Élaine Michaud

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, October 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member talk about the great honour of being a member of Parliament. He does put some importance on the role we have and how important it is for us to be able to do our jobs. However, Bill C-45 does not allow us to do that because the Conservatives are not willing to accept any amendments. We heard that from the member for Saint Boniface earlier and I have heard similar comments from other members as well.

Would the member be willing to work with the opposition and accept amendments that we propose or does he share his government's disdain for transparency and democratic principles?

[Job and Growth Act, 2012, October 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member ask the opposition members to try to be more positive about the bill and to work with them in government, but ever since the government tabled this we have not seen any willingness on its part to actually work with the opposition.

Our leader, the Leader of the Official Opposition, asked the government yesterday to split the bill among 12 committees, which it refused to do. We have also been asking that committees be able to propose amendments and change the bill. The government has been dismissing our concerns as only futile discussions about process. To prove my point, I will quote the member for Saint Boniface from yesterday. She said: “From the opposition members, we will hear a lot of talk about process and procedure, or what some would call 'inside baseball', that appeals to a small number of Canadians, mostly located in Ottawa”. Later she also said: “In other words, it is really meaningless to the everyday lives of the vast majority of Canadians--”. I was really disappointed to hear that, because discussion and process is actually the basis of our democracy—

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, October 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief question.

I would first like to congratulate my hon. colleague on her speech, which, I think, did not receive the attention it deserves from the governing party. One cannot expect miracles every day in the House.

Many sources tell us that Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland, to name a few, have all made changes to their summary trial system for their military personnel. Those are all Commonwealth countries that all have the good fortune, like Canada, to have the Queen as their monarch—and the Conservatives across the floor should be happy to hear me say that.

I have to wonder why Canada is so far behind and why it has not yet made the necessary changes to better protect our military personnel.

[Member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, October 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the fall, the hon. member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière has made two members' statements. Neither one was on his riding. Not one.

He could have taken the opportunity to tell us about the upcoming opening of the cogeneration plant in Saint-Patrice-de-Beaurivage, in his riding. This project is good for the environment and good for economic development.

He also could have told us how proud he is of the upcoming, first-ever Journée Entreprendre ici Lotbinière, which will contribute to the growth of the entrepreneurial culture and the economic development of Lotbinière. But no, instead he told made-up stories about the NDP at the expense of his constituents.

He had a choice. He could have acknowledged the accomplishments of his constituents and the organizations in his riding or simply read the latest talking points written by the Prime Minister's puppets. He chose to turn his back on his constituents, the people who elected him.

It will be up to him to explain to the people of his riding why they do not deserve any recognition from their member of Parliament.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 4th, 2012]

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

As has already been mentioned, it is very clear that this bill is totally anti-immigration. This government has brought forward a number of bills that, with no valid reason, attempt to stigmatize immigrants, unless the immigrants have enough money to keep our economy going, of course.

However, everyone else, including refugees and people who need help and who come here to try to build a new life for themselves and their children, will be directly affected by the bill the government has introduced.

The Conservative government pretty much tries to set up immigrants to fail, and this is what we need to change in the bill.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes we have the impression we are speaking to an empty room here in the House.

I think my speech was very clear, and I said clearly that I was going to support this bill at second reading, because the NDP considers it very important to protect Canadians from criminals, whether they are foreign criminals or not, who endanger their safety.

However, being tough on criminals does not mean you have to be callous and cold-blooded. We have social values here in Canada that demand that we show compassion for others and that we give consideration to the extraordinary circumstances that may well affect the actions and choices that some people make, no matter how ill-advised they may be.

The NDP is going to try to amend this bill so that it includes all of the necessary nuances for a legal system that is effective, fair and prompt in deporting criminals who must leave Canada quickly. However, we must not start stigmatizing and criminalizing all newcomers.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate the hon. member for his eloquent speech and say that I am also pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act.

This bill, if passed as is, will lead to numerous legislative changes with the purpose of accelerating the deportation, to their country of origin, of foreign nationals and permanent residents who have committed a serious crime in Canada or abroad. The Conservatives say that the faster removal of foreign criminals would prevent some of them from abusing the Canadian legal system to try to delay their deportation and extend their stay in the country.

