Rosane Doré Lefebvre

[Correctional Service Canada, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for her comments.

I think that she missed the point. Now is the time to put words into action. What I understand from the other side is that there are a number of things we completely agree on, such as prevention, rehabilitation and the need for federal correctional officers to have tools to deal with mental health issues. We cannot deny that these issues exist. We cannot simply say that they should not exist, because they do. There are mental health issues in our prisons, and the Office of the Correctional Investigator pointed that out in its last report. I think it is extremely important for us to look at this issue.

It is not only important in light of the tragic cases we mentioned, such as the case of Ashley Smith, but it is also important for all those who truly want to work in prevention programs, which are eliminated here, and for our prison and security workers.

What is being done? Will they really invest money to help our prison workers?

[Correctional Service Canada, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, recently, during question period, I asked the Minister of Public Safety what he was going to do following the tragic case of Ashley Smith. This is a disturbing story that upset many people in Canada, including my constituents in the riding of Alfred-Pellan.

Ms. Smith suffered from a mental illness and, unfortunately, she did not receive proper treatment. Destitute and hopeless, she unfortunately took her life while under the responsibility of Correctional Service Canada. Videos released by the media clearly show that Ms. Smith received inadequate treatment, given her condition. This is unfortunate and unacceptable in a country like ours.

In light of these revelations, I asked the minister to put in place an action plan on the mental health of people under the responsibility of Correctional Service Canada. That was several months ago and we are still waiting for a reaction. The minister did meet with his provincial counterparts recently, but why is he still waiting instead of moving forward?

Data provided by the mental health screening computerized system and used by Correctional Service Canada for its initial assessment indicate that, in 2012, 62% of the offenders placed in a penitentiary were deemed to need mental health assessments or follow-up services. Moreover, 50% of federally-sentenced women have a history of self-injury. This confirms the need for more professionals to care for inmates and ensure their rehabilitation and the safety of our communities.

This issue needs to be dealt with on an urgent basis. We have been aware of this issue for a long time. Several experts have sounded the alarm on many occasions. The story of Ashley Smith is but another tragic example. That case was the straw that broke the camel's back.

It is all the more disturbing because, to this day, the minister still refuses to apologize to the victim's family and friends. I am convinced that my colleague is just as upset as I am by what happened during this tragic episode. I know that, deep down, he also feels that this kind of treatment is unacceptable.

I just wonder why he refuses to apologize on behalf of the service that he runs. Why? That gesture would help Ms. Smith's family go through the grieving process. It is a simple and compassionate act that could do a lot of good. I invite the minister to sincerely apologize, without further delay, through the parliamentary secretary.

This is not the first time that I have risen in the House to call for real mental health measures in cases such as that of Ashley Smith. Some of my colleagues and predecessors have done so before me. The government responded each time with empty talking points and partisan rhetoric. It has never wanted to take real action. Now that the parliamentary secretary is present, I will reiterate my request.

Will the Minister of Public Safety finally explain how he plans to manage cases of inmates with mental health issues? Will he take this opportunity to apologize to the family and friends of Ms. Smith?

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, before asking my question, I would first like to congratulate my colleague from Saint-Lambert on her excellent speech.

I would like to share with the House something that has been bothering me about this whole sexual harassment issue. This regards a document that was released recently in response to an access to information request made by La Presse. According to that document, some female employees may be reluctant to report sexual harassment because they have no faith in the RCMP's current complaints process. The fact that women are afraid to use the current complaints process is very troubling.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on this. Is she horrified to know that, because of the current system, women are afraid to speak up about misconduct? Could she comment on the fact that, with Bill C-42, the Conservatives are sadly refusing to protect female workers who spend their lives in the service of our country?

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek for his excellent and very heartfelt speech to the House about the official opposition's position on Bill C-42. It was a fine tribute to our national policy, but especially to the men and women who serve on our national police force. It was a good way to recognize the incredible and hard work this police force does every day.

My colleague spoke about the training and the tools the RCMP needs to combat various problems, including sexual harassment. I found that interesting because one of the amendments we proposed in committee, after having various discussions with witnesses who appeared before the committee, would have required mandatory harassment training for all RCMP members. Unfortunately, this amendment was not adopted in committee, which is very sad.

What are my colleague's thoughts on the fact that this amendment was not adopted and the official opposition tried to make harassment training mandatory?

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Montcalm for her excellent speech on an extremely large bill. Quite frankly, the 1,000 pages is enough to make your head spin.

This morning, I raised my concerns regarding omnibus bills and the Conservatives' habit of introducing very large bills that affect a lot of legislation and take a long time to pass.

Often, my constituents in Alfred-Pellan, in Laval, voice this concern by mail or over the phone. They tell me that it is not logical to introduce omnibus bills because, often, they are duplicitous.

