Élaine Michaud

[Interparliamentary Delegations, September 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-France Interparliamentary Association respecting its participation in the second round of the French legislative elections, held in Paris and Poitiers, France, from June 14 to 17, 2012.

[Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, September 21st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I know that I do not have a lot of time, but I want to quickly reiterate two key things.

First, there is the fact that the victim surcharge will be doubled for all offenders without exception. Sometimes, certain specific cases need to be considered separately. Second—and I think that this bears repeating for some of the members of the House—the NDP is opposed to restricting the autonomy and freedom of judges to determine whether a surcharge is necessary on a case by case basis.

[Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, September 21st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Gatineau for her question and for all the work she does in the area of justice. I think that she represents us and the NDP's positions on various files, including this one, very well. I hope that we will have the chance to hear more from the hon. member for Winnipeg North about this closed-minded attitude and about not wanting to help victims.

We are prepared to set aside certain ideological differences to work with the Conservatives and come up with a bill that will really satisfy everyone and meet the needs that have been clearly expressed by victims of crime, the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, and victims organizations.

It is completely illogical and even ridiculous to me to simply close the door on any opportunity to change things here. I believe that this is why Canadians across the country chose members of the NDP to represent them. They know that we are open-minded and that we want to make changes.

[Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, September 21st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the question put a little differently. Finally a breath of fresh air in this House. I said that we are prepared to consider continuing to support this bill if we get what we need. We are here to work with others.

I cannot predict what will result from the committee's work. Consequently, it is very ill-advised to reply at this time and to say what our exact position will be. However, we will be there and we are open to working with others. Perhaps it is this defeatist attitude tinged with cynicism that led voters to relegate the Liberals to the rank of third party. They saw that the Liberal Party was not prepared to work with others, to find new solutions and to change things.

[Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, September 21st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House for the first time since Parliament resumed, and I am also happy to see all my colleagues again after a very busy summer in my beautiful constituency of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to congratulate you on your appointment to this new position, something I have not yet had the opportunity to do. I see that you already seem at ease in the chair and I feel that you are going to fulfill your mandate with serene professionalism. Good luck throughout your tenure.

This afternoon, I would like to talk about Bill C-37, which seeks to amend the provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with victim surcharges. A victim surcharge is an additional sanction imposed by a judge when an accused is found guilty of a criminal act.

These surcharges are collected and kept by the provincial and territorial governments in order to fund programs and services provided to victims in the province or territory in which the offence was committed. Among other things, the bill proposes to double the amount that offenders have to pay when they are sentenced and to make the surcharge mandatory for all offenders without exception.

Bill C-37 is presently at second reading, as the hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard and other hon. members before her rightly pointed out. If it is passed at this stage, it will be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for an in-depth study of each of its clauses. In a word, we are a long way from the final passage and implementation of the bill, which could be passed as is.

Today, I would like to state my position in favour of Bill C-37 at this stage of the legislative process, because I believe that the bill deserves serious and detailed study before it obtains royal assent and becomes part of the overall justice system.

A good number of hon. members before me have expressed the same desire to study the bill in depth in committee, because we are concerned about the lot of victims of crime across the country.

The NDP supports crime victims and their families and is in favour of better funding for programs and services that help those who have become victims of crime.

The Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime and a number of victims' organizations have already clearly stated that there is a huge need for more funding for victims' assistance programs. That is one of the reasons why the NDP is not prepared to dismiss this bill without even taking a look at it. We want to work with the other parties. If the Liberals decide to work with us, all the better. Otherwise, we are still opening the door to the Conservatives to develop a bill that will be able to satisfy the most people and address the specific needs of crime victims.

We want to ensure that everyone who works with crime victims has all the resources they need to provide the necessary services to victims. Although I support the spirit of Bill C-37, I still have a number of concerns. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights must examine this bill carefully and answer our questions before members of Parliament give their approval.

As I mentioned earlier, this bill proposes to double the amount of the surcharges imposed on offenders. The surcharge would be raised to 30% of the amount of the fine determined by the judge during sentencing—up from 15%. If no fine is imposed on the offender, the amount would be $100 in the case of an offence punishable by summary conviction and $200 in the case of an offence punishable by indictment.

Although this is an interesting proposal, we must consider that this provision in Bill C-37, which would double the amount of the surcharge, could quickly become a problem for low-income offenders. I am not saying that these individuals should not pay their debt to society. On the contrary, I completely agree with the principle of holding offenders accountable and making them contribute to compensation for victims.

