Nycole Turmel

[Ethics, October 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has repeatedly changed his story about how many of his employees knew about the scandal. It started out being just Nigel Wright, but now he is saying that several people knew.

Exactly how many people in the Prime Minister's Office were aware of the cheque or cheques that bought Mr. Duffy's silence?

[Ethics, October 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is actually a very simple question. The parliamentary secretary has to know: when did the Prime Minister last speak to Nigel Wright?

[Canadian Museum of History Act, October 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.

It is unfortunate. In a climate of mistrust, people have a hard time believing that the government's proposals are in the best interests of all Canadians and not just based on ideologies that go completely against the museum's aim and mandate. It is important for Canadians and the entire world to know our history. It is important for Canadians to know the history of foreign countries and see what is happening there.

There is also concern that small museums will end up competing with the Canadian Museum of Civilization. That could be dangerous because the mission or primary purpose of this museum and museums outside the national capital region could be forgotten.

[Canadian Museum of History Act, October 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

The museum is indeed in my constituency, but I understand that it also belongs to all Canadians. In fact, that is why I mentioned that, in Canada, it is the museum that attracts the most visitors, both from Canada and from other countries.

In terms of the lack of trust, in recent years we have seen everything focused on celebrating bygone wars and military activities. Yes, it is good to remember past military activities and wars.

That said, is that what a museum of civilization has to become? I am not saying that it will happen, but I am saying that it is a fear born of previous experience. It is important to open ourselves to the world and to have other experiences, but it is also important to keep what we already have.

[Canadian Museum of History Act, October 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, if Canadians trusted this government, we could have an open discussion and then come up with a bill dealing with a museum, or another bill dealing with another activity that would benefit Canadians. Sadly, that is not the case.

In the last two years, the climate of trust has been shattered. The government has interests that are contrary to those of Canadians.

This government has still not answered the question about the $25 million. This is not additional money; the museum is going to be changed with existing money. Which programs are they going to abolish? What is going to happen?

[Canadian Museum of History Act, October 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-7 today.

The Canadian Museum of Civilization, which Bill C-7 would turn into the Canadian museum of history, is located in my riding of Hull—Aylmer. Not only does this bill change the museum's name, but more importantly, it changes its mandate to refocus and reposition it.

Many of my constituents are questioning the Conservatives' real motives here. I have received many letters, emails and comments from Canadians asking me to oppose this bill. Many of them fear that the museum is being exploited for political purposes. This fear is also shared by the Canadian Association of University Teachers, which represents 60,000 members. As the member of Parliament for the riding in which the museum is located, I also share that fear.

Since coming to power, the Conservatives have made repeated attempts to redefine Canadian identity.

The tens of millions of dollars of public money they spent on festivities to commemorate the War of 1812 is clear evidence of this, as is the completely pointless and costly addition of the adjective “royal” to the designation of Canada's navy and air force.

The Canadian Museum of Civilization is too important an institution to be exploited. No one has asked for changes to the status quo.

Even just changing the museum's name will cost approximately $500,000. I am confident that Canadians do not approve of that kind of expense, especially given the current climate of budget cuts.

I am confident that Canadians would rather have good jobs instead of expenditures on a museum they hold dear and changes that they did not ask for.

No one in the region was consulted before the government announced its intentions. Public consultations were organized to determine what people want to see on exhibit in the new museum, not to determine if they agree with changing the museum's mission or name. That is not the way to do things. Canadians are open to the world and they expect that of their museum as well.

Since it opened, the museum has been extraordinarily successful. This is the most popular museum in Canada: 1.3 million people pass through its doors every year. It is a huge tourist attraction for Hull—Aylmer. In addition, it is a economic driver and a significant source of jobs.

Tourism workers agree with me that the museum is successful largely because it has a combination of exhibits on Canadian history and temporary exhibits on other cultures around the world. All of that will change with Bill C-7, which would turn the museum into an institution that focuses almost exclusively on Canadian history.

I have a hard time believing this government when it says it truly cares about Canadian history and heritage. Just last year it eliminated more than 200 jobs at Library and Archives Canada. At Parks Canada, 80% of the archeologists were shown the door.

I do not think that laying off hundreds of public servants who are responsible for preserving and promoting our shared heritage positively contributes to showcasing our Canadian history. It is quite the opposite.