What feedback has my colleague had from her constituents regarding omnibus bills like this one, or the budget bills, such as C-38 and C-45, which were introduced in recent months?

How have the constituents in her riding reacted to the arrogance displayed by Conservative government in introducing this kind of omnibus bill?

[Public Safety, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives intend to do nothing about tragedies like the case of Ashley Smith.

Major changes need to be made to the RCMP to address the issue of harassment and bullying. Yesterday, the report released by the RCMP public complaints commission confirmed the need for an independent and more transparent process in which members of both the RCMP and the public can have confidence.

Will the minister follow the zero tolerance recommendations of the commission in order to create a healthy working environment that is fair for everyone?

[Women and Politics, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, although women represent 50% of the population, their participation in our political institutions often remains marginal. In our federal Parliament, for instance, out of a possible 306 seats, only 76 women were elected on May 2, 2011.

The Table de concertation de Laval en condition féminine, or TCLCF, has been examining this issue. Do women have their rightful place in politics? Can women in politics really change the world?

Like the inspiring women in Laval who have been debating these issues, I say “yes”. In Laval, we have some wonderful examples of influential women who care deeply about their community.

The TCLCF decided to shed some light on political life for these women through some informative workshops. I had the good fortune of meeting many participants and sharing my own story.

I learned recently that many of these women have decided to run in the next municipal election as a result of these workshops. I wish them all the best of luck, because we need more women at every level of government.

I wish to thank the TCLCF for igniting these passions. As Eleanor Roosevelt said, the future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary.

As he knows, a budget involves choices. According to the latest study from the Department of Finance on the budgets presented by the different parties, the most balanced and the most reasonable budgets come from the NDP. Next come the ones presented by the Conservatives, and trailing far behind are the budgets by the Liberals, unfortunately.

Budgets involve choices. We can talk, for instance, about their attacks on employment insurance, the hidden taxes they pass on to consumers and the fees imposed on small businesses. We could talk for quite a while about that.

However, I find it interesting that we agree on the principle in the House today. It is nice to work together on a bill.

I hope this co-operation will continue during the committee’s consideration of the bill and that the Conservatives will listen to the official opposition, which does not just whine for the sake of whining. Constituents do not agree with the decisions being made by this government, and we represent them. The government must listen to Canadians.

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie for his very accurate comments about the transparency of the Conservative government.

There is more to the story. The government often talks about how very responsible it is with regard to the economy and prosperity. So I find it sad that the Conservatives have taken so long to bring in tax measures, all the while claiming to be champions of the economy. However, I am pleased it is being done.

Regarding transparency, we could go over it again. This is precisely what angers my constituents in Alfred-Pellan. I assume that my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie has also noticed that his constituents feel the same way.

People are angry about the lack of transparency. They get in touch with us every day to tell us about the government’s lack of transparency, primarily with regard to the omnibus bills that it brings in for the various budgets.

Unfortunately, there is a double standard here. It is a good thing that these measures are being introduced, but I still have many questions about the fact that the bill is omnibus in nature.

It is sad to see that the Conservatives have to pass this kind of bill in order to get their message across.

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord.

I am rising in this House today to speak to Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and related legislation. This bill affects many pieces of legislation.

We in the NDP believe that this bill will have a positive impact on revenues and will generally discourage tax avoidance. Frankly, a technical tax bill was overdue. I am pleased to see that Parts 2 and 3 of Bill C-48 deal with the taxation of Canadian multinational corporations with foreign affiliates. These changes reflect the proposals made in the budgets of 2007, December 2009, February 2010, August 2010 and August 2011, and I am pleased to see that they seek to ensure the integrity of the tax system and discourage tax avoidance.

The NDP is in favour of cracking down on tax evasion and tax avoidance. That is why my colleagues at the Standing Committee on Finance have been pushing the committee to complete its study on this.

As an aside, I want to thank our official opposition finance critics: the senior critic, the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park, and the deputy critic, the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. Over the past few months, they have done tremendous work on finance bills, including the omnibus budget bills and the current omnibus tax bill. I thank them. Their work is much appreciated, and it helps us to better understand the bills that are being introduced.

I am also pleased to see that this bill makes changes in order to reduce tax evasion. What is more, it seems that the committee will continue its study on the matter this year.

It is quite something to think that it has been 11 years since a bill like this has been passed. Tax practitioners have said time and again that Canada is very far behind because this government has taken too long to legislate these technical changes.

In a report released in 2009, Auditor General Sheila Fraser noted that:

If proposed technical changes are not tabled regularly, the volume of amendments becomes difficult for taxpayers, tax practitioners, and parliamentarians to absorb when they are grouped into a large package.

