Anne-Marie Day

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2, December 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am in the House today to talk about this weighty legislative measure. I use the word “weighty” in the sense of heavy and massive. This is a kitchen-sink bill. The Conservatives might need a vocabulary lesson or two.

For example, in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, the word “budget” is defined as:

a periodic (especially annual) estimate of the revenue and expenditure of a country, organization, etc.

Perhaps I should have given them this vocabulary lesson sooner because this is not the first time they have introduced a budget within an omnibus bill. Since winning a majority, they have presented us with 2,190 pages of bills like this one. This time, we are looking at 400 clauses and 460 pages.

Last month, we had just a few hours to attend a budget information session. Naturally, no ministers were at the meeting to answer our questions. They always do the same thing. They use very competent officials to make decisions and those people have to handle the pressure in their stead.

I have to say that the NDP had a lot of questions, but the answers we got were not always satisfactory. I would be remiss if I did not mention the questions that my colleagues from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques and Skeena—Bulkley Valley asked during that meeting.

One of the most offensive divisions of the bill has to do with refugees. When we asked whom the Conservatives had consulted on that division, we were told that they consulted only one province. That is extremely shocking. This is just one more tactic that proves how out of touch they are in their ivory tower.

The bills they introduce, which are clearly meant only to appease their supporters, reek of electioneering and politicking. It is nothing but a smokescreen. The provinces do not want this measure.

The Canadian Council for Refugees is also worried about this division, which infringes on the rights of refugees and does not meet Canada's legal obligations. It even deprives refugees of the right to appeal a decision before an independent tribunal.

Will the Conservatives again have to go through the Supreme Court test, which costs Canadian taxpayers millions of dollars? The Conservatives have not been very lucky so far when it comes to Supreme Court challenges of their legislative measures.

This bill does have the odd worthwhile proposal. We are pleased that the Conservatives have finally adopted one of the NDP's proposals. Canadians will no longer have to pay to receive a paper copy of their invoices through the mail. We have been asking the Conservatives about these pay-to-pay fees for a while now.

In that regard the question was as follows: What will the Conservatives do to ensure that telecommunications and television broadcasting companies do not hide billing fees by increasing the total amount of the invoice? They were unable to answer because no mechanism has been put in place to prevent that from happening. It is shameful. Furthermore, once again, they only used one half of a good idea. They are not keeping their promise to put an end to exorbitant bank fees.

Let us come back to the definition of the word “budget”. Once again the Conservatives have managed to include a multitude of items that are not related to the budget. They are authorizing the amendment of dozens of laws. Like a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat, the government is adding various measures that were never mentioned in a budget speech. It is magic.

Instead of talking about a bill to implement hundreds of budget provisions, we should give it a name that is more representative of the reality.

What I am really dying to ask is why they are resorting to an omnibus bill. I have my own thoughts on that. I believe that the Conservatives like to be able to hide provisions that are so controversial that the public would not accept them if they were the subject of a single bill. The Conservatives like to bury these measures amongst all the omnibus provisions. They like to give more discretionary authority to their ministers without making it too obvious. They like to ignore or sidestep studies, oversight mechanisms and public consultations.

However, they can count on the NDP to be there and to stand up to all this nonsense. This bill shows that the Conservatives do not respect the democratic process of the House. Several recent examples attest to that, such as a member reading a newspaper in the House, the refusal of certain members to appear before committees and so forth.

Just yesterday, the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou asked a very important question about the nutrition north Canada program. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development called the hon. member a socialist in a suit and tie. It takes some nerve. What lack of respect. I cannot get over it.

I have also seen one of the biggest contradictions in my mandate as the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. The Minister of Finance is asking the opposition parties for suggestions for budget 2015, while we are here in the process of debating this omnibus bill. Are they really open to our suggestions? Do they really consider our amendments or is this just another facade?

Whatever the case may be, I want to take this opportunity to make some suggestions to the Minister of Finance. First, he has to forget about income splitting because it benefits only the well off. In any case, the former finance minister, God rest his soul, wanted none of it. We know that it benefits the rich more than the poor. An individual can get a $3,000 tax credit if he earns a lot and maybe $200 if he earns less. An individual who is not entitled to the tax credit gets nothing.