One of the main provisions of Bill C-43 would amend the legal definition of "serious criminality" in order to restrict access to the appeal process should an individual be found inadmissible by a judge. Currently, a permanent or temporary resident of Canada can appeal such a decision to the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, unless the individual is sentenced to two years or longer.

Such a sentence generally leads to the automatic revocation of the permanent or temporary resident's right to appeal a determination of inadmissibility. If Bill C-43 is passed, this right would be revoked as soon as a sentence of imprisonment of six months or longer is imposed. Such a sentence will not necessarily be imposed in cases of excessively violent crimes, as some of my colleagues mentioned a little earlier. Such sentences will be given to people who repeatedly commit crimes that might be considered less serious. At that point, they receive a sentence that is more severe than the original one. These people are not necessarily violent criminals. They are people who could still be rehabilitated.

Bill C-43 also puts more powers in the hands of the minister by allowing him to render a decision on the admissibility of temporary residence applicants. The minister is given very broad discretionary power in that case. He could now declare that a foreign national is inadmissible for a maximum period of 36 months if he feels that it is justified by public policy considerations. There is no clear definition of "public policy considerations" here. The minister will define it, without further justification.

Furthermore, although Bill C-43 specifies that entering Canada through criminal activity does not automatically make a person inadmissible—which can be important for people who were victims of human trafficking networks—it will take away the minister's responsibility to consider the humanitarian circumstances related to the individual's case. As a result, the minister will no longer be required to consider particular circumstances, such as security considerations, human rights and international rights violations, or organized criminality, in order to determine whether or not a humanitarian exemption has to be granted to a claimant.

Bill C-43 has to do with an issue that is a central concern for Canadians: their safety.

Keeping the people of Canada safe is also a priority for the NDP. We recognize the need to have an efficient justice system in order to deport real criminals who are not Canadian citizens to their country of origin. We do not support allowing these dangerous criminals, who put the safety of Canadians at risk, to stay in the country. If circumstances require it, we want to make sure that those people can be quickly deported to their country of origin in order to protect Canadians' safety.

We in the NDP also believe that we can work with the government to prevent non-citizens who have committed serious crimes from abusing our appeal system. That is why I will support this bill at second reading. We also believe that it is possible to protect our people and to avoid those abuses without trampling on the rights of individuals who are not Canadian citizens.

The NDP is opposed to the idea of refusing anyone access to a just and fair appeal process. We are also opposed to the idea of giving the minister the power to unilaterally prevent a foreign national from becoming a temporary resident for a period of 36 months, if justified by public policy considerations, without our being able to identify clearly what exactly those public policy considerations are.

At the moment, as they often do, the Conservatives are trying hard to focus the debate on the issue of criminality in order to try to hide from Canadians the fact that Bill C-43 would henceforth grant wide discretionary powers to the minister and could violate the rights of a large number of foreign nationals and permanent residents. It is much easier to accuse everyone who objects to this bill of being soft on crime, as we often hear, or of not caring about the welfare of victims. That is completely false, and we must be able to keep things in perspective if we are to do our work properly here in this House.

So, because of the precise problems I have listed, it seems to me essential that, in committee, we study each of the provisions of Bill C-43 in depth and consider the potential negative consequences of enforcing it in its present unamended form.

In committee, it will be possible to focus on the provisions of this bill that present the greatest problems and make the changes necessary to ensure that the rights of citizens and non-citizens alike are respected and protected.

Another problem with Bill C-43 that deserves to be studied in depth is the fact that the bill restricts judicial independence by preventing judges from considering both the nature of a crime committed by a resident, whether temporary or permanent, and the circumstances under which the crime was committed. So, with Bill C-43, judges would no longer be allowed to consider the fact that some refugees from war-ravaged countries may be suffering from a mental illness. As we know, unfortunately, people fleeing from countries in the grips of war all too often arrive in Canada bearing the severe physical and psychological consequences of the trauma they have gone through in their country of origin. Unfortunately, when those people do not receive treatment, they often end up committing crimes. Whether they are citizens or not, they need help and treatment. Given the resources they need, they can frequently be rehabilitated. That will not be true of all foreign criminals who are going to be caught, but it will be true of a number of them, especially if they are suffering from a mental illness as the result of the trauma they have gone through at home.