We could also see that the Department of Finance Canada had at least 400 technical amendments that, unfortunately, had not been enacted. I believe it is crucial that this type of delay does not happen again.

I also agree with the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada, which, during prebudget consultations, proposed to the Standing Committee on Finance that Canada's tax system be modernized to make it simpler, more transparent and more efficient. The association also proposed that a technical tax bill be introduced and passed to deal with unlegislated tax proposals. Finally it suggested that a sunset provision be implemented to prevent further legislative backlogs.

It is also true that the complexity of tax legislation makes this task extremely difficult. Our seniors, our youth and those who do not consider French or English as their first language would obviously prefer a simpler system that is easier to understand. Being a responsible, honest Canadian should not be so complicated.

This huge bill makes things even more complex. We know that this government is a great believer in omnibus bills, as it has demonstrated over the past year with Bills C-38 and C-45. Luckily, this time, I can see that the bill proposes technical amendments to a small number of closely related laws and not laws in other areas. The other two bills, on the other hand, amended laws related to environmental protection, government accountability, immigration, employment insurance and so on.

I still find it ironic that this government is introducing a bill that is so long when it did not hesitate to denounce such a practice before.

During the debate on Bill C-22, Income Tax Amendments Act, 2000, in the 37th Parliament in 2001, my colleague from Calgary Southeast, who is now the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, had this to say:

Let me say at the outset that the bill before us is a classic example of what has gone wrong with parliamentary oversight of legislation, particularly with respect to taxation. The bill before us has some 513 pages of technical amendments. I can say with a fair degree certainty that not a single member of this place, let alone the parliamentary secretary who just spoke or the minister he represents, has read or will read. It is a bill that exercises enormous power over the lives of Canadians through the Income Tax Act which in itself has coercive powers delegated to it by this parliament. The some 500 pages of amendments in the bill are amendments to a tax act which runs over 1,300 pages long.

I think the same observations apply to Bill C-48, especially since it is twice as long as Bill C-22.

I believe that Canadians deserve to be represented by parliamentarians who make sensible decisions when it comes to taxes and spending. Canadians want accountability, and rightly so.

When we see things like the Parliamentary Budget Officer having to take the government to court to get information about how tax dollars are being spent and what cuts are being made to the services Canadians need, I think the public is entitled to ask some questions and to admit that they have lost confidence in this government.

Out of respect for Canadians, a government should be accountable and transparent. Frankly, that should be the very least they can expect.

Since I was first elected, not a day goes by without someone from my riding of Alfred-Pellan contacting me to share their concerns about this government. They are worried about how transparent it is, and if you ask me, they are right to be worried.

In closing, I am thrilled that this bill has been introduced, even though it took a while, because it implements over a decade's worth of highly technical changes to Canada's tax system.

Before I finish, I want to reiterate that the people of Alfred-Pellan contact me often about the omnibus bills. I recently received letters from some of them that I would like to share in the House so that everyone can understand that the public does follow what is going on in Parliament and that it is important to listen to them.

I will quote some of my constituents from Alfred-Pellan. First, Mr. Nadeau said that the Conservative Party is running the country with its own members in mind, and Mr. Nadeau is against the massive bills introduced by the Conservatives. According to him, they are using these bills to try to push through all of their ideas en masse, and it is very sad to see these bills being introduced.

Mr. Prejent said that it is impossible, or at least very difficult, to meaningfully challenge a particular issue. It is becoming clear that this approach allows the government to pull a fast one on the opposition, and by extension the Canadian public.

To Mr. Prejent, I would say that the Canadian public is not affected by extension. This affects the Canadian public directly and the opposition by extension. We see these kinds of things every day.

One of my other constituents, Mr. Jetté, is not happy about these omnibus bills. He said that the Conservatives should talk with the opposition before bringing in such bills, and that it is arrogant and a bit too self-serving not to. He apologized for saying such things, but it is what it is.

I also heard from Mr. Bergeron, who said it was unbelievable that in 2012, the government forgets and fails to listen to the Canadian people.

People are not happy that such bills are being introduced, and I understand. I know how important these amendments can be, especially when things have dragged on and on with this government and also with the Liberals in the past. So it is important to deal with these issues, but we must be cautious. We must also ensure that these laws are useful to the public, because it is extremely complicated to make so many changes in one fell swoop. We must be cautious about the complexity of the law, especially when it comes to taxes.

I think that everyone, in all ridings, just wants to be able to properly fill out their tax returns. We need to give them the right tools. We must make their lives easier and make things as simple as possible.

As parliamentarians, we have a duty to ensure that Canadians trust their government and trust that it is transparent when it manages taxpayer money. Unfortunately that is not always the case with the current government. But I am happy to be part of a team that, in 2015, will show that it is possible to have a government that works fairly, efficiently and transparently.