Sadia Groguhé

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about unrestricted access to the commission, something that would ultimately be necessary for the success of this bill. Could he further expand on this?

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

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

The NDP argued that we need to do more to address harassment issues. Not only is harassment a serious problem within the RCMP, but the men and women involved absolutely need help and support to deal with these situations.

Would our colleague comment on that?

[Petitions, February 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition in support of Bill C-400, introduced by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. The bill would create a strategy for adequate, accessible and affordable housing.

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am disheartened to see that the Conservatives are once again reluctant to support this motion, especially since Canada has a serious infrastructure deficit and this sector is plagued by chronic delays.

Although the Liberals had nothing to do with this deficit or delay, I thank my colleague for supporting this motion. I have a question for him about the idea of a long-term infrastructure plan. The NDP thinks that obviously, this is an investment in the economy and not an expense.

What does the member think?

[Citizenship and Immigration, February 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the minister’s decision to deny refugee claimants access to health care is having a growing number of repercussions. Legal action was taken today to challenge these dangerous budget cuts. Lives are at stake, and the minister is defending a policy that would deprive people of vital care that is anything but a luxury. Doctors are in the best position to determine who needs care and what kind of care is appropriate.

When is the minister going to admit that he made a mistake and cancel the health care budget cuts?

[Citizenship Act, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to speak to Bill C-425, introduced by the hon. member for Calgary Northeast.

First, it is important to mention that the main principle behind this legislation seems laudable, even though some parts have serious flaws that would also have serious consequences.

The hon. member wants to reward permanent residents who join the Canadian armed forces by speeding up citizenship approval, and the official opposition supports that idea.

The suggestion to reduce from three to two years the required period of residence in Canada to grant citizenship to a member of the armed forces meets several objectives.

It would allow us to better recognize and value the contribution of the newcomers who join our armed forces.

Our military make sacrifices. Sometimes, they even make the ultimate sacrifice. As parliamentarians, it is our duty to give them all the recognition they deserve. Therefore, acknowledging this exceptional contribution by speeding up citizenship approval would be welcome.

Moreover, this initiative would support the Canadian Forces' will to promote greater diversity in their ranks.

Currently, visible minorities account for only 6% of the Canadian armed forces. That is clearly not enough, considering that, by the end of the decade, visible minorities will account for 20% of the labour force. If the proposed measure can promote greater representation for ethnocultural communities in our armed forces, we will be happy to support it.

After all, the Canadian Forces serve the community and act as representatives abroad. Therefore, it is essential that they reflect the diversity of Canadian society.

That said, several aspects of Bill C-425 are quite problematic.

First, I am particularly concerned about the issue of renunciation of citizenship.

The bill provides that a citizen or a legal resident of a country other than Canada is deemed to have made an application for renunciation of his Canadian citizenship if he engages in an act of war against the Canadian armed forces. Also, a permanent resident who commits such an act would also be deemed to have withdrawn his application for Canadian citizenship.

The fact is that there is no definition of the expressions “act of war” and “legal resident” in Canadian law.

Also, there is no mention in the text submitted by the member for Calgary Northeast of the processes that, for example, would follow an accusation of act of war. Consequently, the bill does not have the necessary legal basis for its implementation and it would be totally dependent on judicial interpretation.

The scope of the legislation proposed by the hon. member is very broad, unless benchmarks are included regarding its legal basis and the resulting processes.

So, it is essential that the committee look at ways to define the terms used in the bill and spell out the process related to this possible renunciation of citizenship.

The operationalization of Bill C-425 is also problematic.

First, the basic requirement to join the Canadian Forces is to be a Canadian citizen. The only possibility for a permanent resident to join is to get an authorization from the Chief of the Defence Staff to fill a special need, or because of a significant lack of human resources, which is presently not the case.

Only a very small minority will be able to take advantage of the bill’s positive aspects.

As a matter of fact, during the discussions that have taken place at second reading, the sponsor of the bill has been unable to provide us with information about the number of people who might be affected by this measure.

There is therefore some research that should be conducted on this point. In addition, we think it is fair to wonder whether the government’s real objective here is not the renunciation of Canadian citizenship much more than it is the recognition of military service.

The delays in obtaining citizenship also deserve particular attention.

Right now, nearly 300,000 permanent residents are waiting to be granted Canadian citizenship. Consequently, despite the good will of the bill’s sponsor, the reality is that departmental cutbacks have significantly reduced the pace at which files are handled at all levels.

The handful of permanent residents who, according to the current version, will be able to take advantage of the proposed measure will not be much further ahead because of the huge backlog of applications.

In addition, I am wondering about the way in which the government has prioritized its action. The minister announced cuts of $80.3 million in the last budget, he is shutting down visa application centres and scaling down client services at CIC.

Delays in all immigration programs are escalating all the time. People are having trouble reaching staff members, and thousands of applicants are paying for the minister’s mistakes.

There is therefore a dichotomy between the bill introduced by the member and the decisions being made by the current government. As the system is being gutted, my colleague is proposing to accelerate processing of citizenship applications for permanent residents who might be able to serve in the Canadian Forces.

That being said, I agree with the bill’s principle and direction, and I think it necessary to support the bill at second reading, so that it can be reviewed in depth in committee. However, several elements that will make the bill acceptable in both its content and its implementation will have to be included.

The notions of “act of war” and “legal resident” should be defined in the bill in order to limit the potential for judicial interpretation. The process surrounding the renunciation of citizenship must also be considered. We will have to debate this part of the bill and flesh it out. It would be completely shameful for the government to create two classes of citizens without any debate or real consultation.

We must also consider the scope of the bill and potentially broaden it. It would be short-sighted to make legislative amendments that affect so few individuals.

In closing, I believe that we must consider Bill C-425. However, it seems clear to me that we must work together to limit its potential for abuse and optimize its application. This will allow us to come back to the House with a document that meets its original objectives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my hon. colleague on her speech.

Several members, including the member who just spoke, have mentioned the huge size of the bill. A great deal of legislative work remains to be done on this bill.

What does the member think of the repercussions this will have on both the assessment work and on the business community?

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.

In his speech, he said that the NDP thinks we must fight tax avoidance and tax evasion, while preserving the integrity of our tax regime.

In this case, could my colleague tell us what he thinks about the importance of compliance? This plays a key role in maintaining that integrity.

[The Economy, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, when promises are made but not kept, people lose confidence.

The latest economic data from the manufacturing sector are extremely disturbing. It is reported that the sector has declined by 3.1%, and that will cause considerable downward pressure on our GDP.

Eighty-two per cent of businesses report a drop in sales. They are losing $1.5 million a month. That is the largest drop since the 2009 recession.

When will there be a growth plan for all economic sectors?

[The Environment, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of the Environment said for the umpteenth time in seven years that greenhouse gas emissions regulations for the oil sector will be announced soon.

The Conservatives made the same promise in 2011.

Therefore, it is not surprising that Canadians and our largest trading partner, the United States, have doubts about whether the Conservative government really intends to fight climate change.

When exactly will the regulations go into effect? How much will it cost businesses to comply?