Karine Trudel

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

This topic goes to the core of our values and our ways of life.

The Quebec bar recently confirmed that if the bill were passed as drafted, it would be unconstitutional. What does my colleague thing about that?

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives who serve on the special committee did not agree with each other. Four of them disagreed with the committee and expressed a dissenting opinion. They eloquently expressed their concerns, which included the need to give Canadians better palliative care. They said it was important to expand access to palliative care, as part of the medical assistance in dying initiative.

Could my colleague elaborate on this and tell us what concrete measures this government can take to give more Canadians access to good palliative care at the end of life?

[The Senate, April 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Senate expense scandal has been upsetting people for years. Canadians are angry that government cronies, who were inappropriately appointed, are treating taxpayers' money like an all-you-can-eat buffet. It is completely outrageous for a senator to be using his staff members, who are on the public payroll, to organize his home renovations and manage his tanning salon.

When will the government rein in these fat cats and clean up these practices that simply do not make any sense?

[Labour, April 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, to hear the Minister of National Revenue's response, it is clear that the Liberals do not understand the difference between a manager and an official.

I hope that this government will properly understand the anti-scab legislation I introduced last week. I am proud of this bill to protect workers from abuse. We need to have anti-scab legislation to fully ensure the fundamental right to collective bargaining. A government that claims to be progressive should implement this legislation.

Will the Liberal government support workers and vote in favour of this anti-scab bill?

[Employment Insurance, April 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, a coalition of associations representing Quebec workers launched a campaign for real reform of the employment insurance program.

The program has been gutted for years by the Liberals and the Conservatives, and now, too many workers continue to be disqualified. The budget did not contain any commitment to help seasonal workers, and the government continues to dip freely into the fund, planning to take nearly $7 billion over the next three years.

When will the Liberals fix their own mistakes of the past and truly help workers?

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, April 18th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

When the Conservatives were in power, nothing was done to keep the Aveos jobs in Canada. In their view, the Air Canada Public Participation Act, or ACPPA, is not clear and does not stipulate that heavy maintenance must stay in Canada. The Conservatives implied that just light maintenance would be enough to meet ACPPA's legal requirements.

I wonder whether my colleague could expand on that.

[Taxpayer Bill of Rights, April 18th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, any time the Conservatives introduce a bill or move a motion, it always leaves me a little perplexed. From the title of today's motion, one might actually believe that they finally understand that we need to provide services to Canadians and be there for them. As the expression goes, however, the devil is in the details. In this case, the devil is all over Motion No. 43. This is just one more example of that party's tried and true tactics to mislead the public. That is why it was imperative that the previous government be replaced.

I am proud to represent the riding of Jonquière, and every time I rise in the House, I feel duty bound to represent the people of my region to the best of my ability. When I ran for office, I had a clear idea in mind: to try to improve the daily lives of Canadians and defend and promote their rights. It was with this in mind that I introduced my bill to ban replacement workers in order to protect Canadian workers. However, in the case of the motion currently before the House, I unfortunately do not have the sense that we are defending the interests of our constituents.

Motion M-43 makes no sense. Let me briefly explain why. First, when the ombudsman position was created by the Conservatives in 2007, there was never any question of giving that person this type of power. The ombudsman had the power to assess service delivery only. It was made very clear that the ombudsman was not to review the administration or application of tax legislation, unless that review was on service-related matters.

The Conservatives created an ombudsman position to defend the interests of our constituents without providing the necessary tools to do so. Now that they are no longer in power, they suddenly would like to provide the ombudsman with those tools. I call that bad faith. Speaking of bad faith, the Conservatives are smearing public servants and the service they provide. That is unacceptable.

I am proud of Canada's public servants, the services they provide, and their professionalism. When they are not given the money they need to do their jobs properly, that is when we run into problems. There have been so many cuts since 2012. The last budget cut $314 million, eliminating jobs and a direct service.

In my riding of Jonquière, I have seen direct services being provided to people. People would wait for officers' lunch break to seek help and answers either because they could not afford Internet service or because they were unable to reach an officer by telephone as a result of the cuts in services at the CRA. These people needed to talk to someone and, because of the recent cuts, they were unable to get an answer. However, that is not because public servants are doing a poor job, but because their job has been eliminated.

I want to say that public servants do very good work and that they have to have the resources that will enable them to continue providing these services to Canadians.

[Forestry Industry, April 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the forestry industry is at a crossroads.

In Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, many workers depend on the forestry industry. Protecting the future of our forestry jobs must be a priority.

The softwood lumber agreement has expired. The government will have to defend our forestry industry, despite heavy pressure from the U.S.

The 18% surtax on calendered paper is jeopardizing our jobs in Kénogami and Dolbeau, but the government is dragging its feet on this issue.

I urge the government to consider how important the forestry industry is in our region and to do something to protect forestry workers and their role in our economies.

[Canada Labour Code, April 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comment.

There is no increase in the number of strikes or lockouts, depending on the study and those conducting it, of course.

When locked out or striking workers are in the streets not earning a paycheque and they see replacement workers going to do their work in their place, under the working conditions that they negotiated and work in day and night thanks to an established organization, that stokes frustration, anger, and violence.

That is what we are trying to avoid. We want to enable negotiations between the parties as equals, and we want clear provisions so that there is no room for interpretation in the Canada Labour Code.

[Canada Labour Code, April 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. What he said is true.

In 2006, the government carried out a study of the Canada Labour Code, but there was no follow-up. It is important to study the bill at second reading so that we can make amendments.

I agree that we should not be introducing piecemeal bills, and that instead we should be doing a study, since many changes are needed. However, my only option right now is to propose piecemeal changes by introducing bills.

I hope that we can continue with this study, since it is time to modernize the Canada Labour Code. Nothing has been done in the past 10 years.