Anne Minh-Thu Quach

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand that the debate brings out very passionate opinions. I have two things to say. First, I find it laughable that the Conservatives are always talking about costs. How much does a life cost? Is it not worth investing in a tool that is used by police for prevention and to save lives? A study by the Institut national de santé publique du Québec estimates that over 2,100 lives have been saved as a result of the registry. That is what I have to say about costs. I think that everyone agrees that life is priceless. We must therefore take action.

In the second part of the question, the member said that the registry is useless, but on the contrary, it is useful. When someone commits a crime using a firearm, the information in the registry may lead police to the owner of that firearm. That is the starting point for an investigation. This is useful information.

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time I have risen in the House to ask the Conservative members and the members of the opposition to keep the firearms registry. Conservative and opposition members, there is still time to preserve this very important tool that saves thousands of lives. We have had a great deal of debate about Bill C-19 since it was introduced in the House on October 25, 2011.

My NDP colleagues and I have proposed a number of amendments in order to preserve and improve the registry and all the data that has been accumulated over the years, most of which has been paid for by Canadians. I hope that the Conservatives will heed our call and that of the people of Canada.

In a democracy like ours, citizens have rights and responsibilities. A constitutional state such as Canada must constantly juggle the well-being of society as a whole and the rights of individuals. It is possible to find a balance between the two.

One of the primary responsibilities of a democratic state is to ensure its population's safety. That is why we have laws governing the consumption of alcohol and cigarettes, and laws governing driving. It is important for individuals to maintain their personal freedom, their freedom to choose, but the state must also ensure the safety of all its citizens.

As far as I know, no one questions the importance of having a driver's licence. The fact that an individual has to show that he can drive a vehicle without endangering the safety of others does not take away his right to drive but simply governs it. An individual who takes a test to get a driver's licence is not necessarily a dangerous driver nor is he considered as such. It is the same thing for those who own firearms. Individuals who own firearms are not potential criminals. The fact that they have to request a permit and register their firearm does not make them dangerous. In this case, the purpose of the law is to prevent individuals who are dangerous to society from owning a weapon that could be used to take the life of another individual. This seems simple and logical to me.

The state has the duty to protect its most vulnerable populations, including children, women and men who are victims of domestic violence. Remember that one in three women who died at the hands of their husbands were shot. Since the firearms registry was introduced, the rate of spousal homicide has decreased by 50%.

Nathalie Provost, who was a student at École Polytechnique in Montreal in 1989, also believes that the government should put certain parameters on individual liberty for people who own a weapon. She was seriously injured in the tragedy and still carries the scars that can result from such weapons.

Hayder Kadhim, who survived the shooting on September 13, 2006, at Dawson College in Montreal, also advocates for a registry. Every day, he lives with the painful memory of his friend Anastasia DeSousa dying that day. The École Polytechnique, Concordia and Dawson College massacres should serve to remind us of the importance of keeping all Canadians safe. We seem to have short memories.

Protecting the public also means caring about young people in distress who are contemplating suicide. Rifles and shotguns are often used by people trying to commit suicide. Ironically, this week is the 22nd edition of Suicide Prevention Week in Quebec. I would like to commend the crucial work being done by mental health professionals and street outreach workers who, day in and day out, pour their hearts and souls into supporting people in distress and people struggling with dark thoughts. We must stand together, and suicide is not an option.

Despite all that, unfortunately, prevention does not appear to be part of the Conservatives' public safety strategy or a priority for them. Instead of spending billions of dollars to build new prisons and passing on costs to the provinces, it could reform some of these tools that are vital to preventing violence and listen to the experts.

Consider the facts. Police officers consult the firearms registry over 17,000 times a day. The Institut national de santé publique du Québec estimates that over 2,000 lives have been saved since the registry was implemented. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police considers it essential.

Just today, we contacted the Sûreté du Québec in my riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry, which is located on the U.S. border and has problems with the smuggling of firearms and cigarettes. The Sûreté du Québec believes the registry is a necessary, indispensable and effective tool. It is one of a number of sources of information that allow the police to have a more complete file on suspects before taking action.

The RCMP, Sûreté du Québec and Canada Border Services Agency regularly use the registry. According to a survey, 92% of police officers use the Canadian firearms information system and, of these, 74% stated that the query results helped with their major operational activities.

