Tarik Brahmi

[Fair Representation Act, December 9th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite.

Unfortunately, I do not think he got the right translation or maybe he did not get the translation at all, because I talked about the senatorial clause in my speech. I encourage the hon. member to read the blues. He will see that I talked about the senatorial clause from the beginning. I assure the hon. member that I am aware of this clause. I know that it is one of two clauses that enable Prince Edward Island to keep four seats. If we look at the letter of the law, we could say that Prince Edward Island is protected by a constitutional provision that Quebec does not have.

That said, I would also like to talk about the spirit of the law. Yes, we can simply look at the letter of the law and say that Quebec is not mentioned, so too bad; it does not have a right to maintain its representation. But the spirit in which the legislators created this federation was to respect the founding peoples, and even though this provision is not written in black and white, I think that that was their desire. I think that this desire to have representation for Quebeckers is exactly what has made this federation so blessed.

[Fair Representation Act, December 9th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak today about Bill C-20.

Many things have been said about how the regions must be represented fairly. In order to emphasize the inconsistency of Bill C-20, the bill presented today by the government, I would like to focus on a case that has not been discussed very much to this point, and that is the case of Prince Edward Island.

Four of the 308 members of the House currently represent Prince Edward Island, when really the province should have just one representative. If we can abandon the purely mathematical approach that would have us divide the number of inhabitants by an electoral quotient in the specific case of Prince Edward Island, why can we not do the same for Quebec?

If this dead-simple and rather mean mathematical approach that would have us divide the population by an electoral quotient were used, the entire province of Prince Edward Island would have only one member of Parliament. The principle that we have accepted is the result of the Senate floor clause—one of the clauses that allows a province to have a different number of representatives than it would if the number were determined based solely on mathematical calculations—and it must also be applied to other specific cases. Quebec is one of them since Quebeckers are one of the three founding peoples of Canada. If we want to respect the spirit that prevailed when Canada was created, Quebec must be allowed to maintain its political weight in the House.

Prince Edward Island has a population of 135,000 people, and it has four members of Parliament. Some ridings in provinces like Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta have 125,000 constituents. When we compare these numbers, we see that, on one hand, we have 125,000 constituents being represented by one member and, on the other, we have 135,000 constituents being represented by four members. This is not a purely mathematical calculation. On the contrary, in keeping with the spirit that prevailed when Canada was created, this country's culture includes the principle of fair representation, not just in the mathematical sense but also in terms of economic, geographic and historic realities.

If we accept the Senate floor clause—even though the NDP is far from a strong supporter of a Canadian Senate—we must keep in mind that Canada is a very big country with historic, geographic and social specificities, since it has more than one founding people. We must therefore not apply a purely mathematical approach. To my knowledge, when the Conservative government introduced this bill, it never questioned the over-representation of Prince Edward Island.

There is a well-known saying that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Either we are consistent and apply a mathematical formula, in which case Prince Edward Island would have only one member, or we accept the fact that representation will not be purely mathematical, but will have some significance, in which case special dispensation must be applied.

Special dispensation also applies to the territories. We have three territories that each have an MP, although if we used a mathematical formula, those three territories would likely be lumped together and represented by a single MP. So another exception is being made there.

The NDP is saying we should maintain the 24.35% for Quebec. Doing so would indeed depart from the mathematical formula and pure accounting principles, but this special dispensation embodies the unique nature of each part of the Canadian population, the people that make up this great democracy, this great historic and political space that is Canada today. It is because of these special dispensations that some provinces are overrepresented and others are underrepresented right now.

What is the NDP's position? We want more seats for those provinces that are growing rapidly, but we also want more seats for Quebec in order to maintain the 24.35%.

The results on May 2, 2011, gave us a historic opportunity to show Quebeckers that they are welcome in the great Canadian family. This is a historic moment that has probably been underestimated. It is hard to see it because it is happening right now before our eyes. When historians look back at this time, they will understand its significance and its importance. It is a historic moment that has given hope to the most skeptical Quebeckers, those who were the most reticent about the Canadian federation. Today, we must welcome them into the great Canadian family with a non-partisan bill, as the government is proposing, and a bill that sends a clear message to skeptical Quebeckers that we want to welcome them into the great federal family.

