House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2019, with 28% of the vote.
Public Safety June 11th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, heavy rains caused serious damage in the Eastern Townships on Tuesday, particularly in the municipalities of Coaticook and Compton. Dozens of people had to be evacuated when over 80 millimetres of rain fell in just a few hours. Many residents and business owners suffered serious damage. This represents a lot of money to these merchants and farmers.
What does the government plan to do to help our region, which has been affected by the recent flooding?
Main Estimates 2015-16 June 8th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, I will use other terms and say that they have no political courage because they are afraid of constitutional debates and consulting Canadians.
It is like the Leader of the Liberal Party going to a boxing match and, upon seeing that his opponent is too big, too tall and too strong, quitting even before the match starts. He refuses to try anything. We can also imagine a Liberal or Conservative MP competing in a 100-metre race, but quitting even before hearing the starting pistol because he does not have the courage to confront his 10 opponents, who seem too big and too strong, or the challenges he faces. He lacks political courage.
The NDP has political courage, unlike the other two parties we have heard from today. The solutions presented by the other two parties who have exchanged power over the last 150 years lack any kind of political courage. They are, quite simply, ignoring the problem. When the Conservatives realized that their reform was not possible without consulting the provinces, they simply gave up and continued to appoint partisan senators who are accountable only to the Prime Minister.
The Liberals' idea is no better. They want to transition from an unelected Senate appointed by the Prime Minister to an unelected elitist Senate. At the end of the day, the Prime Minister will still be the one who appoints the senators. The Liberals say that an independent committee would be responsible for selecting the unelected officials, but this Canadian political elite would still not be elected and would also not be accountable to anyone other than the person who appointed them—the Prime Minister. In short, this solution is no different than the status quo and certainly will not have the support of Canadians.
The only remaining solution is the one that we are proposing. I will admit that it is a courageous solution because it will take political courage. Here we have one party that has such courage and others that do not. In order to come up with such a solution and vote against the motion, it takes political courage and a party leader with vision who will not be afraid to consult and listen to the provincial premiers once he is elected.
I think that that is what is missing in politics today. I am therefore happy to be part of a political party whose members have been rising in the House all evening and who are prepared to raise less popular topics. That is the difference between our party and that of the current Prime Minister, who is still up to his elbows in the Senate scandal and is trying to control everything, as the Auditor General's report to be released tomorrow will show.
Obviously, the Senate is not independent and the Liberals' solution will not change anything. There is therefore only one other solution. The first step is the easiest, and we are going to take that step tonight by voting against the motion and taking back that $57 million. Canadians are hoping that it will be spent responsibly. I therefore invite all of my colleagues to oppose this motion.
Main Estimates 2015-16 June 8th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise to speak to this motion, which seeks to give the Senate $57 million or so in funding.
I will be honoured to vote against that motion, so that we do not send millions of dollars more to an institution that, as we know, is not very good with its money. What is more, as we speak, this spending is being examined and called into question by several authorities, and rightly so.
I urge all of my colleagues to do as I am doing and vote against the motion to ensure that no more money is wasted by the Senate or spent in a questionable manner by senators. This obviously brings me to talk about that institution. I would therefore like to provide some background on the institution we are talking about today.
The Senate is an unelected body made up of senators who were obviously never elected by the Canadian people. They are accountable to just one person: the person who appointed them. The current Prime Minister has appointed over 59 senators. These senators are accountable only to the current Prime Minister, the Conservative Prime Minister. They are not accountable to anyone else. When they spend money and that spending is called into question, the only person they have to answer to is the Prime Minister. They do not have to answer to Canadians.
It is obvious how deeply involved the Prime Minister's Office is in Senate affairs. We know that on several occasions, the Prime Minister and his office tried to erase parts of Senate reports and change the content. The institution is clearly archaic, and we cannot allow it to go on. The people of Sherbrooke cannot stand it anymore either.
Often when I am in Sherbrooke, I hear people say that they are tired of seeing that institution vote on our laws without being elected or accountable to anyone. It is a relic. The current Prime Minister said the same thing a number of years ago. That institution is a relic of the 19th century that should be abolished or reformed. This same Prime Minister has appointed 59 senators, 10 of whom were Conservative candidates who were defeated in elections.