Police can access the registry from their vehicles and can use the information in their initial risk assessment. The registry also helps to break up crime networks involved in arms smuggling. The centralized and computerized registration system allows police officers to quickly track a gun and obtain the file on the owner.

Consequently, some provinces, such as Quebec, have reiterated that they want to create their own registry and have asked Ottawa to not destroy the data. The Conservatives are completely ignoring the security needs of the provinces, just as they ignored the provinces' requests in terms of health, retirement and the environment. When will this government finally sit down with the provinces, the stakeholders and the experts to improve the registry? Why is this government turning a deaf ear, when it claims that law and order are its priorities for society? It makes absolutely no sense and is inconsistent.

It is true that improvements must be made to the gun control system. However, the NDP has been suggesting various improvements and changes since 2010. The following are a few of the ideas contributed by the official opposition. First, we must ensure that everyone who buys a long gun has a permit. This is currently not the case with this bill. For that reason, we propose to amend clause 11 of Bill C-19. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have rejected all our amendments from the outset. With this bill, it will not be mandatory to verify whether the buyer of a long gun has a permit. That is not right.

We must also require businesses to keep an inventory of firearms. This bill makes no mention of that. We must also simplify the registration process and the paperwork, and reduce the cost of registration. Everyone agrees on that. We have to ensure that the data are used properly and that citizens' privacy is respected. We must also take into account the ancestral rights of aboriginals. We must ensure that semi-automatic weapons are classified as dangerous and prohibited weapons.

This is a constructive approach. We must sit down for discussions, and continue to consult experts and the provinces and territories, but this Conservative government still refuses to do so for the sake of ideology, for the sake of satisfying the needs of a minority.

The Conservatives are willing to jeopardize public safety just to please that minority. Their words are inconsistent. On one hand, they want to increase the number of prisons and transfer the cost of prisons to the provinces in the name of enhancing public safety, and, on the other hand, they want to take away a necessary tool that police officers are calling for, also in the name of public safety. They want to have it both ways. It is hard to make any sense of it.

I call on the government to be open and willing to compromise for once, and to make smart reforms to the Canadian firearms registry, or Bill C-19, which is not ready to be voted on in its current form since so many things still need to be improved. We still have time if the Conservatives are willing.

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, January 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. He referred to all of the problems with the stock market in 2008. The government had to intervene because the rules governing the market failed. Governments reinvested in banking systems. This suggests that Bill C-25 is very dangerous and risky for the people, who would take on all of that risk. Many union leaders and economists have said that we would be better off enhancing the Quebec pension plan and the Canada pension plan, which would cost no more than going ahead with the proposal in Bill C-25. Let us choose stability and security for retirees and seniors.

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, January 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for his question. I will concentrate on what we are discussing, namely, Bill C-25. When we talk about contributing to a public plan and helping people, we must take into account the economic times. Right now, we are in a situation where we must help people, not further jeopardize their future. It is said that we are in a precarious situation and that we must be careful with our money. If we must be careful with our money, we have to be careful with the money of Canadians in general. If we allow people to contribute to a stable system like the CPP or the QPP, we are showing them that we are fiscally responsible and that we respect them. We cannot play Russian roulette with their savings. In addition, people who want to save for their retirement already have access to RRSPs and TFSAs. According to the statistics I have here, 70% of people do not contribute to RRSPs or TFSAs because they do not—

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, January 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour for me to rise in this House as a member of Parliament to speak on behalf of the people of Beauharnois—Salaberry. I would like to take this opportunity to wish all my colleagues and everyone in Beauharnois—Salaberry a happy new year. I especially want to thank my assistants, who work hard and do an excellent job.

I am very proud to be here to represent Canada, a country that to me and to many of my constituents represents not only a peaceful and welcoming land and a land of opportunity, but also a society that respects individual differences, that takes into account individual social realities and protects the least fortunate. In these tough economic times, it is very important to remember this country's basic values, the values of solidarity and justice that are the envy of countries the world over.

It is in that spirit that I rise today to speak to the fundamental issue of the retirement of Canada's seniors. What the Conservative government is proposing here in its Bill C-25 is a legal framework for the establishment of pooled registered pension plans. These plans are designed for self-employed workers and workers in small and medium-sized businesses who do not have access to the pension plans of large companies or the public service. The goal is commendable, but my colleagues and I fear that this bill will do nothing to resolve the problem retirees are facing.

