Yvon Godin

[Employment Insurance, April 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Premier of New Brunswick, David Alward, is calling for a moratorium on changes to EI. Over the weekend, Premier Alward will ask his counterparts in Atlantic Canada to join him in this demand. He is accusing the federal Conservative government of not conducting an impact study for these changes.

Everyone in Atlantic Canada and Quebec is against the reform.

When will the Conservatives start listening to people and put an end to this terrible reform?

[Business of Supply, April 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank our hon. colleague for her speech.

The Liberals are suggesting that they did a great deal for the environment. However, as our hon. NDP colleague pointed out, pollution increased by 30% during the 13 years they were in power. The Liberals like to talk the talk, but they never walk the walk.

I see the Conservative minister gesturing at me. Today we are having a nice, democratic debate in the House of Commons. The Conservatives say they really care about the environment and our future generations, but is it not strange that not one Conservative member has stood up to ask a question or give an opinion, when Parliament is the place to do so? Are the Conservatives going to stay silent all day? All we are getting today is a nice speech from the environment minister, even though a region like Le Goulet could soon disappear under the sea. It is quite clear that the Conservatives do not care all that much about Canada's environment after all.

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I think the only answer is that right from the beginning they believed in that type of law we have in our country and in taking advantage of people. We see it now when they are not putting forward any amendments.

The sad part is that they get up in the House of Commons, and they say that the bill is not perfect. That is why we have committees where we are able to put forward amendments.

Today they cannot show us even one amendment. Saying that the bill is not perfect and not having one amendment means that they have not done their job on Bill S-7. They have done nothing. Then they come here and say that is it not perfect and that they are voting for it, but that the New Democrats are voting against it when they should be voting for it, even if it is not perfect and is doing something wrong.

It is the same party that is having an opposition day to save the Conservative backbenchers that have been told not to speak by their Prime Minister.

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, if the amendments are not adopted, the legislation could take the liberty of innocent people and put them in prison for 12 months without protection. Yes, we would vote against it.

We had 17 amendments. As my Liberal colleague said, even though it is not perfect, the Liberals did not put one amendment forward.

Do the Liberals not believe that committees should work? Do they not believe that we should still push the government, put pressure on the government, and leave Canadians to decide whether that is the government that should run this country?

The Liberals just sit there, not putting forward any amendments at all. They swallow everything. Even if it is not perfect, they vote for it, even if it takes people's liberty away, and I have a problem with that.

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, all day, I have been listening to the Liberals whine about how their opposition day was cancelled. The NDP never stopped them to raise a point of order. The poor Liberals lost their entire opposition day, which they meant to use to protect democracy for the Conservatives. In my opinion, I had the right to talk about it, otherwise we should have called them to order a long time ago.

We are dealing with this bill today. Meanwhile, we saw what happened a month ago in London, Ontario. An incident occurred in our country a month ago, and we had to wait until today to examine Bill S-7. I listened to the speech the parliamentary secretary gave this morning. She said that, if there were problems with Bill S-7, we could talk about them and propose amendments. In my opinion, the parliamentary secretary is living on another planet, because 17 amendments were already proposed in committee and the majority government completely rejected all of them.

Today, some Conservative members are rising in the House and saying that they disagree. They are giving examples of Canadians who go to other countries and commit acts of terrorism. They are saying that something needs to be added to the legislation so that action can be taken in such cases. However, there is not just one problem with the bill. It is therefore important to examine the bill in committee so that amendments can be proposed, but it seems that this is not at all negotiable and that only the Conservatives are right.

The Liberals are saying that the professionals who testified before the committee said that they liked some aspects of the bill even though it is not perfect. In such a case, the bill should be rejected and just the good measures kept. Are we going to say that our only choice is to vote in favour of a bad bill because it contains some good measures? Is that how we create bills?

The Liberals are afraid. They are not in the middle for nothing. They are trying to please everyone, both on the right and on the left. They vote for everything for crying out loud.

I would like to talk about issues related to cuts. If the government is so serious about fighting terrorists and criminals, why is it making so many cuts?

For example, the Canada Border Services Agency has been on the receiving end of $143 million in cuts, which will affect 325 jobs. What good is it to pass laws if there is no one to enforce them and if the employees hired to protect people are losing their jobs?

On one hand, the government wants to pass a law that is supposed to fix all of these problems. On the other hand, it is cutting jobs across the country, including 325 at the Canada Border Services Agency.

Police in municipalities and communities are saying that they need help. Even RCMP officers are saying it. Their budgets are being cut in cities and towns. However, the people who are likely to commit these crimes will be caught on the ground. We need boots on the ground.

They love the idea of having tidy legislation in place. It looks great politically. They can say that they arrested someone and put him in prison, that they will build jails and throw people in there every once in a while, and that the story will make the national news. It will look good because they will have done their job.

Yet, in the meantime, jobs for border service agents and police officers will be cut all across the country. There is even a rumour that the government has cut funding for security at level three airports. Where there is smoke, there is fire.

