Nycole Turmel

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, May 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we agree to proceed in this way, and we will vote against the motion.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we have debated this matter in recent weeks.

Foreign workers were allowed to come to Canada to work in various jobs that needed to be filled.

However, the government dropped the ball because Canadians could have filled those jobs.

This government opened the door without thinking about our economy or the fact that Canadians could have filled those jobs.

I acknowledge that we need foreign workers and that they must come to Canada. However, at the same time, we must provide them with decent housing, working conditions and benefits so that they can return home when they need to. That is not what happens with these types of jobs.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, when I look at the economy in my region, where many public servants live, I also see that there is a great deal of poverty. I find it unacceptable that this government plans to raise taxes in the coming years on things families need every day to work and to provide for their children's day-to-day well-being.

As for sustainable social development, I would say to the minister and my colleague that I have worked in the affordable housing sector and I was a member of a number of boards of directors in my riding. I saw first-hand the deterioration and lack of affordable housing in regions across the country. Do not tell me that the government's proposals will help this cause.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, drawing up a budget means making choices. In their 2013 budget, the Conservatives have chosen austerity. This government justifies its decision on the grounds that it wants to wipe out the deficit. All of us here in this House are in favour of wiping out the deficit. Nobody can argue with that, but it is all in the way you do it.

The Conservatives are proposing lean years for everyone in the hope that these cuts will return us to a balanced budget. We believe we must invest in our economy in order to wipe out the deficit. Our economy needs a little help. It needs investment to create jobs and growth. It definitely does not need utterly austere policies like those proposed by this government.

The IMF, the Parliamentary Budget Officer and many renowned economists have warned the government about the harmful effects of its strategy. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says the 2013 budget will eliminate thousands of jobs, cut direct program spending and slow GDP growth. That is not very encouraging, especially for a government that claims to champion employment and the economy.

With Bill C-60, the government is giving us version 3.0 of its omnibus bills. Like Bills C-38 and C-45, Bill C-60 amends nearly 50 acts and contains hundreds of unrelated legislative amendments.

As a parliamentarian, but especially as a citizen, I am shocked to see that this government has not adopted a more co-operative and democratic approach. Its bill is full of inconsistencies and counterproductive measures. However, the government is determined to force it down Canadians' throats without us really having the time to study it or propose improvements.

A very specific example of a counterproductive measure that will harm the economy of my region, the Outaouais, is the elimination of the 15% tax credit for shareholders of labour-sponsored funds. Labour-sponsored funds are essential to the development of Outaouais businesses. On May 2, the Gatineau chamber of commerce organized a press conference to announce its request that the government reverse its decision. The FTQ's Fonds de solidarité alone has invested $125 million in 80 businesses in the region. Those investments have made it possible to create or maintain 6,700 jobs in the Outaouais alone.

The hardest thing to understand in the Conservatives' attitude is that the government will achieve no savings by eliminating the tax credit.

A study conducted by SECOR in 2010 clearly shows that the economic impact of the jobs created and maintained through the investments of these labour-sponsored funds enable the government to recover the tax credits in an average period of three years.

I ask myself the question and I put it to the government: what is the justification for this attack on labour-sponsored funds? These funds create and maintain employment in addition to playing a positive role in our economy.

Eliminating the tax credit will also have a direct impact on small investors. It has benefited some 23,000 people in the Outaouais alone.

By investing $5,000 in a labour-sponsored fund, a taxpayer can currently save up to $750 in federal income tax. Because of this government, 23,000 small investors in the Outaouais will lose a profitable savings vehicle for their retirement and for the economy. This government must open its eyes and reverse its decision.

I have looked through Bill C-60 at length and have found virtually nothing about the measures this government intends to take to combat poverty. In a developed country such as Canada, we would be wrong to believe that poverty is a marginal phenomenon. Poverty exists. It is very real. We see it on the ground, in our ridings. Many of us could describe numerous unfortunate examples of poverty.

Every month, 800,000 Canadians turn to food banks. A growing number of these 800,000 food bank users are working people. Despite earning an income, they cannot always afford to put food on the table. More and more workers are living in poverty, and this government’s policies are obviously to blame to some extent for this situation. This is unacceptable. Fighting poverty must be one of the government’s priorities.

In conclusion, I would like to comment briefly on this government’s repeated attacks on public servants. Last year, it announced that it was eliminating 19,200 jobs, while solemnly swearing that services would not be affected. We subsequently learned that in reality, 29,000 public servants would be losing their jobs and that services to the public would be directly affected.

The Conservatives enjoy depicting public servants as privileged, lazy individuals. That is part of their strategy. They want to pit private sector workers against public servants. We would all do well to close ranks in the face of this government’s attacks on workers in general.

The fact of the matter is that the average pension of a public servant upon retirement is $24,000 a year, or $18,500 for women and $28,000 for men. It is time to stop implying that public servants are rolling in money. Those who are doing very well are the Conservatives’ friends, those who are on the receiving end of favours and generous subsidies while they generate profits totalling millions and sometimes even billions of dollars.

I am thinking here, among other things, of oil companies that are still subsidized to tune of $1.3 billion a year and that often use our soil, our air and our water as a free dumping ground. Natural resource development is a major source of revenue, but development must be done properly. Right now, major polluters are enjoying a free lunch. Things could be done differently, but this government is failing when it comes to fighting for the middle class and for the environment.

As I said in my opening remarks, drawing up a budget means making choices. In budget 2013, the government clearly chose to turn its back on the middle class and on SMEs. Canadians will remember this when the time comes to elect a new government.

[Government Expenditures, May 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about the $50 million slush fund for the President of the Treasury Board's gazebos. We are talking about $3.1 billion.

When the Liberals lost track of a billion dollars at HRDC, the current Minister of National Defence said that the situation was extremely serious and that it warranted an investigation.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that he has the same ethical standards as he did then and will he immediately announce an investigation?

[Government Expenditures, May 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, what the Auditor General is saying is that we do not know how the money was spent. It is impossible to say whether it was spent appropriately. This amateur management of the public purse is unacceptable.

Yesterday, the President of the Treasury Board said that a clearer picture will be available in 2014. That is 13 years after this spending began and five years after the budgets are expected to be completely spent on goodness knows what.

Other than the Liberals, who is going to be held responsible for this $3.1 billion fiasco?

[Government Expenditures, May 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are saying that losing track of $3.1 billion is no big deal. The Prime Minister says there is a lack of clarity. The President of the Treasury Board says it was the Liberals' fault. However, let me read this quote, “One would think there would be some element of shame...regarding today's report but there is none whatsoever.”

That was the Prime Minister talking about the Liberal boondoggle in 2005. Is the Prime Minister now ready to show some contrition?

[Business of Supply, April 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I request that the division be deferred until Monday, April 29, at the end of the time provided for government orders.

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the vote be deferred until tomorrow, Wednesday, at the end of the time provided for government orders.

[Canadian Heritage, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the bill to create the Canadian Museum of History was introduced in November. It has not been passed yet, but the Conservatives have already spent $1 million to rebrand the Museum of Civilization. What is even more unacceptable is the lack of consideration for the employees. Since the Conservatives made the announcement, a dozen union jobs have been eliminated and several dozen more are in jeopardy.

Why are the Conservatives making these changes to the Museum of Civilization? Are they committed to protecting the jobs at the museum?