In the election in 2011, some senators who had resigned from their duties as senators to run in the election lost. This means that the people in the ridings in which they ran said that they did not want those people as their MP. A few weeks later, the Prime Minister shamelessly turned around and reappointed them as senators.
Some people will argue that senators are eminent Canadian intellectuals, when we all know that these appointments are simply partisan. Of course, it is hard to beat the Liberals on that, but I do not think that any other prime minister has gone as far when it comes to appointing senators. This is despite the fact that he once called the Senate a relic of the 19th century.
What I mainly gather from the debate of the last few hours is that two parties are acting like cowards. Leaders, party leaders and MPs are cowards and are afraid of constitutional discussions—
Business of Supply June 8th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, I always find it rather funny to see the Liberals and Conservatives look back on each others' measures and debate which of the two parties that have governed Canada is the least objectionable and which did the worst things. It is always fun to see them debate this.
I would like to know whether my colleague agrees with the practice used by various Conservative and Liberal governments of taking the EI surplus and using it to balance their budgets. What does the Liberal member for Winnipeg North think about that practice?
Foreign Affairs June 8th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, Raif Badawi was arrested in Saudi Arabia almost three years ago. Saudi Arabia's Supreme Court has just upheld Mr. Badawi's inhumane sentence of 1,000 lashes and 10 years of imprisonment. There is no legal recourse.
Will the government send a clear message to the Government of Saudi Arabia indicating that freedom of expression is a fundamental right that must be respected in all places, at all times? Will the government show leadership, for a change, in the movement calling for Mr. Badawi's release?
Sherbrooke Airport June 5th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, on April 29, my Motion No. 553 was adopted unanimously by the House. I would like to thank all members once again for their support. The House sent a clear message to the Minister of Transport, asking her to do her job and present, as soon as possible, the mechanisms promised two years ago.
When this motion was adopted five weeks ago, it gave a great deal of hope to the people of Sherbrooke. Unfortunately, this hope is fading because this government has yet to take action. My region is clearly at the bottom of the Conservatives' list of priorities, and that is deplorable. That is a shame, a real shame.
The people of Sherbrooke deserve a government that listens to them and moves quickly to meet their needs. That is exactly what we are going to give them after the next general election, when the first NDP government takes power.
Air Transportation June 3rd, 2015
Mr. Speaker, although the House unanimously adopted my motion regarding non-designated airports on April 29, the government has yet to take action and has said nothing on this issue. This motion called on the House to create, as soon as possible, a mechanism that would allow for security screenings at non-designated airports, such as the Sherbrooke airport. The people of Sherbrooke are entitled to an airport that helps our region's economy flourish. They are also entitled to answers from the Minister of Transport.
How is it that nothing has been announced five weeks after my motion was adopted? What is the Minister of Transport doing about this?
Digital Privacy Act June 2nd, 2015
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.
I would like her to come back to why this bill is coming from the Senate. The question was asked earlier, but the government did not provide an answer.
Would the hon. member like to tell us why the government has decided, more than once, to have unelected senators introduce bills that in fact are government bills, and likely from the Minister of Industry?
Why did the Conservatives decide to send this bill to the Senate before elected members of the House could look at it? They could have simply introduced the bill here and let it follow the usual process, like most bills introduced by the government.
Digital Privacy Act June 2nd, 2015
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
I would like him to comment further on the government's attitude toward the opposition's ideas given that the government rejected all of the amendments the opposition put forward.
We warned the government of the dangers inherent in various bills studied by various committees over the past four years.
Can my colleague comment on the government's marked tendency to reject all ideas from parties other than its own and the threat such an attitude can pose to the constitutionality and effectiveness of the bills introduced and debated in the House?
Business of Supply May 26th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask my colleague a question about the motion that is before us today. Certain things have come to light recently. A former federal scientist said that he felt muzzled when he worked for the Government of Canada. He said that he did not feel as though he had the right to share the results of his studies and investigations with the public. It was only after he retired that he felt free to talk about those results and to bring to light the alarming situation within the federal government.
What does my colleague have to say about the concerns raised by these scientists who worked for the Government of Canada? A survey showed that 90% of government scientists did not feel free to discuss the results of their research.
What does the member have to say about these concerns and these well-documented facts? What does he have to say to the former scientists who are making these claims?