That is what we are talking about. For instance, at a level 3 airport, like the Bathurst airport, there would no longer be any security. You would arrive at the airport, board the plane and away you go. It would be no problem. At the same time, police forces are trying to stop criminals and terrorists. The more the Conservatives think they are going in that direction, the more they make cuts to policing and security. They make cuts left, right and centre. Then they introduce a bill.

The Conservatives love spreading terror and fearmongering by introducing bills. They think the best thing to do is come up with laws and build prisons and other big buildings. For them, one prisoner per cell is not enough; they want three or four per cell. What a beautiful Canada.

Cuts to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service will total $24.5 million by 2015, while general inspector positions at the CBSA were eliminated in 2012. Yet that is crucial for accountability. Some $24.5 million is being cut. Furthermore, the RCMP is having its budget cut by $195 million. Now, the Conservatives would have everyone believe that this is all going to change on Monday, given what happened in Boston. Canadians are not stupid and they do not believe the Conservatives.

I spent the weekend in my riding and people told me that the Conservatives are not all that smart. The Conservatives wave this bill around while the Liberals are fighting to get a day to talk about democracy. Yet, at committee, they refused 17 amendments concerning Bill S-7. Even though they refused all of them, they want to vote in favour of the bill because it contains one good point. Come on.

I thank hon. members for giving me the opportunity to speak. For all of these reasons—taking away people's freedoms, putting young people in prison for 12 months without anyone of age to protect them and possibly putting innocent people in prison—the NDP will not be supporting this bill, which fundamentally violates personal freedoms. We are not talking only about terrorists. There is one place where terrorists belong. In my opinion, we already have the legislation we need to protect Canadians.

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill S-7 today. My colleagues have stated quite clearly where the NDP stands on this bill.

I also want to say how saddened we are by what happened in Boston. We all saw it on television. There were even New Brunswickers there. We saw people running for a good cause, families and completely innocent people placed in a terrible situation. It is certainly no laughing matter.

But let us come back to Bill S-7. What I find deplorable is the little bit of hypocrisy that is mixed up in it. Today, all the Liberals are worried about losing their opposition day. If they are so serious about Bill S-7 and if they really believe in it, I feel that, if I were in their shoes, I would be thanking the Prime Minister for cancelling that day. That is the question that the Liberals have been asking almost all day today, as if the Conservatives had used this against them, because of the Liberal motion to protect democracy for the Conservatives. It is incredibly hypocritical on their part.

At any rate—

[Navigable Waters Protection Act, April 22nd, 2013]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-497, Act to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act (St. Croix River, Restigouche River and Saint John River).

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to wish everyone a happy Earth Day. For Earth Day, we would certainly like to make sure we pass clean rivers on to our children and grandchildren.

This is why I am pleased to add the St. Croix River and the Restigouche River to the navigable waters listed in the schedule to the act. I would also like to replace the upstream point of the Saint John River listed in the schedule to the act.

It was on the shore of the St. Croix River in 1604 that Samuel de Champlain established the first European colony in North America north of Florida. Over the years, the waters of the St. Croix River have carried aboriginal people, Acadian settlers, British loyalists, logs floating to sawmills and shipyards, canoeists and so on.

Originally, the Restigouche River was used as a waterway. It provided food for the Micmacs and the Maliseet. Today, Atlantic salmon still travel up the river through the clear waters of about 60 different salmon pools.

There is also the beautiful Saint John River. These rivers must be protected.

We cannot allow these rivers to be lost. The Conservatives are going the wrong way. These bills are important.

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to introduce this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Business of Supply, April 16th, 2013]

Sorry. I should have listened to you a few minutes ago.

[Business of Supply, April 16th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague and I am ready to give him the document. Here is a Service Canada job advertisement, job search safety advice. Here in the job posting, there is a requirement in Alberta for 100 jobs for scaffolders. The skill requirements state that education is not required. In terms of credentials, a certificate, licence, membership, courses, et cetera, are not required. For years of experience, it states “five years or more”.

The language requirement is to speak English. Well, we are in Alberta, so it is not going that badly. That's where I have a little bit of a question. For other languages, it lists Polish, Portuguese, Punjabi, Spanish, but no French at all. After that, under “Other Information”, it says that the job does not require workers to speak English in remote camp locations.

There is a problem with that job posting on the Service Canada site and with Immigration Canada. You can see their posting. It says five years of experience. It says you do not need to have education and you do not need to have a certificate, yet we say we want our Canadians to have jobs. Did you know that learning to be a scaffolder takes only 11 weeks? Does he think there is a problem in Alberta when the people of New Brunswick—

[Official Languages, April 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in his preliminary report, the official languages commissioner said that the Minister of Foreign Affairs' business cards violate the Official Languages Act. At the same time, the Minister of International Cooperation is telling his employees to write in English only. What is more, he is accusing his employees of doctoring the emails they received.

When will the Prime Minister of Canada tell his ministers, once and for all, that they need to respect the Official Languages Act? Canada has had an Official Languages Act for 43 years, yet they are not even—