Anne-Marie Day

[Main Estimates 2013-14, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about a point of great interest to me, namely women and the Constitution, women and the Senate.

As the member knows, women were not always eligible to sit in the Senate. Indeed, they were not admitted until 1930, and only after fighting for this right. They won after a hard-fought battle, primarily led by five women. It was under Mackenzie King that women finally took their place in the Senate.

It was not the Senate that handed women their victory. Indeed, according to the Senate, women were not persons, and being a person was one of the qualifications required to serve in the Senate. This is still true today under the Constitution. This case, which was settled in 1930, was known as the “Persons Case”.

I raised this point because the member mentioned it. If he had not, I might not have talked about it. As we are well aware, it was a private committee, not the Senate or the Supreme Court of Canada, that ruled in favour of women. That committee was known at the time as the Judicial Committee of the British Privy Council.

To conclude, I would like to say that I am very pleased that the member spoke about this.

[Main Estimates 2013-14, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, who spoke a bit earlier, and this member talked about strengthening the responsibilities of the Senate, which is not very effective. Why have they done nothing about this since 2006, when they came to power?

The Conservatives said in 2004 that they would not appoint anyone else to the Senate. Why then has the Prime Minister made 57 Senate appointments since 2006, and mostly patronage or partisan appointments at that?

[Employment Insurance, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to point out how ironic it is of the Conservative government to use extremely severe and discriminatory methods against honest Canadians who are looking for work when the Prime Minister is prepared to defend his unelected senators, tooth and nail, until they are caught red-handed. Again, those senators are not even required to step down; yet, workers are subjected to very rigorous investigations and practically found guilty from the start. That is what we call a double standard.

Another thing: workers and employers pay their premiums. The government has not been contributing to the employment insurance fund since the 1990s.

Canadians are fed up with these policies that favour cronies and go after honest workers. Honest workers are the ones who drive the economy. They are the ones who want good jobs. They are the ones who are the pride of our regions. They are the ones that run the seasonal sectors.

Canadians deserve better.

[Employment Insurance, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that you have adjourned the debates.

A few weeks ago, while workers in seasonal industries were deep in the black hole, the Conservatives tirelessly continued their disrespectful treatment of unemployed workers.

That was when we found out about a pilot project involving Service Canada inspectors conducting targeted, unannounced home visits to hunt down employment insurance fraudsters.

I immediately questioned the minister, not about the fact that we need to minimize fraud in the system as much as possible, but about how the Conservatives went about doing it and the means they used to achieve their ends.

The witch hunt that lasted all winter long, the duration of the pilot project, was reprehensible. It stigmatized unemployed workers by treating them like criminals and spread the Conservatives' ideological message that unemployed workers are gaming the system.

I have seen some parts of the document that ended up in the media. It was used by Service Canada investigators who are supposed to follow the government's directives. This document very clearly shows that, rather than a simple check, the questions more closely resemble an interrogation in which EI claimants are presumed guilty of fraud and must prove their innocence. Even our justice system does not work like that.

Furthermore, the document clearly encourages bureaucrats to assume the worst about unemployed Canadians and find fraud at every turn. This kind of investigation, which borders on bullying, places additional pressure on families that are already struggling and that are doing their best to find a work. They are trying to continue working in fundamental economic sectors and often live in our regions.

Everyone agrees that if we want to protect the fund and make the money available to those who need it most, we need to detect fraud. However, the Conservatives must find a better way to balance protecting our social safety net with respecting an individual's privacy.

This intimidating pressure only adds fuel to the fire. In addition to being unemployed and in an economically precarious situation, people are angry. When it was announced that inspectors would come by, demonstrations erupted in the Magdalen Islands to make the government understand that the inspectors were not welcome.

How can the government ensure the safety of federal agents when it sends them to work in such conditions? Can the government guarantee that the pilot project will not be renewed, and will it instead address the problems caused by its EI reform?

[Petitions, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present several petitions concerning the employment insurance reforms that are buried in Bill C-38. The public is still opposed to these reforms.

[Employment Insurance, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I hate to burst the hon. member's bubble. The most recent employment insurance monitoring and assessment report shows that the job situation in Canada has become more precarious. In 2011 and 2012, temporary work arrangements accounted for 13.7% of all employees, the largest such share since comparable data were recorded 15 years ago.

Why are the Conservatives butchering employment insurance with a policy that does not really reflect this new reality?

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment to the Liberals.

One of their members took the time to repeatedly talk about a small plastic plane, but he was at the wrong place. If they want to talk about wasting time, then we have come full circle.

In 1996, the Witness Protection Program Act designated the RCMP commissioner the program's administrator.

Is the RCMP commissioner still responsible for administering the program? If so, how does he connect with the provinces, who have their own police forces, since their laws are different and they have their own witness protection programs?

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question about funding.

Last year, 30 of the 108 candidates received funding. Ninety-nine of them were not funded. All this cost $9 million. Members will admit that this is still quite costly.

Now the program is to be extended to gangs. The reasoning is that there is a real need to take action and tackle crime. We support the bill.

How will the process be carried out? What about the 99 candidates who were not granted protection? How are certain candidates chosen over others? Will it be based on the financial implications associated with their actions as witnesses? Will people be treated fairly and equitably when there are witnesses? If dealing with terrorism, for example, will the process be based on the incident? What are the criteria?

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, on April 5, the Barreau du Québec sent a letter to the Minister of Justice. The letter is easy to find, since it has been made public.

The letter contained recommendations, including an amendment to Bill C-51 in relation to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I will list a few of them.

These questions have to do with the terms for lifting the protection granted to witnesses, the circumstances that allow an individual to maintain that he or someone else has always had the same identity, and the disclosure and communication of confidential information in relation to the witness with the right of the accused to make a full answer in defence, in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Were the Barreau du Québec's recommendations to the Minister of Justice taken into consideration?

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the bill does not contain a provision allowing an independent body to administer the program in accordance with the recommendations in the report.

My question is as follows. After Air India, is the RCMP not in a conflict of interest with this bill? Is there a way to bring in an outside judge, as is done when the police are involved in an accident? In that case, another police service is asked to get involved and judge the case.