However, I think that one of the primary goals of our prison system is to rehabilitate prisoners who will eventually be released into society so that they no longer represent a threat to public safety. We cannot simply lock people up and make them pay some money to try to make them accountable for their crimes.

This is not what is going to help rehabilitate criminals. They need to be given favourable conditions to do so. That inmates can accumulate a debt of up to several thousands of dollars before even getting out of prison is perhaps not the best way to facilitate their rehabilitation.

As for offenders who would not be able to pay the surcharge, Bill C-37 still provides the possibility of taking part in a provincial or territorial fine option program in the provinces and territories where this type of program exists. The fine option program lets offenders pay their debt by earning credits for work done in the province or territory where the offence was committed.

The problem here is that this type of program does not exist in all provinces and territories. So not all offenders would have the opportunity to participate in a fine option program and take care of their debt through some form of work. What happens in that case? What solution would enable these individuals to take care of their debt? This question needs an adequate answer before we can even think about making Bill C-37 a proper bill that applies across Canada.

We also need to ensure that the money for victims of crime is put to good use in all provinces and territories where there is no fine option program. The victims who live in those areas of the country also deserve to receive services, and this government has a responsibility to ensure that they get their fair share.

Another aspect of Bill C-37 that deserves to be studied in depth by the committee is the substantial loss of judges' discretion to determine whether paying the victim surcharge would cause undue hardship for the offender. At the moment, judges are not required to automatically impose this type of surcharge on all offenders if the offenders are able to demonstrate that paying the fine would cause undue hardship to them or to their dependants, be they spouses or children.

If Bill C-37 is passed in its present form, courts will no longer be able to waive the victim surcharge in specific cases. However, judges will still retain the discretionary power to impose a higher victim surcharge if circumstances warrant and if the offender has the means to pay it.

I heard a number of Liberal members, and one in particular, suggesting that the NDP is in favour of restricting the autonomy of judges to impose a victim surcharge on offenders at the time of sentencing, as currently proposed under Bill C-37. Let me just say that it is simply not true. The NDP believes that restricting the autonomy of judges poses a problem and should be reconsidered. We have to have confidence in our judiciary, not tie the hands of our judges the way the Conservative government has done by imposing minimum sentences for certain crimes. The NDP firmly believes that the autonomy of judges is essential to the proper functioning of our justice system and that it should be maintained. We have to let courts do their job.

There are and always will be specific cases and judges must be free to treat each case in its own right. They need to have the freedom to impose the appropriate sentence based on the individual circumstances of each offender. I hope that I have been clear enough so that I will not have to answer the typical question from the hon. member for Winnipeg North as to where the NDP stands on restricting the power of judges.

As members can see from what I have said, Bill C-37 to change the Criminal Code provisions on victim surcharges does have some problems, and warrants further debate and consideration. The NDP supports the recommendations of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime and believes that more funding is needed to provide adequate services to victims of crime. There are a few problems with Bill C-37 and a thorough examination at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is needed in order to come up with real solutions to those problems.

I believe that all members of all political stripes work in good faith. They come to the House with the best interests of Canadians at heart, and they work accordingly. This is the kind of attitude that will allow us to create a bill that is more equitable for everyone, that meets the needs of victims, that provides them with the programs and services they need, and that will make offenders more accountable.

It is for that reason, and that reason alone, that I will support Bill C-37 at second reading and vote to send it to committee. If it is not suitable after that, we can always change our minds.

[Search and Rescue, September 21st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, first, services in Newfoundland and Labrador were outsourced to Italy, and now the people at the maritime search and rescue centre in Quebec City are supposed to communicate in English.

It should not be hard to understand that when people are in danger and request assistance, they will want to get that help in their mother tongue and they will want to speak to someone who knows the region and the navigable waters.

Will the Conservatives finally recognize that they made a mistake? Do they understand the importance of providing marine rescue services in French?

[Search and Rescue, September 21st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives unfairly decided to close the maritime search and rescue centre in Quebec City, the NDP raised concerns about the disappearance of services in French.

We had reason to be concerned. The Conservatives recently gave us a glimpse of what is coming. Fisheries and Oceans Canada sent a manual of standard operating procedures to the Quebec City centre for comments. The problem is that they sent the manual in English only.

Is this how the Conservatives intend to prepare people for the disappearance of services in French?

[World Autism Awareness Day Act, June 19th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, it is a great privilege to rise today in the House to speak to Bill S-206, An Act respecting World Autism Awareness Day.

