Anne-Marie Day

[Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, October 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues, who contributed a well-informed and different point of view to fuel debate on Bill C-37, the Increasing Offenders’ Accountability for Victims Act.

Let us review the provisions of Bill C-37, which have been discussed at considerable length already. The bill proposes to amend provisions of the Criminal Code concerning victim surcharges in order to double the amount offenders must pay when they are sentenced. The bill also makes the surcharge mandatory for offenders.

This morning, we heard a moving account from the member for Vaudreuil Soulanges, and it made a deep impression on me. Unfortunately, in discussing this bill, we are also talking about victims. It cannot be avoided, because victims are the ones who are the most affected and who suffer the most from such events.

We heard the account by the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges this morning, and I would like to add something else.

Yesterday evening, I was having supper with my family, who told me that bus drivers are often assaulted. Someone this happened to personally told me that a person had got on the bus and punched them in the face. The person in question was simply angry because the bus did not pull up to the stop quickly enough, which sometimes happens when a car is in the way, for example.

There have been several assaults of this kind in our province. Bus drivers are attacked at the end of their shift. These people feel powerless, as the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges demonstrated clearly this morning.

People feel powerless when they are attacked, first of all because they do not expect things like that to happen to them. People also do not expect offenders to do things like that, because it is not part of our upbringing to be assaulted and to have to be on the defensive. People believe they live in a safe country.

This bill proposes to amend Criminal Code provisions in order to double the victim surcharge. Needless to say, we support this. The surcharge would increase to 30% from 15% of any fine imposed on the offender. Where no fine is imposed, the surcharge would be $100, up from $50, for summary conviction offences. It would increase from $100 to $200 for indictable offences. This section is somewhat complex, but in short, the fines are being doubled.

These amounts are significant. Particularly as those who receive them to assist victims are often community groups. In Quebec, they are called Centres d'aide aux victimes d'actes criminels, or CAVACs, and there are equivalent centres across Canada. They are often groups that intervene to provide assistance to victims.

People often do not know that such a system exists and that they can contact a CAVAC if they are victims of a crime.

The CAVACs are funded as follows. They receive funds that are generated in part by offenders, and contribute them towards the activities conducted by groups that provide assistance to victims of crime.

The NDP members will be supporting this bill, but they have reservations. They would like it to be re-examined in committee, simply because judges are not being allowed to impose sentences that may vary, as needed and depending on the person before them. Once again, this is something that comes up in many of the bills I have seen recently in the House.

Many offenders live in poverty. These are criminal groups or individuals with records. In some cases mental illness is involved, but not necessarily. For example, these people may be dropouts who have lived on the street with nothing and who systematically resist integrating into our society, because it does not suit their values. They want something different and they want to make their own laws.

We must intervene and educate them; this is important.

I would like to remind the House of something. In 2003, crime cost about $70 billion, $47 billion of which was borne by victims. That figure represents 70% of the total cost. A 2004 study estimated that the cost of the pain and suffering suffered by victims was in the region of $36 billion. It is truly important to understand the victims, and the NDP will continue to support families in this regard.

Many eligible victims very rarely seek compensation, one reason being that they do not know these services exist. The member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges said this again this morning. He did not know that there might be a system like that. The system also helps to reassure the victim and lets them know these measures exist and sometimes helps them cover various expenses. When a person is a victim of violence, they are scared, they do not take the same routes they used to, they are afraid to get on the bus or go out in a car, afraid of being accosted even when they are walking on the street, and so on. We have to offer these people services, and that has a social cost. Often, the victims do not even think of asking for anything.

Our concerns relate to the elimination of the judge’s discretion to decide whether paying a surcharge would cause undue hardship. In Quebec, and I imagine things are the same in the other provinces, although I have not checked, judges sometimes decide to require a person to do community service when they do not have the means to pay the surcharge in question. These surcharges are important, because they largely fund the assistance provided for victims. They may even cover up to 100%.

Sometimes, when a person is unable to pay the surcharge, they are required to perform community service. It must be open to the judge, at their discretion, to decide that the young person in question will have to approach a community group, and the group will have them do painting, wash windows, and so on. An entire system is in place to help the young person. I say “young person” because young people are often the ones on whom surcharges are imposed, in the case of petty crimes committed by gangs, for example, as the member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges described this morning.

It is important to retain community service. The measure would be too punitive it if were applied in its simple form. That is why we are asking that this bill be referred to committee. We will then be able to examine it and fix some of its flaws. We hope the surcharges will not be disproportionate to the offender’s ability to pay.

I will support this bill at this stage of the legislative process in the hope that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will take all the time it needs to examine it, meet with stakeholders and perhaps amend certain aspects that need to be reconsidered. This bill is good for families, but it could be even better and at the same time preserve the right, the power and the flexibility that are needed for making the best possible decisions.

[Employment Insurance, October 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is really cute to hear them talk; meanwhile, they do not mention the carbon tax.

Workers are not the only ones paying for the employment insurance reforms. The employers are too. Workers are quitting their jobs because it simply is not worthwhile to work part-time. The employers contribute just like the workers do. Why should they be punished if they need part-time workers? The Conservatives' approach is completely unacceptable.

When will they help employers and workers by fixing the problem with the working while on claim project?

[Employment Insurance, October 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this reform will diminish the salaries and downgrade the working conditions of all workers. It will impoverish the unemployed.

Will a worker be forced to take a job at 70% of 70% of his original salary if he loses his second job? How can the salary of a new employee be set properly without undermining his true skills, if employers are relying on the previous salary and that was already reduced to 70%?