I would like to commend the work of the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead. In introducing his Bill C-312, he did in fact take into account the special sensibilities of Quebeckers. Today, as it will in the future, his bill is reaching out to the most skeptical and the most fearful to let them know that they are welcome.

Our bill will make changes to improve the representation of the provinces that are currently under-represented—Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta—but it will also maintain the weight of Quebec and the nation formed by Quebeckers in this House, as stated in the 2006 motion, which, I remind hon. members, was adopted unanimously by this House.

I will stop there because I think the case of Prince Edward Island is a prime example of why there must be exceptions to purely accounting rules. I am available to answer any questions.

[SOS Richelieu, December 9th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely shocked and disgusted today by the theft that took place on December 7 at SOS Richelieu.

This assistance organization, which was created in the aftermath of the disastrous flooding that devastated a large part of the Montérégie region in the spring and summer of 2011, surprised everyone with its quick response and incredible effectiveness across the Haut-Richelieu region.

A total of $17,000 in gift cards was stolen. These gift cards, donated by extremely generous business owners in the riding of Saint-Jean, were to be handed out to the flood victims' children at the children's Christmas party organized by the Fraternité des policiers et policières de Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu. I commend this association for its solidarity.

On September 25, I even personally invited these people from SOS Richelieu to congratulate them.

I want to reiterate my support for the entire SOS Richelieu team and especially its president, Michel Fecteau, and to let them know that they can count on me, the members of the NDP and my colleagues from Chambly—Borduas and Brome—Missisquoi to help boost morale among the families affected by the flooding.

[Reebok-CCM Hockey, November 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, we were dismayed to learn last Friday that Reebok-CCM Hockey in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu would be cutting 85 of its 125 jobs.

This company, which specializes in manufacturing hockey equipment, was a leader in the Haut-Richelieu manufacturing industry. In a region that has been hit hard by plant closure after plant closure, yet another source of jobs will be moving production to Asia.

With only a few weeks until Christmas, this announcement is a real tragedy for the families of those who will lose their jobs. It is also a blow to our community, since manufacturing jobs are good-quality jobs. While the Conservative government has been patting itself on the back every day, on the ground we are seeing the loss of hundreds of well-paying skilled jobs that enable Canadian families to live with dignity.

I want to reiterate my support for Michel Courcy of the United Steelworkers, as well as all of the workers, and I want to let them know that they can count on me and my NDP colleagues as they go through this difficult time.

[Copyright Modernization Act, November 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague and neighbour from Chambly—Borduas. I really liked his approach and his perspective when he talked about the fact that, when it comes to academic work and students, the goal is not to make money, but really to enhance students' knowledge and enrich this country through our students.

I wonder if my colleague could elaborate on the point of view of students, specifically, the fact that they do not want to profit or make money from course notes, but rather enhance knowledge and improve the lifeblood of the future.

[November 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, as usual, the question was not answered. She answered the question for the government with a question for the NDP. What does the exorbitant interest rates on credit cards have to do with insidiously repeating that the NDP wants to increase taxes? The NDP does not want to increase taxes. I am talking specifically about the interest rate. It is a specific, targeted proposal: prime plus 5%. That is a concrete measure.

Why is the government answering concrete questions by accusing the NDP of wanting to increase taxes? That is a way of not answering the question. Again, I would like a specific answer to a specific question.

[November 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, on June 9, I asked the government to introduce concrete measures to protect families and consumers. I pointed out that, since 2004, personal debt in Canada has increased by 40% and is at an all-time high. In Quebec alone, between 15% and 20% of credit card holders cannot make even the minimum payment. Families are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. The government must help them.

What was the finance minister's response at the time? He lauded the code of conduct for the credit and debit card industry. The finance minister replied that this infamous code of conduct, and I quote, “is working”. I would like to know how this code of conduct is working and how that success was measured. I am very curious to hear the parliamentary secretary's response.

The government is proposing to improve Canadians' basic knowledge, but by doing so, it becomes clear that the government is laying the blame on Canadian families and suggesting that they are not capable of managing their credit cards when, in reality, the credit card companies are making outrageous profits.

Just this morning there was a statement in the Globe and Mail which summed this up very well:

Looking to financial literacy to fill the void is like asking ordinary Canadians to be their own brain surgeon and airline pilots.

It is not me or the NDP saying that. It was the Globe and Mail.

