to come.

[Democratic Reform, February 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I get the feeling the minister is afraid of what Quebeckers have to say about his reform.

Can the minister tell us whether all aspects of his reform are constitutional and in line with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Has he received legal opinions about this and, if so, will he make them public?

[Democratic Reform, February 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' bill will deprive many young students and low-income seniors of their votes, and it will make life harder for people who do not have ID or who have a disability. The Conservatives are always coming down hard on the most vulnerable people in society. Today we are offering the minister a chance to get out of the Ottawa bubble. Will there be a free vote on the NDP motion for public consultations on C-23?

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for raising that point, which is really what it all comes down to for the NDP.

We want to enable everyone to see the differences among the regions and the provinces and to express their opinion. Democracy is all about giving people opportunities to express themselves. They may not be able to come to Ottawa to do that, so we have to go to them. Ukraine is a great example of that.

I would like the party currently in power—that is right, currently—to explain why it is so strongly opposed to that kind of consultation. Its stance is preventing the committee members from doing a thorough job.

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised to hear that question.

First, over the past two years, we have seen nothing but gag orders to prevent us from discussing bills in depth.

Second, since our country is so large and we are talking about major democratic electoral reform, it is very important that Canadians have both the opportunity to share their opinions and the time to do so.

As for the deadline, we were very clear. We did not ask for a one- or two-year extension, but instead suggested that this be done in the next three months, to meet the needs of the Chief Electoral Officer. We will be prepared to discuss it on May 1. That gives ample time to carry out the reform, which will be done in a democratic fashion.

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his support of this motion and for raising some very important points.

He mentioned the goal of doing a clause-by-clause study by May 1. It is very clear, and Mr. Mayrand has also expressed this. He said that we must absolutely conclude our consultations before May 1, 2014, to be ready for 2015.

Our motion was very clear about the best way to go about that. We identified places where we could go to hear what Canadians have to say and to have time to explain to them the shortcomings of this bill.

I appreciate the opportunity to clarify that point.

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to support the excellent motion moved by my colleague from Hamilton Centre. This motion would allow Canadians to express their views on a bill that, in its present form, is anti-democratic.

In light of the irregularities that occurred in the last election, it is obvious today that serious reform is needed to guarantee the integrity of our electoral process.

Considering what we have seen over the past two years with the party in power, I am not surprised, but I am very disappointed that the Conservatives did not seize this opportunity to strengthen our democracy. Instead, they have chosen to use this reform to serve their own election interests. Even worse, they are trying to sneak their bill through without consulting anyone.

Why cut debate short only one hour after introducing the bill? Is that democracy?

My colleague's motion is quite simple. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs should be allowed to do its job and make recommendations after consulting experts, the groups concerned and especially Canadians. That is true democracy.

In a democracy, the people are part of the discussion, organizations working in the field are given a chance to express their views and the opinions of experts are taken into account in order to make an informed decision.

To achieve this goal, the members of the parliamentary committee have no choice but to meet with Canadians in every region of our country. That is an obligation and a responsibility for us as representatives of the people. Why is the Conservative government putting up obstacles? This type of travel is commonplace. Parliamentary committees must meet with witnesses who are unable to come to Ottawa.

If the Standing Committee on International Trade can travel to Belgium and France—which is fine by me—for its study of the Canada-European Union free trade agreement, then I really do not see why the government would be against this committee leaving Ottawa to hold hearings on an issue as important as electoral reform.

I cannot for the life of me understand why the Minister of State for Democratic Reform did not think it would be a good idea to consult the experts before proposing changes to the Canada Elections Act. He did not even ask the top official at Elections Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer, for his opinion. That is just unbelievable. We are fortunate to have so many experts within the public service and society in general, so why did the government choose to do without their expertise?

This botched approach strongly suggests that the government is not in fact seeking the best possible electoral reform for Canadians, but the best possible electoral reform, or should I say deformation, for the Conservative Party.

Canadians will gain nothing if the government reduces the Chief Electoral Officer's powers.

After the robocall scandal and the whole “Pierre Poutine” affair, dozens of my constituents emailed me to say they wanted us to find out what really happened with that sordid story. The people of Hull—Aylmer and the rest of Canada want to have confidence in their electoral system. They want Parliament to take real action to ensure that such fraud never happens again.

That is the same reason the Chief Electoral Officer asked for more power, including the power to request financial documents related to elections and to compel witnesses to testify.

What does this bill actually do? The opposite. It removes a number of Elections Canada's powers. It even prohibits Elections Canada from promoting voter participation. That is shameful.

Canadians will gain nothing if the government makes the voting process more difficult for vulnerable individuals. Democracy is founded on the fact that each vote counts. Social status, age and occupation have no bearing; we are all equal. Canadians take that principle to heart.

We cannot accept that the government is putting up roadblocks for seniors, students and members of aboriginal communities when they wish to exercise their right to vote. However, that is exactly what this bill does by proposing to eliminate vouching and the use of voter ID cards as proof of identity. This measure does nothing more than impede thousands of voters.

In 2011, more than 100,000 people used vouching in order to vote because they did not have a valid ID card. I would like to provide at least example of this.

Take, for example, an 85-year-old woman who has always voted, from the time she was 18. She has no photo identification, she does not drive, she has no ID that proves her address and the electricity bills, heating bills and so on are all in her husband's name. In 2011, her husband vouched for her. Under this bill, she will not be able to vote in 2015. Seniors are being put at a disadvantage, and their access to democracy is being restricted. That is very important to note. It is happening. Their voices count and they need to be defended.

Canadians will gain nothing if the government changes funding rules and increases the influence money has on Canadian politics. By increasing the maximum threshold for individual donations, allowing candidates to pump significant amounts of money into their own campaigns, and amending the list of election expenses that count towards spending limits, the Conservative Party is simply going through the back door to give itself the right to spend more than its adversaries. The Conservatives are putting their interests ahead of concern for an electoral process that is based on the quality of ideas, not wallet size.

What do Canadians have to gain from this electoral reform? The response is quite simple: nothing. They have nothing to gain, since this is a partisan bill designed by and for the Conservative Party. This bill is an affront to the democracy we know and love in Canada. Those are not my words, nor are they the words of an opposition member. Marc Mayrand, the Chief Electoral Officer, called this bill an affront to democracy.

Our democracy is worth protecting. As I said at the beginning, I am very honoured to support my colleague's motion, since protecting our democracy starts with getting back to the basics: listening to the public we are here to represent.