The government also has to stop making cuts to employment insurance. The Conservatives are helping themselves to $550 million from the employment insurance fund. The program created through this bill would generate 800 jobs at most; however, according to economists such as Mike Moffatt, it could encourage businesses to fire people rather than hire them. It is important to remember that there is no evidence to show that this will benefit businesses. Businesses could benefit from the existing tax credit, whether they hire new staff or not. We know that businesses will have to give back part of the $550 million in federal taxes. The government needs to stop making cuts, as it is doing with CBC/Radio-Canada and Canada Post. It must stop cutting well-paying jobs. Canada will become the only OECD country that no longer offers home mail delivery. Finally, the government must stop making cuts to funding for women's groups, change the retirement age back to 65 and put forward a real plan to combat tax evasion.

The NDP wants to implement practical measures to make life more affordable for Canadian families.

I would also like to point out that the Conservative government should phase out subsidies for the oil and gas sectors. The money from those subsidies, which amounts to over $1 billion, could be invested in affordable child care programs, which will have more long-term economic benefits.

As usual, the Conservatives continue to ignore what the provinces, the municipalities, the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the opposition have to say about creating fair, sustainable prosperity in this country.

The New Democrats have consistently opposed the Conservatives' omnibus bills, just as we opposed Paul Martin's omnibus bills in the 1990s.

With this sixth consecutive omnibus budget bill, the Conservatives continue to use bad processes. Canadians deserve better.

[Questions on the Order Paper, December 5th, 2014]

With respect to a bid submitted to the Canada School of Public Service (Bid – ADRM Technology Consulting Group Corp., reference number CSPS-RFP-1112-JS-014): (a) what is the full name of the director of the branch where the bid has been issued; (b) what communication has been sent from the Canada School of Public Service to ADRM Technology Consulting Group Corp. relating to the bid; (c) on what date was the bid awarded to Hassiba Kherif; (d) what communication method has been used to inform ADRM Technology Consulting Group Corp. of the contract reward; (e) on what date was the bid cancelled; (f) for what reason was the bid cancelled; (g) what communication method was used to inform ADRM Consulting Technology Group Corp. of the contract cancellation; (h) if the cancellation bid was communicated through a phone call, has the telephone conversation been documented; (i) what are the details of other bids that have been cancelled between January 2012 and December 2012 at the Canada School of Public Service; and (j) for each cancelled bid referred in (i), what was the communication method used to inform the supplier of the cancellation?

[Status of Women, December 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the member sidestepped the question. I was talking about work.

Too many women are struggling with precarious living conditions. A total of 21% of single mothers in Canada are raising their children in extreme poverty. Every day in Canada, more than 3,000 women go to emergency shelters to escape domestic violence. Every night, approximately 200 of them are turned away because there is not enough room.

How can the government leave these women out on the street?

[Employment, December 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, work is one way for women to become more independent and therefore less vulnerable. For that to happen, they need access to affordable day care.

Will the Conservatives finally face the facts and offer Canadian women the option of returning to the workforce without having to jeopardize family finances?

[Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), November 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question. She always asks very insightful questions.

It is nice to stand up for the dogs who are trained to defend us and it is nice to protect them.

However, the government refuses to conduct an inquiry when over a thousand women have been murdered or gone missing in Canada. That is a double standard.

We are all in favour of this bill, which seeks to protect dogs and punish those who attack them. Through anthropomorphism, these dogs become our friends and members of our family because we love them.

However, if we are being rational, there are more important matters we should be dealing with, such as the issue of the missing and murdered aboriginal women in Canada.

[Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), November 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles for giving me the opportunity to speak to this topic, which isn't exactly what we are debating today, but it has consequences and is found in almost all of the bills this government introduces.

The Conservatives always give discretionary powers to the ministers in their bills. We have seen this with immigration bills, among others, as well as a number of bills I have heard people debate in the House.

This is very dangerous for our democracy. It is a hard thing to control. I have seen a judge use his discretionary power to punish an offender by having him wash windows for community groups for a certain number of hours, because the young offender had broken windows.

If the government imposes minimum sentences, judges no longer have that discretionary power and can no longer hand down punishments that will help offenders rejoin society more quickly.

[Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), November 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to this legislative measure, which is so important that it was part of the throne speech in 2013. I have to say that as I was preparing for this debate, I learned a lot about the work done by service animals. Whether through their work with the police, the army or disabled people, history proves that bonds develop between animals and humans.

This bill is designed to amend the Criminal Code in order to add protections for service animals by toughening sentences in cases of violence against these animals.

I would like to talk to my colleagues about three key aspects of the bill: the important role that service animals play in Canadian society, the government's overuse of minimum sentencing and the message that this bill sends to judges.