We want to maintain the museum's existing mandate, which already has a considerable focus on Canadian history. The vast majority of the museum's resources are already allocated to exhibits on Canada, and Canadians have shown that the current formula works for them. As they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

One of my constituents' main concerns is that the Canadian Museum of Civilization will turn into a second war museum. The government has been very clear that it intends to plan several military celebrations for Canada's 150th anniversary.

I have no problem with having the museum showcase the 150th anniversary. What I do have a problem with, as do my constituents, is using the 150th anniversary as an excuse to change the mandate of the most popular museum in Canada.

On that, we disagree.

I can hear government members say that the museum is an independent body and that the government cannot influence the content of its exhibits. If the government had not lost the confidence of Canadians and the opposition parties, we might believe that. However, in the current climate, no one can trust the government.

In May 2012, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages did not hesitate to publicly criticize the exhibit the Museum of Science and Technology chose to put on. The museum wanted to present an exhibit on sex education. According to the minister—who says he has nothing to do with museums and does not interfere in their decisions—this was an insult to taxpayers.

The government has never hesitated to bend the rules to pressure institutions that are deemed to be independent. We are seeing this right now in the Senate, which is also supposed to be independent. We know the score. It is far from independent.

One of the problems with Bill C-7 is the proposed mandate, which sets out not only the museum's general direction, but also the historical approach it should adopt. This approach is restrictive. It does not leave any room to showcase important developments in our shared history, such as gender relations and the impact of colonization on first nations, for example.

Normally, decisions about the type of approach adopted by a museum are left up to the museum's professionals and historians, specifically to avoid political interference. Who better than the museum's professionals and historians to determine the museum's exhibits now and in the future?

That is not what we have here. These are not the decisions of our professionals, who are opposed to this bill.

For all these reasons, we are voting against Bill C-7 at third reading.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, October 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I really like that question. That is precisely what we want: to divide Bill C-4 and pull out the measures that could help people.

The government puts 70 measures in a 300-page bill and tells us that we have to accept all or nothing. That is what it is forcing us to do. We cannot support the majority of the items in Bill C-4. We could support others, but if we want to work on dealing with the economic situation for all Canadians, we need to have discussions. This will not happen if the government keeps holding in camera meetings and gagging members when we are talking about a bill.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, October 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to thank my colleague for his question on affordable housing and government programs.

As I mentioned in my presentation, the government has set its priorities, which are not necessarily those of families, which have certain needs. To secure the future of our young children and grandchildren, there are pressing needs to be met. However, the government is refusing to put in place affordable housing programs. We deplore that.

We are well aware that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC, is experiencing challenges because of the government's positions. That is another area where negotiations and discussions should take place in order to help municipalities and the provinces create affordable housing so that people have decent living conditions and children have enough to eat.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, October 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question about arbitration in the public service.

As I mentioned, it is a right recognized by the charter, and accredited unions and groups had the right to choose arbitration. What we are seeing now is a potential increase in conflicts between the employer and employees.

The reality is that all public services have been cut by this government. As members, we are seeing more and more lineups, needs and people in our offices who want their files dealt with as quickly as possible. Because of government cuts, files are not being processed and this has resulted in long delays, whether for family reunification or assistance for people from other countries who want to immigrate to Canada.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, October 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-4, as my colleagues have done. As hon. members know, Bill C-4 is an omnibus bill that is 300 pages long and currently amends 70 pieces of legislation.

Logic would suggest that we should be given time to properly consider the bill. I am wondering whether this government would agree to sign a 50-page contract immediately or within a few hours. Logically, the government should automatically say no because it would want time to examine the contract before signing it.

Nevertheless, that is what the government is asking us to do today. The Conservatives have introduced a 300-page bill that amends 70 laws and, at the same time, it is telling us that we have no choice but to pass it immediately. However, only 24 hours passed between the time the government introduced the bill and the time we started debating it in the House.

I would also like to remind hon. members that some information was provided in committee in only one language, making it impossible to properly discuss and debate the bill in order to gain a proper understanding of it.

That is very little time to debate a 300-page bill that addresses sometimes complex subjects that have no relation to each other.

What is more, 48 hours after we saw the content of this massive bill, the government was already imposing a gag order in order to ram the bill through. It is unacceptable for the government of a country like Canada to pass most of its laws in this manner.