Furthermore, Michael Bossin, an immigration and refugee lawyer in Ottawa, has said that young offenders commit a crime that gets them into a system that gets them treatment, medication and a rehabilitation program. They have family support, they have community support, and they are in no way a threat to anyone anymore.

Unfortunately, the amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act may well affect a large number of permanent and temporary residents with mental health disorders, who could be helped with treatment.

As we can see, Bill C-43 eliminates a number of control mechanisms that currently exist in the legal system and that provide a certain amount of flexibility. However, the flexibility being discussed here is absolutely necessary when somebody is confronted with extraordinary circumstances, such as the right to appeal in the case of mitigating circumstances and the possibility of appeal on humanitarian grounds for those who are deemed inadmissible on grounds of security or of violating human or international rights. It is obvious that much remains to be done to ensure that Bill C-43 fully respects the fundamental rights of individuals who want to become citizens, whether they are admissible or not.

Rather than demonizing all new Canadians because of a handful of foreign criminals, as the Conservatives have done many times over the last few weeks, they should make a greater effort to reunite families and recognize the skills held by new immigrants so that they can find a job that uses their experience and their talent. We all want to be more strict with non-citizens who commit serious crimes against Canadian citizens, but we must never forget the fundamental values on which our legal system is based, even when dealing with people who have broken the law.

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2012]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, many employers in my riding have contacted me to say that they have not been able to find enough workers to fill positions—for one or two days a week—to keep their businesses running, because workers do not want 50% of their earnings to be clawed back. They do not want to end up with less money than what they would have earned with employment insurance alone.

How can the Conservatives think that these poorly thought-out changes to the pilot project will not have a negative impact on the economy in my region? That is unbelievable.

I am not saying that all employment insurance claimants will be negatively affected by the provisions of the new pilot project. If a claimant is fortunate enough to find a job that pays at least half of his previous income, he can keep a larger part of his earnings. That is true.

However, opportunities like that do not exist in every region. Too many Canadians will see their earnings disappear as a result of the decisions the Conservatives made without consulting employment insurance claimants and employers. These are the two groups that contribute to employment insurance. This is not a government benefit. It is not up to the government to determine what to do with the money without consulting the public. This is an absolutely unacceptable way of doing things.

Instead of always repeating the same old lines, the minister should read the Employment Insurance Commission's report on this pilot project. The report shows that nearly four in 10 Canadians will be penalized by this new program. That is almost half. So when the Conservatives say that a vast majority of Canadians will benefit, I say that I would like to see the numbers. We have asked for them, but I have yet to see anything because they simply do not exist.

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by congratulating my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine on his eloquent speech that highlighted the problems affecting seasonal workers. This is something that is very important in my riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

The motion on the working while on claim pilot project, which was put forward by my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, is very important. I am very proud to support it in this House today. I would also like to take a moment to congratulate the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles on her hard work on the employment insurance file and to thank her for moving this motion.

The motion we are debating today highlights some major problems with the Conservative government's new pilot project and calls on the government to take immediate action to correct these flaws that directly affect the most vulnerable employment insurance claimants.

In theory, the objective of the new pilot project created by the Conservatives is to encourage Canadians receiving EI benefits to accept a part-time job while continuing to receive benefits, under certain conditions.

In theory, this program has a very laudable objective of encouraging Canadians to re-enter the labour market, and I cannot oppose the basic principles behind this pilot project.

Many programs targeted at encouraging claimants to take on part-time work have existed in one form or another since 2005. These programs are one way for employment insurance recipients to improve their financial situation and take advantage of opportunities offered to them.