In the history of humanity, the domestication of animals was an important step in the emergence of civilization. Clearly, we have made significant progress in how we treat animals. Over time, we have created laws prohibiting all forms of animal cruelty. The NDP has done its share to defend animal rights by introducing bills C-232 and C-592, for example.

As for service animals in particular, humans are able to fill certain gaps by using trained animals. We just have to look at the canine units at law enforcement agencies. Whether we are talking about the RCMP, the provincial police, the Canada Border Services Agency, or the Canadian Armed Forces, animals play an important role in ensuring public safety.

They are used in many situations, whether for helping in search and rescue, detecting explosives or drugs, or pursuing criminals. They are used for tracking missing persons, crowd control, and so forth.

This bill is also referred to as Quanto's law in memory of an Edmonton police service dog who worked with a sergeant. Quanto was stabbed to death trying to stop a fleeing suspect. He had an exceptional service record. He was a decorated dog and was involved in over 100 arrests.

We often think of dogs in canine units, but we must also acknowledge the work of equine units in certain law enforcement agencies. The horses help enhance police officers' visibility in locations that are hard to access.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the exceptional work of service animals who help the disabled to be more functional in our society.

One of my constituents, who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from his deployment in Afghanistan by the Canadian army, recognizes how important his service animal is to his healing process. These animals become a little like family members.

We must not underestimate the cost of training and raising these animals. It costs the RCMP $60,000 to train a single German shepherd. The RCMP currently has 157 police dogs in service across Canada. It costs the MIRA Foundation $30,000 to train a service dog. In spite of the costs, we appreciate the work these animals do.

I think that everyone in the House agrees with everything I have said so far. We all appreciate the work that canine and equine teams do. Problems arise when we take a closer look at the clauses in this bill. As they say, the devil is in the details.

I have a number of questions that I hope we can get some answers to. How many service dogs are attacked each year? What is the real impact of minimum sentences on offenders? What deterrent effect will there be?

I would really like the Conservatives to show us some studies that clearly demonstrate the deterrent effect of minimum sentences. That is why this bill needs to go to committee. In his spring 2014 report, the Auditor General expressed concern about overpopulation in prisons. The needs are desperate and growing, but prisons cannot keep up. Stretch an elastic too far, and it is liable to snap and hit you in the face.

The Auditor General even found a direct correlation between mandatory minimum sentences and overpopulation in prisons.

By continuing to increase minimum sentences, we endangering the very people who use service animals in their work. Is that really what the government wants?

Correctional officers are one of the professional groups at high risk of violence in the workplace. What is even more troubling is that the Auditor General's office believes that prison capacities have been stretched so thin that this could adversely affect offender rehabilitation.

Canadians believe in rehabilitation and social reintegration in correctional environments, but overusing minimum sentences, as this government is currently doing, really worries me and the people of my riding.

Canadians also believe that the efficiency of the justice system depends on competent judges who carefully examine each case individually and render decisions in accordance with our laws.

For the past few years, however, the government has been tying the hands of judges. It is taking away their power to make decisions based on each individual case. As we know, the Conservatives have been rebuked several times in Supreme Court decisions, which is a waste of time and money for Canadians.

We therefore have to be careful about the scope of these laws, so as to not limit judicial discretion in Canada. We must not take any more discretionary power away from our courts of justice.

The NDP denounces any form of cruelty to animals. That is a fact. I would like to take a moment to recognize the terrific work being done by all kinds of service animals and their teams.

However, it is important to think seriously about the consequences of minimum and consecutive sentencing. That is why I recommend that the bill be studied further by experts in civil society, people who use service animals, and above all, legal experts.

[CBC/Radio-Canada, November 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec has asked the Prime Minister to clarify his position on CBC/Radio-Canada.

The insinuations and threats made by Carl Vallée, the Prime Minister's press secretary, to CBC/Radio-Canada's news director are unacceptable. His remarks undermine CBC/Radio-Canada's journalistic independence and cast doubt about whether freedom of information really exists under the Conservative regime.

How can the government claim that CBC/Radio-Canada is an arm's-length corporation when the Prime Minister's Office is interfering in programming?

[Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act, November 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to join with my colleagues in putting our laws in order.

We are talking here about closing a glaring loophole, correcting a serious flaw and providing redress for what was previously a rather cruel reality. That is why most of us got into politics. That is why I did, in any case.