This reform will further stigmatize the unemployed by continually suggesting that they are lazy and must take responsibility.

One might wonder whether this reform that the Conservatives are trying to force on the unemployed is not a violation of fundamental human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates that “everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, and to protection against unemployment”. I remind hon. members that we are part of the International Labour Organization.

What is the government waiting for to protect our workers and provide them with a real job creation plan?

[Employment Insurance, October 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this time today to come back in more detail to a question I asked in the House a few weeks ago on employment insurance.

To be more precise, my question was on the notion of suitable employment that was recently defined by the Conservatives, for which we have yet to see the rules that will shape its application.

When I first put this question, I also raised the issue of a possible drop in salaries if the Conservatives were to move ahead with their ill-advised reform.

We know that with the recent budget legislation, the government is repealing the concept of suitable employment, except in cases when employment arises in consequence of a work stoppage. The government is giving itself the power to establish by regulation what will constitute suitable employment and the obligations regarding job searches.

The announcements made on May 24, by the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development suggest that people without employment fall into three separate categories of unemployment and will be subject to a new regulation. After a certain period of time, the unemployed will be forced to accept any old job at a salary up to 30% lower than their previous income. More specifically, based on the category they might fall under, an EI claimant might receive 90%, 80% or 70% of his or her previous hourly wage depending on what stage of the benefit period has been reached.

Take for example a seasonal worker who was earning $15 an hour before being laid off for the off season. That worker will be forced to take a job that pays $10.50 an hour as of the seventh week of his benefit period. That is not much more than minimum wage in Quebec.

To the NDP, the government's intention is clear: force claimants to take a job as quickly as possible for less pay and under lesser working conditions, in addition to orchestrating a massive movement of Canadian workers to where the jobs are, regardless the region or the province. Pushed to the extreme, this verges on nothing less than forced labour and deportation, and the up-rooting of entire regions.

In addition to taking a pay cut, workers who are being forced to accept jobs that are not necessarily in their field will slowly lose their expertise, which will undermine the value of their qualifications and skills. These measures are counterproductive for society, and nobody wins. This reform will also cause seasonal and highly specialized employers to lose out. For them, it will be increasingly difficult to find workers who will be satisfied with jobs that do not provide work year-round. Alternative employers will end up with unmotivated employees who are difficult to retain.

The announced reform will have an obvious impact on our economy, its stability and its diversity. Some people, some groups, will pay a higher price than others. Take seasonal employers, for example. The regions will be affected and may be emptied as a result of these measures. The provinces will also be affected because the length of benefit periods will be shortened. Consumers' purchasing power will drop, which will lead entire regions into a period of economic deflation.

Those in precarious work situations will also suffer. The new labour market reality involves a strong rise, a real explosion, in casual, part-time and contract jobs that leave workers in a somewhat precarious situation.

The measures proposed by the Conservatives are a step backward for all workers. I would thus like to hear the minister elaborate on what she thinks of the negative impacts of her reform, on the government's obligation to reconsider its definition of suitable employment and on the information about the regulations that have yet to be announced.

[Food Safety, October 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my most sincere sympathies to the families affected by this disaster that we all lament.

I feel like I must be dreaming. Someone, wake me up. This is an emergency situation, we are having an emergency debate and the secretary of state is teaching us a lesson on prevention. We are all for prevention and we think prevention is just great, but now is not the time to talk about it when we are in the middle of a disaster. The hon. member is treating us to a look back at everything they have done so far and everything they might do through the introduction of bills.

This is an emergency situation. The house is on fire. Now is not the time to talk about the five fire trucks and 120 firefighters who are going to put out the fire. It is time to act. This is bad for the economy. It is bad for public health.

What is the government going to do tomorrow, or even tonight, to deal with this crisis?

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I fully understand what the hon. member is saying. What she means is that, if you are a Canadian and you move to another country, you are still a Canadian. If I move to Canada, I am still a citizen of my country of origin, but I am a Canadian and I have to have the same rights as other Canadians.

When you live in a country for 36 years, you might still be Hispanic at heart, but you are a Canadian. Your children are born here. They are Canadians and they have the same rights as other Canadians. That is what we want to safeguard.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member has worked with criminals and that she is very knowledgeable about this subject. I will ask her a quick question. How does she think this bill is going over with groups that work in the area of social reintegration?

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île for her excellent speech.

I would like to tell hon. members something. When the bill was introduced and given first reading, we had immigrants come to our office, people who had been in our riding for some time, 10 years or less. There was panic. People thought they were going to be sent back to their countries. They thought that the current criteria were no longer in effect. This created fear. There are very few immigrants in my riding, but there are some nonetheless, some 10,000 people, if not more.

The hon. member spoke about the fear that this bill was going to provoke. I saw it in my own constituency. I saw these people come and cry in the office because they were afraid to be sent back to their country. I would like to hear her speak about that.

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we know that Canadians are calling for more transparency in this matter. We also know that the act definitely does not exclude public consultations.

Can the hon. member tell us why it would not be more relevant and politically appealing to hold such public consultations?

[Employment Insurance, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the questions change but the answers are always the same. We are going in circles.

They are so out of touch with reality that it is no wonder they are avoiding answering our questions. Yesterday the minister realized that there was a problem for the people who depend on the system the most and who have a hard time making ends meet, paying for groceries, school supplies and rent and paying their bills. This would not have happened if the Conservatives had consulted the public and experts.

Will the minister come up with a solution to address the flaws in her reform?