House of Commons Hansard #147 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was commissioner.

Topics

Fisheries and OceansOral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Fredericton New Brunswick

Conservative

Keith Ashfield ConservativeMinister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, our government will continue to advocate and listen to fishers across the country.

I will point out some of the investments that we have made. We have repaired and improved well over 100 small craft harbours in coastal communities across the country. We reduced the tax burden for fishermen by eliminating tax liabilities when fishermen transfer assets and licences to family members. We opened new markets for seafood products.

Perhaps if the party opposite had spent more time listening and consulting they would not be where they are.

PensionsOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

NDP

Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON

Mr. Speaker, once again, Canadians are very worried about their pension security. Clearly, the Conservative government is not willing to protect those hard-earned pensions. In fact, it has actually led the attack against OAS.

The government abandoned Nortel workers, showed indifference to the attacks on defined benefit pensions and made unwarranted changes to the eligibility age for OAS from 65 to 67.

When will the government do its job and protect the seniors of this country?

PensionsOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Haldimand—Norfolk Ontario

Conservative

Diane Finley ConservativeMinister of Human Resources and Skills Development

Mr. Speaker, our government has done exactly that. In fact, we have taken several initiatives to help seniors, especially to help them cope with the financial challenges they face.

For example, we raised the exemption under the guaranteed income supplement from $500 to $3,500 a year so seniors could keep more of their own money. We introduced pension income splitting so seniors could again keep more of their own money. We appointed a minister for seniors to specifically deal with their issues. Ministers have done that very successfully. Unfortunately, the NDP, the member included, have voted against every one of those initiatives to help our seniors.

PensionsOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

NDP

Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

Mr. Speaker, we have reason to doubt what the minister is saying, especially when she speaks about protecting seniors and pensions.

Last spring, she stated that old age security was not sustainable even though many experts and economists said the opposite. Old age security is sustainable.

Now it seems that the Conservatives want to meddle in pensions and old age security. They are threatening to increase the retirement age everywhere. This time, they are taking aim at public service pensions.

Why attack workers and why attack their pensions?

PensionsOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Haldimand—Norfolk Ontario

Conservative

Diane Finley ConservativeMinister of Human Resources and Skills Development

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, it is our government that is going to maintain the old age security system because if we do nothing, which is what the NDP wants, there will not be enough money for the old age security system.

It is a fact that Canada's population is aging and people are living much longer. That means that the cost of the system will increase significantly.

We must protect this system.

Veterans AffairsOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Conservative

Bryan Hayes Conservative Sault Ste. Marie, ON

Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government recognizes the importance of helping Canada's veterans smoothly transition to civilian life. That is why in January the Prime Minister announced a contribution of up to $150,000 to support Helmets to Hardhats Canada. This program is designed to assist Canada's men and women in uniform to find employment opportunities in the construction industry as they transition to civilian life.

Would the minister provide the House with an update on the status of Helmets to Hardhats Canada?

Veterans AffairsOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Lévis—Bellechasse Québec

Conservative

Steven Blaney ConservativeMinister of Veterans Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the member for Sault Ste. Marie for his interest in a successful Canadian initiative for our veterans.

This morning we will launch helmetstohardhats.ca. It is a win-win situation with governments, with businesses and with unions. Yes, we are providing job opportunities in the construction industry for our men and women in uniform as they transition to civilian life.

Helmets to Hardhats is an initiative that allows our veterans to smoothly transition to jobs in the construction sector.

Helmets to Hardhats is open for business.

International CooperationOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS

Mr. Speaker, here we go again, another international embarrassment. We have gone from a high-roller CIDA minister who orders $16 orange juice to a minister who does not have a clue.

At a recent conference in Africa, the new minister claimed that there were no cuts to foreign aid. That is not true. The truth is that $380 million have been cut and most of that aid is from Africa.

There is a drought in the sub-Saharan and millions of lives are at stake. Could the Prime Minister not do better than this and start by telling the truth?

International CooperationOral Questions

3 p.m.

Vaughan Ontario

Conservative

Julian Fantino ConservativeMinister of International Cooperation

Mr. Speaker, while the member and his party are exploiting a human tragedy, we are maintaining our ability to provide international assistance around the world in a timely and fulsome manner. Canadian taxpayer investments are more focused, effective and accountable. We are committed to making a real difference in the lives of people most in need, children and women.

It was this government that doubled our aid to Africa and it was the Liberal government and the member's party that failed to meet their own annual food targets.