It is also a matter of recognizing that the NDP is a champion in protecting victims, families and loved ones who are grieving

The bill before us today seeks to prohibit the payment of a survivor’s pension, death benefit or orphan’s benefit to an individual who has been convicted of first or second degree murder or manslaughter of the contributor.

I would like to speak to the members of the House regarding three important things about this bill, namely the reason why it was not passed earlier, the fact that it was amended in committee and the connection between the bill and the work of women's groups.

To begin, I would like to talk about the history that led to this bill. The NDP provides a platform for people who are grappling with unjust situations. Many of them come to meetings in our ridings to share their concerns with us.

That was the case with the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain who, in 2011, received a letter saying that a man had murdered his wife and, after being convicted of manslaughter, that individual received a survivor's pension.

A survivor's pension is typically paid to the spouse or common-law partner of a deceased contributor. I find it quite surprising that the person responsible for the death of their spouse or common-law partner can receive that pension.

That same legislative loophole applies to the death benefit or orphan’s benefit when an individual who has been convicted of first or second degree murder or manslaughter of the contributor. The law allows murderers to profit from the death of their spouse or one of their parents, which flies in the face of a well-known principle of law, namely that no offender should benefit from their crime.

However, the eligibility criteria for government benefits allow just the opposite. To fix this situation, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain introduced a bill in June 2011.

Why did the Conservatives wait so long before addressing this flaw? The member for Chatham-Kent—Essex, who sponsored the bill, even admitted that this loophole has been around for a very long time.

The NDP has been calling for these changes for a long time. We are very pleased that we brought this issue to the attention of the government and the House, and in particular the need for legislative amendments.

Furthermore, I must mention the work that was done in the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Since I started my term in 2011, it has been rare to see the government accept amendments to bills. In the version sent to the committee, the bill dealt only with individuals found guilty of first or second degree murder.

Some witnesses pointed out that excluding manslaughter from the bill was a significant flaw. However, as I mentioned earlier, this bill is designed to fix a flaw and not to create more. The NDP's private member's bill, which inspired this bill, also included manslaughter.

According to Heidi Illingworth, the executive director of the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, a great number of family-related homicides and spousal murders result in a plea bargain to reduce the charge to manslaughter.

That is why the NDP wanted to include manslaughter in Bill C-591. The Conservative member for Chatham-Kent—Essex acknowledged that this measure had been proposed earlier by the member for Hamilton Mountain. This idea was taken into account and included in the bill we now have before us.

I also want to talk to the House about what kind of impact this bill will have on Canadians, but especially on women's groups.

I am currently the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. Previously, as members know, I had a career working with women's groups.

As the former president of the Regroupement des groupes de femmes de la région de la Capitale-Nationale in Quebec City, I was confronted with the horrors women face on a daily basis, whether it be harassment, domestic violence and spousal abuse, or sometimes even murder.

Still today, the statistics show that women are much more likely to be victims of spousal homicide. According to police data, in 2011, 81 women and 13 men were victims of spousal homicide in Canada.

Every year in Canada, women and men are murdered, and sometimes the perpetrator is a family member. Now, imagine how bitter those close to the victim are when they find out that the person responsible for their loved one's death collects money as a result.

That just adds salt to the wounds of the victim's loved ones. This bill, which is basically an NDP initiative, eliminates the possibility of a spouse receiving such benefits following a conviction. The Woman Abuse Working Group's action committee expressed its support for Bill C-206 introduced by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain, which the hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Essex reintroduced as Bill C-591.

Now that we see that the government is interested in our initiatives, in our ideas and in the bills we have already introduced, I would like to advise it to consider the bill that the member for Churchill recently introduced, which is a national action plan to deal with violence against women.

Of course, the government could also hold an inquiry into the missing and murdered aboriginal women. In closing, it is important to emphasize that the integrity of the Canada pension plan is of the utmost importance to Canadians.

Years ago, the NDP introduced a bill calling for change. When we see something break, it is important to fix it. A conviction for first or second degree murder, either voluntary or involuntary, is the punishment for a reprehensible act. The offender should not be rewarded for or benefit from the crime.

It is unfortunate that the Conservative government waited so long to introduce a bill to resolve this obvious problem. We therefore support this bill, and we are delighted to see that the Conservatives are finally recognizing the need to fix this problem.

[Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act, November 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Liberal member for following up on that question. I would like to ask him part of the question again.

I have a friend whose father murdered her mother with a rifle in 1986 or 1987. I would therefore like to know as of what year the retroactive measures will apply. Will they go back as far as the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s?