However, the new system proposed by the Conservatives is far from perfect. Under the working while on claim pilot project, claimants who are working part-time will have to give the government 50¢ of every dollar they earn, from the first dollar earned, up to 90% of their weekly insurable earnings. Income over that threshold will be clawed back dollar for dollar.

This new clawback formula is notably different from the formula used before August 4, when the new pilot project came into force. Under the old working while on claim program, claimants with jobs were allowed to keep the greater of $75 or 40% of their weekly employment insurance benefits. Any earnings beyond that were clawed back dollar for dollar.

From day one of this new system, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and her parliamentary secretary have been saying loud and clear that this pilot project will guarantee that every employment insurance claimant will always be better off working because they will be able to keep more of their earnings.

Unfortunately, just a month and a half into the new program, we can see that this is not the case for all EI benefit recipients, contrary to what the minister and her parliamentary secretary say. It is clear that the changes made by the Conservatives disadvantage the most vulnerable workers by reducing the earnings of those who are able to find just one day of work a week, or those who are receiving Canada pension plan benefits while receiving EI benefits.

Workers who earn a low income or receive an old age pension are now seeing this government subtract from their EI benefits the equivalent of half their earnings from the first dollar they earn.

I will give a clear example. Earlier I asked a member from the governing party the question and I did not get an answer. I will explain myself a little more clearly, then perhaps the hon. member will be able to provide further explanations.

For example, if an EI claimant receives $75 in earnings every week from a part-time job, fully half of that amount is subtracted from his employment insurance benefits. Under the old system, that same claimant could have kept his entire weekly salary without losing a penny of his EI benefits.

This is a clear example of a situation where an EI claimant is completely disadvantaged by the new system. If we add all the additional expenses that are related to having a job, from transportation to work to child care expenses, then it is clear that the provisions of the Conservatives' new pilot project will cause major losses of income for workers who have a low-paying job, or who can find only one day of work per week or less.

Under such circumstances, it is almost inconceivable that people will look for a part-time job or a low-paying job because they will be immediately penalized by this government.

Under such circumstances, how can this government continue to state that the living conditions of every individual who accepts work while receiving employment insurance benefits will improve? I just gave a very clear and irrefutable example that demonstrates that such is not the case.

Throughout the day, we have heard many of my colleagues in the opposition parties speak about hundreds of Canadians whose employment insurance benefits have been reduced and who are being punished by this government because they managed to find a part-time job to try to improve their situation. That is unacceptable.

This government must take action to correct the blatant errors that were made in the development of this new pilot project, errors that are once again punishing the most vulnerable Canadians.

For example, I am thinking of seasonal workers across the country who will be among the first to pay the price of the changes being imposed by the Conservatives. My riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier will no doubt be one of those hit hard by the provisions of the new pilot project.

In my riding, the agricultural, tourism and forestry industries are particularly important to the local economy and, as my colleagues know, the survival of these industries depends in large part on seasonal workers.

During the off-season, many seasonal workers are able to find work for one or two days a week. These jobs often do not pay well, but they are key to the operation and survival of the companies that offer them.

Unfortunately, under the Conservatives' new system, the income of employment insurance claimants in my riding will be cut in half if they decide to accept one of these jobs. And it is not only employment insurance claimants in my riding who will be penalized by the new pilot project; businesses in my riding will also be put at a major disadvantage.

I hope that, now that I have said the word “businesses”, the Conservatives will listen a little more closely to what I have to say. The Conservatives are obsessed with the economy, but they ignore the human beings who support it.

Already, many employers in my riding have contacted me to tell me about the difficulty they are having finding people who are prepared to work for their company on a piecework basis—

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question.

The minister and various Conservative members have given us a lot of examples of people who are able to find good jobs with good wages. These people will benefit from the new program.

However, I would like my colleague opposite to explain what will happen to someone who manages to earn $75 a week. Under the old system, this person could keep $75 before any money was deducted from his employment insurance benefits. Under the new system, this person will immediately lose 50% of his income. How will the new system help this person?

I would like the member to provide an explanation for this exact example, without reverting to the talking points we have already heard, which have been rehashed over and over in the House.