Aboriginal AffairsOral Questions

3 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, aboriginal affairs has announced more funding cuts to key aboriginal organizations. These include band advisory services for most first nations, including technical advisors for water systems. Over 100 first nations communities across Canada are under boil water advisories. That is one in five communities.

How can the minister think that the best way to solve this crisis is to cut critical funding? How much longer will he continue to mismanage relationships with first nations?

Aboriginal AffairsOral Questions

3 p.m.

York—Simcoe Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, our government is actually continuing to take concrete steps to create conditions for healthier and more self-sufficient aboriginal communities. That is why we want to ensure that funding for aboriginal organizations is focused and targeted on the delivery of essential services and programs in key areas such as education, economic development and community infrastructure. We will continue to do that in partnership with our first nations.

Foreign AffairsOral Questions

3 p.m.

Conservative

John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC

Mr. Speaker, my constituents, like most Canadians, overwhelmingly support our government's recent principled decision to expel accredited Iranian diplomats and the Syrian ones before that.

Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs confirm for the House that, contrary to a report published today, these diplomats have in fact left Canada?

Foreign AffairsOral Questions

3 p.m.

Ottawa West—Nepean Ontario

Conservative

John Baird ConservativeMinister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his hard work on behalf of Iranian Canadians and human rights. It should be applauded.

I can indeed confirm that, based on information from officials, all 17 Iranian diplomats accredited to Canada as of September 7 have left the country.

Citizenship and ImmigrationOral Questions

3 p.m.

NDP

Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC

Mr. Speaker, a new report shows that migrant workers face systemic exploitation. Temporary foreign workers are particularly vulnerable to abuse. They have no access to permanent residency and there is little oversight. To make life even more difficult, new government changes mean employers can now pay migrant workers 15% less than the average Canadian worker.

Why is the government failing to protect migrant workers from abuse?

Citizenship and ImmigrationOral Questions

3 p.m.

Calgary Southeast Alberta

Conservative

Jason Kenney ConservativeMinister of Citizenship

Mr. Speaker, I reject the premise of the question entirely. First, our government has introduced a policy that allows us to essentially blacklist bad employers of temporary foreign workers. It is up to the provinces, of course, to regulate the workplace and temporary foreign workers have the same rights as all Canadians in that respect.

She is wrong in characterizing the 15% rule. No employer can pay 15% less unless it is a skilled worker and Canadians are getting paid the same wage.

Finally, I find it peculiar that the NDP and the Liberals opposed our effort to bring in statutory authority allowing us to deny visas to people, typically women, who will face humiliating and degrading treatment, for example, in the sex industry.

Employment InsuranceOral Questions

3 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-François Fortin Bloc Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is pillaging billions of dollars from the employment insurance fund. It is reducing workers' coverage to almost nothing. It is no longer an insurance; it is a tax.

The Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses is in Matane today, and tomorrow it will be in Rimouski as part of a major tour to urge Quebeckers to contribute to their own pension plan. The Parti Québécois, which is now in power, is asking that the program be transferred back to Quebec so that it can be used for the purpose it was created: to help workers who lose their jobs.

Is the government open to a discussion in good faith about transferring the employment insurance program back to Quebec?

Employment InsuranceOral Questions

3 p.m.

Haldimand—Norfolk Ontario

Conservative

Diane Finley ConservativeMinister of Human Resources and Skills Development

Mr. Speaker, as a government, our priority is economic growth and job creation. The employment insurance program has been under federal jurisdiction since 1940. We would like to continue working with the provinces and territories on the setbacks that we have in common.

The House resumed from September 17 consideration of the motion that Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims ActGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

NDP

François Pilon NDP Laval—Les Îles, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today, first of all, to wish all members from all political parties a warm welcome back for the fall 2012 session.

More importantly, I rise here today to speak to Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Criminal Code. This bill proposes changes to the provisions of section 737 of the Criminal Code on victim surcharges. The change would double the amount offenders must pay when they receive their sentence, while, more importantly, making the surcharge mandatory for all offenders.

First of all, it is important to explain exactly what a victim surcharge is. It is an additional sanction imposed when an offender who has been found guilty is sentenced. The surcharge is collected and kept by provincial and territorial governments and serves to fund programs and services for victims of crime in the province or territory where the crime was committed.