This cause is particularly close to my heart and I know this debate directly relates to thousands of Canadian families.

Bill S-206 calls on the government to designate April 2 as World Autism Awareness Day across Canada.

On December 18, 2007, the United Nations General Assembly declared that April 2 of every year would be dedicated to efforts to increase our understanding of autism spectrum disorders. Autism Society Canada and other civil society groups already recognize this important day. It is time for the federal government to do the same.

Autism is the most common childhood disease and is four times more common in boys than girls. It is estimated that more than one in every 110 children is born with some form of autism and that there are currently nearly 35 million autistic people around the globe. In Canada alone, there are approximately 200,000 autistic people, including 48,000 children.

Over the past 20 years, there has been a drastic increase in the number of diagnoses of autism disorders, without any clear explanation for this increase.

Despite the ever-growing number of diagnoses, autism is a disability that remains unfamiliar to a large number of Canadians. The many forms of autism are part of a group of conditions referred to as autism spectrum disorders.

Each case of autism is unique. The intensity of symptoms is different for every autistic person, and the symptoms may also vary over time.

Generally speaking, autism disorders are characterized by deficiencies in verbal and nonverbal communication, and there may be learning disabilities. Without early intervention, nearly 40% of autistic individuals will never learn to speak.

Autism disorders are also characterized by problems with social interaction, and by repetitive and stereotypical behaviours.

It is not yet known what causes autism spectrum disorders, nor how they can be treated. However, it is known that early diagnosis and specialized intervention can greatly improve the quality of life and the social abilities of an autistic individual and his or her family.

The passage of Bill S-206 will help shed light on autism and the other pervasive developmental disorders, and this is a step in the right direction.

However, we must go far beyond merely raising awareness among Canadians. The government must take action.

At the present time, Canadian families who are affected by autism spectrum disorders have difficulty obtaining the help they need and they may not have equal access to health care services and social services, depending on the area of the country in which they live.

This situation is unacceptable. As parliamentarians, we have the duty and the power to provide assistance to these families who really need it.

I am very familiar with the day-to-day situation facing families affected by autism spectrum disorders. My 23-year-old brother, Philippe, was diagnosed with a pervasive development disorder not otherwise specified, a PDD-NOS, when he was 17 years old.

Philippe is a cheerful and generous person, who likes to help others and for whom family is very important. However, things were not always easy for him at school and he always had difficulty with social integration.

For many years, my parents did everything they could to help him, without knowing the cause of his problems. There were very few services available to help them in the schools and they had to do almost everything on their own.

They consulted a large number of specialists, without ever really getting a proper answer. There were countless visits to doctors, pediatricians, neurologists, psychologists, speech therapists and occupational therapists over the years, but the questions remained. Of course, most of these tests were not covered by private medical insurance or by Quebec's Régie de l'assurance maladie. My parents had to cover all the costs themselves. It took 12 years to get a formal diagnosis for my brother.

Thanks to a psychologist who knew about pervasive developmental disorders and who had just been hired at Philippe’s secondary school, Philippe was finally diagnosed. It was sheer chance.

After the diagnosis, my brother was able to enrol in a specialized class with more personalized support, but the program was available in only one of the town's four secondary schools. As a result, he had to change schools and build a new social network, which is quite difficult for people living with pervasive development disorder.

My parents have looked for programs targeting people living with autism spectrum disorders, but these programs are virtually non-existent.

My brother was lucky enough to have access to socialization courses offered at a hospital in the region, as well as to regular follow-ups with a psychiatrist, but nothing more. The only program in the region catering to teenagers was full. He was never able to enrol.

As far as job placement is concerned, there are absolutely no programs to help people living with autism spectrum disorders.

Since my brother does not have an intellectual disability, most of the programs were not available to him. He had to apply for social assistance in order to get access to a program that enabled him to do an internship in the workplace. Without his perseverance and that of my parents, Philippe would not have had this opportunity to develop, to validate himself and to acquire new skills.

It is high time that Canada had a national strategy on autism spectrum disorders, and took practical steps to help people with autism and their families.

Currently, it is the provincial governments, health promotion organizations and families that provide the necessary care to people with autism.

However, the federal government also has a responsibility to people with autism and their families. This government must provide sufficient resources to the provinces and territories so that they can provide treatment and services to people with autism spectrum disorders, including specialized education and professional training.

