Nycole Turmel

[Public Transit, February 19th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, last week I met with Société de transport de l'Outaouais executives.

I can report that they have ambitious plans to maintain the quality and accessibility of our public transit. As a resident of the city's west end, I know just how important the western Rapibus extension is to my Hull—Aylmer constituents.

I am thinking in particular of families in Aylmer. It can be tricky to balance work and family when you spend over an hour a day in traffic. That has to change. The NDP believes that municipalities should be able to count on support from the federal government to tackle that challenge. It is time for a national public transit strategy that will ensure the federal government does its fair share.

[Rail Transportation, February 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' shotgun approach to governing is preventing some important issues from being resolved. The safety of Canadians is at the heart of these negotiations. Conductors proposed solutions to deal with extreme fatigue among train operators. The Conservatives' shotgun bill sweeps this type of issue under the carpet.

Why does the government refuse to admit that the safety of Canadians is being negotiated in a contract?

[Rail Transportation, February 16th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, according to the American president of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, U.S. train conductors are apparently being forced to operate trains containing hazardous commodities on Canadian trips.

Could the minister tell us whether it is true that Canadian Pacific uses American replacement workers at the expense of Canadians' safety?

[Infrastructure, February 6th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the mayors of Canada's major cities represent two-thirds of the Canadian population. They are calling for public transit for their residents, who are stuck in traffic jams every day. They are calling for social housing for people who have inadequate housing, and safer and more efficient infrastructure.

Why are the Conservatives refusing to work with the municipalities and the provinces?

[Infrastructure, February 6th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the Conservative government is listening to municipal mayors.

Eighteen mayors of Canada's major cities are calling on the Conservative government to invest in public transit, infrastructure and housing in order to create jobs. The mayors had not even left Ottawa before the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs turned them down flat.

Why do the Conservatives insist on giving tax cuts to the wealthy instead of investing in job creation for the middle class?

[Infrastructure, February 6th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's mayors have come together to send a clear message: our cities need real long-term federal investments in infrastructure, affordable housing, and public transit. Decades of neglect by Liberals and Conservatives have left our cities falling behind.

Why do the Conservatives refuse to invest in making cities more livable?

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 6th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague summed up the situation quite well.

The message we are trying to get across is quite clear. It is a question of separating the responsibilities of each party and recognizing the House and Parliament accordingly, as well as the authority they have been given over the years. We must keep it that way through any integration.

As we have said many times, let us respect the role of the RCMP, let us respect the internal security part of its role, and let us respect the authority the House has been given to manage and direct this Parliament.

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 6th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to direct my comments to you when I speak. I know that you have reminded me to do so several times.

At this point, I know that the Senate is in agreement with integration, but regarding the RCMP, I am not sure. We will make sure that we are all aware of that part of the issue. It is good news for us and the staff if they are saying exactly what we are saying. It shows that this is led by a person who wants something different from everyone else, who would like to see this discussed and presented in a way that responds to the role and mission of this government as a whole.

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 6th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, yes, we fully agree with integration of the Senate and the House of Commons security, as well as making sure we have the RCMP protecting us outside the building, outside the House. We all agree with that.

We agree as well on the urgency of the situation. There was discussion, and if this motion or a similar motion had been presented at the committee it would have ensured that we were all working together toward this objective. It would have been a lot easier. The trick in all of this is that the motion came to us with a part that had never been discussed. It was never part of the solution. That is what we cannot support.

At the same time, when you ask if the RCMP has the capacity, the RCMP has a mission and role that is completely different from what we are looking at today. The security people are informed and prepared for that part. We need to keep the independence of the Speaker here in this room.

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 6th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

Indeed, Canadians believe it is very important for the House and the government, in this place and on Parliament Hill, to be respected as a whole and not treated as completely separate entities, which is what the government is currently trying to do. That is very unfortunate.

I would also like to address a point that was discussed. Once again, this failure to have a real discussion and use a collaborative approach for the good of the House and the good of Canadians everywhere, at home and abroad, shows a lack of respect towards all political parties.

Canadians should feel safe and should feel that the House is working for them and with them, and that it is not being controlled by another entity.

That is what is deplorable about this entire approach.