Bill C-37 proposes to double the amount of the victim surcharge from 15% to 30% of any fine imposed on the offender. The amount would also double for offenders who are not fined. Therefore, the surcharge for an offence punishable by summary conviction would increase from $50 to $100, and for an offence punishable by indictment, from $100 to $200.

Bill C-37 also eliminates the possibility of having a court waive the surcharge if the offender proves that it causes, or would cause, undue hardship. However, judges would have the option, or the discretion, to order the payment of a higher surcharge if they believed it was warranted under the circumstances and if the offender had the means to pay the victim surcharge.

In cases where offenders are unable to pay the surcharge, under Bill C-37 they may be able to participate in a provincial fine option program, where such programs exist.

This type of program would allow offenders to pay off their fines by earning credits for work done in the province or territory where the criminal offence was committed. That is a summary of Bill C-37.

Now, what is the NDP position on this bill? As you certainly are aware, the NDP supported several of the recommendations of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, especially the recommendation that gave rise to Bill C-37. We obviously support better funding for programs for victims of crime.

However, we have some reservations. Some minor changes are needed to improve this bill. That is why we are supporting the bill in order to be able to discuss these amendments in committee.

What are these changes? We mainly have concerns about reducing the discretion of judges to the point that they would no longer be able to decide if payment of a victim surcharge would constitute undue hardship. We are strong supporters of the discretion of the Canadian judiciary and we believe that their autonomy is being curtailed by this bill.

The other major reservation concerns the fine option program mentioned earlier in my speech. Eliminating the paragraph on “undue hardship” and introducing a provision to double the amount of the surcharge will inevitably result in more offenders using the program in question.

There are no objections to this in the provinces where this type of program exists. However, in the provinces where this type of program does not exist, this would create a much more complicated situation. There would be an imbalance that would prevent the provisions of the bill from being equal across the country.

We think that we should discuss solutions, programs and appropriate measures in committee to create some uniformity, which would make this bill applicable with the same measures, same justifications and, in particular, same rules across the country, instead of having to proceed on a case by case basis.

A number of Canadian organizations agree with us and we believe that hearing from them in committee or, at the very least, bringing their opinions into the debate, would only benefit the bill. Among the organizations that have expressed concerns is the Elizabeth Fry Society, which is concerned about the effect of additional surcharges on low-income Aboriginals, who will certainly not have the means to pay them. There is also the John Howard Society, which is not bothered by the monetary penalties, but which is concerned that with this system, the surcharges will be disproportionate to the crimes committed.

In conclusion, we will support this bill at second reading, so that it can be examined more carefully in committee. However, Bill C-37 needs a number of adjustments in order to be complete. A number of people have questions, so we urge our colleagues to act in good faith when the bill gets to committee and, especially, for once, to listen to Canadians.

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the discussion on Bill C-37. Having worked in probation and parole services for about 13 years, I recognize the impact this has on those people with low incomes.

By removing the discretionary powers of the judges, could my colleague enlighten me on the concerns this would create with respect to low-income people, especially the fact that a majority of first nations people would actually be impacted by this as well? Could my colleague can enlighten me as to the impact this would have on those who have very little money to begin with?

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

NDP

François Pilon NDP Laval—Les Îles, QC

Mr. Speaker, if we take away the discretionary power of judges, surely the most disadvantaged will be the hardest hit, especially aboriginals because they very often do not have programs in their communities. In addition to having to pay the surcharge, which the judge cannot reduce, they will not be able to do community work. In the end, they will be the ones to pay the price. Where will they find the money? I have no idea.

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Laval—Les Îles for his speech.

I am reminded of a conversation I had with a correctional officer. He interacted with inmates at a detention centre and said that they too have a future. When a surcharge is imposed on a convicted individual and that person's personal situation is not taken into account, are we not extinguishing hope? I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

NDP

François Pilon NDP Laval—Les Îles, QC

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, for the individuals who must pay a fine when they do not have the means, imposing a surcharge is almost like criminalizing them, in some situations. Where will they find the money? We know very well that some of them will have to turn to petty theft to pay the fine.

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague.

I would like to ask him why it would be important to send this bill to committee to study the fact that not every province or territory necessarily has community work programs.

Why is it important to have standardized programs in this specific case?

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

NDP

François Pilon NDP Laval—Les Îles, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry for her question.

In committee, territories or provinces where these programs do not exist could be discussed. The federal government could perhaps create the programs or give the provinces and territories money to create these programs. However, it would be up to them to decide how to proceed. What is important is that this be standardized across Canada.