The use of a time allocation motion should be limited to emergency situations. I am certain that no one on this side of the House would be opposed to debating a bill if there were an emergency situation and that no one would be opposed to amending it as needed before passing it.

The Conservatives introduce a huge number of bills in the House. The government deliberately delayed the work of the House by a month by proroguing Parliament, yet the government is now telling us that it is urgent that we pass Bill C-4. One has to wonder whether it is logical for the government to prevent the House from returning on the scheduled date, doing its work and examining the bill, only to tell us a month later that it is urgent that we pass the bill. It does not make any sense.

Canadians are perceptive. They know full well that the government is using the gag order to prevent us and all the stakeholders affected by these changes from having enough time to examine the impact of Bill C-4.

As a parliamentarian and a Canadian, I could never support this Conservative attempt to avoid the scrutiny of Parliament and Canadians. Obviously, we will vote against this bill in its current form. We will oppose this bill in principle because we are not being given the time to do the job we were elected to do. We must represent the people. We will also vote against the bill because of its content.

The previous three budget implementation bills taught us that we need to be wary of this government. In the previous bills, the Conservatives took aim at environmental assessments and protections for most of Canada's lakes and rivers. Those bills also resulted in $36 billion in cuts to health care transfers and increased the retirement age from 65 to 67.

Bill C-4 is not that different from the other three budget implementation bills in that it is setting society back. It sets out significant changes to the Canadian work environment. Now, the minister will have the bulk of the powers once granted to health and safety officers by the Canada Labour Code. It is a legislative step backwards for health and safety.

Bill C-4 also takes aim at an employee's ability to refuse to work in unsafe conditions. At the very least, Canadians should be able to maintain their right to work in a healthy and safe environment. However, as we can see, the Conservatives do not seem to share that opinion.

In reading Bill C-4, we can also see that the government is not going to abandon its war on the public service anytime soon. It has become its pattern to go after the hundreds of thousands of people who provide Canadians with the services to which they are entitled.

This time, the government is torpedoing the Public Service Staff Relations Act by eliminating the arbitration process as a method of settling disputes. It is also making changes to give the minister the discretionary ability to determine which services are essential. This measure could ultimately be used by the minister to completely remove certain workers' right to bargain, a right that is recognized by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The all-out war being waged by this government against the people who work in the public service has caused a great deal of damage in my riding of Hull—Aylmer. The latest Statistics Canada figures show that 17,000 of the 19,200 job cuts planned in the public service will occur in the Gatineau-Ottawa region.

These cuts are resulting in a major slowdown in economic activity. In fact, the Conference Board of Canada has indicated that the economic forecast for our region, which is the fifth-largest in Canada, has been revised down by about 50%. In other words, the cuts are hurting the affected regions economically.

Meanwhile, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that the measures in budget 2012-13 will cost 67,000 jobs. According to Statistics Canada, there are currently 6.5 unemployed workers for every reported job vacancy in Canada. That is a very poor record for a government that claims to be such a good economic manager. We would have expected the government to use Bill C-4 to fix this situation, but it is doing nothing. Instead of attacking workers, this government should focus on creating good new jobs, but it is not doing that.

Since coming to power, the Conservatives have been going on and on about the fact that the cupboard is bare and more cuts are needed. The nation's finances should be managed responsibly, but it is important to set priorities.

Since 2006, the government has spent $1 billion on organizing the G8 and G20 summits, $500 million on advertising and $1.3 billion a year on tax breaks for its friends in the oil industry.

I would also like to point out that this government did everything it could to bill taxpayers $40 billion for fighter jets. I can see why Canadians are shocked when they hear that there is no money and the Conservatives cannot give them a helping hand to make ends meet. This government continues to cut services that Canadians are entitled to while giving billions of dollars to companies that already make billions in profits.

It cannot be said often enough that public services primarily serve middle-class families. They are the ones who use them the most. I can also understand why Canadians are outraged when they learn that over 400 veterans among those with the most severe disabilities are not eligible for the Canadian Forces pension plan.

This is all a matter of priorities, and obviously, the Conservatives' priorities are quite different from those of all other Canadians. The Conservatives have clearly picked sides by using Bill C-4 to attack workers' rights, rather than reducing inequality and creating good jobs.

The government can be sure of one thing: every time it tries to attack labour rights and proposes measures that increase inequality, it will have to deal with the NDP.