It does not make sense that in our society, people who are able to hold jobs and fit in must rely on provincial social assistance to be able to access job opportunities. I think that is counter-productive. The provinces are not investing resources in the right places. Families need direct access to these resources. There are job opportunities and integration opportunities for people with autism spectrum disorders. We must offer those to them.

We must also ensure that testing and treatments are covered by public health insurance plans. This is not the case right now. The various specialists required to diagnose pervasive developmental disorders are not included in the list of specialists paid by the current plan. Parents must sometimes pay vast amounts of money to get answers to their questions and come up with a plan to help their children.

As I mentioned earlier, in the case of my brother it took 12 years to get a diagnosis—12 years of tests, appointments and uncertainty. That is a heavy investment and a great deal of anxiety for the families and the people with autism spectrum disorder, who understand that some things about themselves do not work the same as they do in other people. They are looking for answers and may not have access to them, perhaps because of the cost or where they live.

We therefore have a responsibility as parliamentarians to consider this issue and offer families opportunities that are not currently available to them.

Programs must be put in place to allow people with autism to develop their skills and reach their full potential. With attention and programs and assistance adapted to their needs, people with autism are able to accomplish many things and can develop social networks that they might not be able to access without additional help that cannot always be provided by charitable organizations in the community. These resources are not always available. I know that these resources are lacking in the Outaouais region and other areas of Canada. Families are speaking out about this need. We must quickly address this need and find solutions.

There is still much work to be done in order to help Canadian families affected by autism spectrum disorders. I hope that the government will finally hear the pleas of families such as mine, who are desperately waiting for their government to take concrete action.

Canadians sent us here and they have confidence in us. In each of our ridings, there are families that face these situations every day, and they deserve our support and our help. We are in a position to do that.

The world autism awareness day bill is a step in the right direction. I am very proud to support the bill, as are my colleagues and several other members who have indicated that they will also support it.

However, much remains to be done. We cannot stop there. Autism spectrum disorders affect the lives of thousands of Canadian families. It is our responsibility to help them now.

Today, I spoke about my own family. But others are in the same situation and have the same problems as me, my family and my parents, and they expect us to act quickly on their behalf. Today, I hope that this will be just the first in a series of steps that will finally meet their expectations.

[Portneuf Relay for Life, June 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, today I wish to congratulate all those who took part in the third edition of the Portneuf Relay for Life, which was held in Donnacona on June 9 and 10.

The Portneuf Relay for Life is an annual fundraising event for the Canadian Cancer Society. This year, nearly 500 participants walked around Donnacona Park in relays for 12 whole hours, each doing their part to contribute to the fight against this terrible disease—cancer.

Among the participants, some 130 were cancers survivors themselves who led the relay by taking a symbolic first lap of the park. I salute the courage, optimism and perseverance of these survivors, who are true role models for the rest of us.

I also wish to congratulate everyone who walked in the third Portneuf Relay for Life whose efforts and energy helped raise the impressive sum of $124,000 for the Canadian Cancer Society.

That is a record for the Portneuf region, and I am very proud of this accomplishment.

I wish to congratulate Lucie Côté and her entire team, as well as all participants in the relay who made this event such an enormous success.

[Search and Rescue, June 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in this House today to support the motion moved by the member for St. John's East concerning search and rescue in Canada.

This motion states that Canada lags behind international search and rescue norms, and it calls on the government to recognize the responsibility of the Canadian Forces for the protection of Canadians and to take such measures as may be required for Canada to achieve the common international readiness standard of 30 minutes at all times, from tasking to becoming airborne, in response to search and rescue incidents.

The purpose of this important motion is to fill a major gap in Canada's current system. As a number of my colleagues have explained, the Canadian Forces currently have two different response times for search and rescue incidents. Response times are set according to the hours of work generally in effect in other occupations. During regular business hours, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., the response time is 30 minutes.

During those hours, it takes 30 minutes or less between the time authorities give an order and the time the rescue vehicle leaves the military base where it is stationed. However, the situation is completely different at other times. Between 4 p.m. and 8 a.m., and on weekends and holidays, the response standard for search and rescue teams is 120 minutes. In other words, it takes two hours to organize a search and rescue operation to respond to an emergency situation where human lives are at stake.

Such a double standard is unacceptable when people's survival depends on the speed of the response. My colleagues from Newfoundland and Labrador spoke movingly about certain tragedies at sea, where people lost their lives because search and rescue operations took too long to get organized. They referred, among other incidents, to the tragic case of the Melina and Keith II, a fishing vessel that sank off the coast of Newfoundland, around 5:30 p.m., on September 12, 2005.