Education is something that would be helpful if we did not have a system that held Canadians hostage. It is a step that puts the blame on Canadian families and does not look to the obstacle, ignorance in the system, an obstacle which families on their own cannot solve. This is where the government is expected to stand up for Canadian families, but it is not doing anything concrete.

This government program is not a program. It is just a set of good intentions. There is no way to assess the impacts and benefits.

What concrete suggestions has the NDP made? First, the NDP suggested capping credit card interest rates at prime plus 5%. The prime rate is currently 3%, so the interest rate on credit cards would be 8%. Second, we suggested banning excessive charges on credit cards, payday loans, store cards and all other forms of consumer credit. Third, we want to require lenders to disclose the real cost of credit cards and other types of loans so it is easier for consumers to understand. Lastly, we suggested putting an end to unfair transaction charges for consumers and small businesses.

What Canadians want to hear is a practical list of things the government will do to protect them from the unlimited greed of credit granters.

[November 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that, as usual with the Conservative government, the answer missed the mark.

I heard the parliamentary secretary's arguments, but the question was not about the NDP. She told us what the NDP has said; it is not about that. We are talking about the government, and the NDP is not currently in government.

The parliamentary secretary spoke about TFSAs. However, when people do not even have the means to pay their debts, how can they invest or save money? As usual, the government did not answer the question. She talked about creating jobs, but this government is creating low-quality, low-level, low-paying jobs that do not allow Canadian families to pay their debts.

Once again, the question is not about the government's criticisms of the NDP, but about what the government will do, now that it is in control and has the power, to reduce the debt burden of Canadian families.

[November 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, on June 9, I asked the Minister of Finance to explain what the Canadian government was doing to show leadership in order to reduce growing household debt in Canada. Unfortunately, his response was limited to expressing a great deal of optimism, but he provided very few answers that were satisfactory to me or to Canadians in general. The main argument was that the economy was doing well. I do not think that relying on the economy and interest rates is a reasonable way to help taxpayers pay down their debts or stop going further into debt.

In Quebec, in the past 20 years, consumer debt has increased by 700%. According to Statistics Canada, increased debt since 1984 can be attributed to lower interest rates. That trend has been growing mainly since 2002.

Between 1984 and 2009, average household debt in Canada more than doubled. As a result, in 2011, the debt-to-after-tax income ratio for households in general is more than 148%. In other words, for every dollar earned, Canadian families owe roughly $1.50 on average. Between 2007 and 2009, the debt-to-asset ratio rose to the highest level in 35 years.

What is clear is that the existing government measures have done nothing to reduce debt. On the contrary, low interest rates have contributed to the rising debt levels of Canadian families. That is unacceptable.

We know that social inequalities make the situation worse. Consider, for instance, the thousands of single-parent families whose monthly payments average over 40% of their income. This debt only increases with age, which is even more worrisome. Think of the thousands of households that are struggling just to pay the monthly balance on their bills. There are also people with low incomes living in neighbourhoods where the property values are increasing, so they are being forced to move, thereby isolating themselves.

Of course, education levels are a very important factor when it comes to debt. According to Statistics Canada, between 1999 and 2005, the debt levels of secondary school graduates increased on average by 55.8%. The NDP is not inventing these figures. These figures are from Statistics Canada. These are real, absolutely irrefutable figures. Unfortunately, the more one is educated, the more debt one tends to carry during that time.

The question is this: how can the government, which claims to care about the future of Canadians and our children, justify its inaction when it comes to the growing debt load of families?

As for pensioners, the median value of their mortgage or consumer debt is $19,000. Of those who have debt, 17% owe over $100,000. The situation gets worse as these people get older. There are some people who are still paying back their debts at the age of 70.

The question I would like to ask the government, once again, is this: what is it waiting for to introduce mechanisms to protect families against these unacceptable debt levels right now?

[November 16th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague across the floor for his answers, which are definitely concrete, but practically speaking, simply providing consumers with information regarding the state of price increases does not solve the problem. Just because the government produces reports on margins and fluctuating prices and gives that information to Canadians does not change the fact that some price fluctuations are unjustified. Canadians expect the government to take specific action in order to gain some sort of control over those fluctuations, and not simply that it give them information.

When will this government finally take action that produces results instead of simply giving information?