Of the eight fishermen who originally survived, only four made it. Unfortunately, the other four died because they were not rescued quickly enough. Canadian Forces helicopters took 3 hours and 8 minutes to reach the site where the boat had sunk. Since this tragic incident occurred during what is considered a down time for the Canadian Forces, that is after 4 p.m., the 30-minute response standard did not apply.

It is absurd to think that, had the Melina and Keith II sunk just two hours earlier, four fishermen could have been saved because the Canadian Forces would have had to have responded within 30 minutes.

It is obvious that this two-tier system for search and rescue operations in Canada is not adequate in its existing form. As parliamentarians, we have a duty to examine this issue and to try to correct the serious flaws in the system, which jeopardize the lives of many Canadians.

Given that close to 80% of emergencies occur outside the period covered by the 30-minute response time, it is obvious that things must change. According to a report produced by Seacom International for the Standing Committee on National Defence, Canada ranks last when it comes to rescue times for search and rescue operations. Indeed, Seacom International, which specializes in emergency preparedness, puts us in last place, behind Australia, Ireland, Mexico and the United States, among others.

I think it is worth taking another look at the comparison between our standards and international standards. As I mentioned, under Canadian standards, rescue time is 30 minutes during the day and 120 minutes between 4 p.m. and 8 a.m., and on weekends.

When we look at what happens in Ireland, we can see that the norm for response time is 15 minutes during the day—that is, from 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.—and 45 minutes after 9:00 p.m. In Australia, the response time is 30 minutes around the clock. Australia has a vast area to cover. It has kilometres and kilometres of coastline. Yet they provide a 30-minute service, day and night, for people in distress on their shores.

If we look at the United States, the same thing is happening. We are talking about 30 minutes 24/7. But here, in Canada, response time outside regular working hours is two hours for people in distress. It simply makes no sense; we have to change the current norms to comply with international standards that are in effect almost everywhere and that make perfect sense. We have enough resources. If we redistribute the resources we currently have, we will be able to provide this service to every Canadian, and to all the people in distress on our shores.

We absolutely must make search and rescue a priority here in Canada. Like many other countries, Canada has many kilometres of coastline; British Columbia, the north, the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Maritimes and other areas come to mind. We have to make sure that all Canada's coasts are protected and that we allocate sufficient resources to ensure that all people who find themselves in emergency situations along our coasts have the best possible chance of survival.

Canadians' health and safety must be a priority for us, for every parliamentarian, regardless of their political party. The priority should not be F-35 fighter planes that are going to cost Canadians billions of dollars and will not necessarily save Canadians’ lives when they need it. We have to set priorities that directly serve our fellow Canadians. We have to admit that the cuts being made by the government are going to make the already difficult job of the Canadian Forces, when it comes to search and rescue operations, even more difficult than it is now.

People complain there are not enough personnel, but even more pressure is going to be put on Trenton and Halifax, for example, to try to meet the needs that are currently covered by the maritime search and rescue centres in Quebec City and St. John's. Considering the language requirements, we see that this has been brought up in this House a number of times. It is not clear that the military bases, for example in Trenton, are going to be able to provide people with bilingual services. As well, the closure of the maritime search and rescue centre in Quebec City has been moved back a year because the needs cannot be met by Trenton at present.

In addition, the need for someone to be understood in their own language immediately is a matter of life or death when they are facing an accident at sea. Sometimes it is a matter of seconds that can change how an event turns out and save someone’s life. We have to make sure that the people who answer distress calls are able to provide equivalent service to everyone, and that is not the case at present with the changes announced by the Conservatives.

As well, the closure of the maritime search and rescue centres in Quebec City and St. John's will cause a significant loss of expertise, and that is for the Gulf of St. Lawrence alone. That is a coastline with quite specific features. There are many dangers and it takes people several years to get to know that coastline well enough that they can help people. By closing that centre and centralizing all operations in Trenton and Halifax, for example, we lose that expertise and we endanger people’s lives.

So if we put these cuts in perspective, and add in the fact that there is a double standard when it comes to rescue times in Canada, we clearly have a responsibility, as parliamentarians, to consider this issue and do everything we can to guarantee Canadians’ safety. This issue has to be discussed in the House, as we are doing now. This is an important debate and I urge all members to vote in favour of this extremely important motion, as I will be doing with pride, and as my colleagues will be doing as well.