Bill C-25 would create a new kind of savings plan, the pooled registered pension plan, enabling plan members to pool their funds. Employees would contribute a portion of their earnings to a retirement fund, and that money would be invested in stocks, bonds and investment funds, which are very volatile. The plan would be administered by the banking sector—once again, the private sector—and employers would be able to contribute if they wanted to. As for any other defined contribution plan, the amount of money available upon retirement is not guaranteed. I repeat: no guarantees. That is very risky. In 2008, we saw the bottom fall out of the stock market, eating away at people's savings in the process. We all suffered as a result. Given the subprime mortgage scandal that dragged financial institutions worldwide into a huge mess, we have reason to be skeptical about the future of our savings.

The Minister of Industry says that the plans provided for in Bill C-25 would give workers “an innovative new, privately administered, low-cost and accessible pension vehicle”. Let us take a closer look at that.

The government makes many claims in this bill, but does not back those claims up with fact. We already have optional savings plans, such as registered retirement savings plans, or RRSPs. These programs work well for the middle class, but there are still over 12 million Canadians who do not contribute to optional plans because they do not have any money to save.

I should not have to point out that one in four Canadians works at a low-paying job and has trouble making ends meet as it is. In my riding alone, 12% of residents are seniors. More than one in ten of my constituents lives on very little income.

Bill C-25 would entrust responsibility for the proposed retirement funds to the private sector because, according to the government, the private sector will save us money. Yet Bill C-25 does not cap the management costs or fees that fund managers can charge. Small-scale management will increase management fees, and once again, workers will foot the bill.

Entrusting these plans to the public system would ensure far greater economies of scale and the burden would not be on the workers. We should not forget that we are talking about self-employed workers and employees of small and medium-sized businesses. I do not believe that they would like to have their savings eroded by management fees or inflation. Yes, I did say by inflation because the plan proposed by the Conservatives will not be indexed to the cost of living. Once again, it is fairly risky.

The government claims that the proposed pension plans will be accessible. If we consider that more than 60% of Canadians do not contribute to a pension plan at work, it is naive to believe that another plan, similar to what is already available on the market, will spur people to save, especially if there is no guarantee that their employer will contribute to the fund.

The Australian example clearly illustrates the limitations of such a savings plan. An analysis of the Australian super fund, a similar program, shows that even though people saved, the return on investment was not much higher than inflation, a disappointing result due mainly—and I will say it slowly—to the high management costs in the private sector.

The pooled registered pension plan does not resolve the basic issue that we are currently facing: how to ensure all Canadians can retire with dignity, no matter their financial situation. What the government is not saying is that it intends to slash the whole Canada pension plan. The statements made by the Prime Minister in Davos, Switzerland, provide insight into this government's real intentions. The Conservatives want to make changes to the Canadian retirement income system. But what are they? We have every reason to believe that they will slash public programs that Canadians value.

We should not forget that old age security is the last defence against poverty and isolation, and it is vital to those who have lived and continue to live on low income and who have not been able to save for their old age. Many women are in this situation, because they hold the majority of part-time or precarious jobs. If programs such as old age security are cut, that will have a direct impact on the physical and psychological health of the most vulnerable in our society.

Well, I would remind the Prime Minister and the members of the government that they have an obligation to govern for all Canadians, including seniors, regardless of their earnings or their financial status. If the Conservatives really want to make reforms that will ensure the continuity of the Canadian pension system, we in the opposition have four alternatives to propose.

First, we must increase Canada pension plan and Quebec pension plan benefits. Both plans are working perfectly well and simply need investments. Some 93% of the population already contributes to those plans, which is very effective. Second, we need to work with the provinces to make it easier for people to contribute to an individual pension plan. Third, we need to amend federal legislation to ensure that when businesses go bankrupt, they do not take off with all of the workers' savings. Fourth—so there are several choices—we must increase the guaranteed income supplement to lift seniors out of poverty and help them live in dignity.

How will we achieve all of this? Where will we get the money? That is what the Conservatives always ask. Well, we make political choices, social choices. Instead of handing billions of dollars in tax breaks to large corporations that are already earning huge profits, we could redistribute that revenue equitably and fairly among the population.

Must I remind the House that over a million Canadian seniors live below the poverty line? That is serious. Thus, the federal government has a responsibility towards our seniors. It should be investing in areas where it could make a real difference in public pension plans, instead of letting financial institutions and insurance companies line their pockets.

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, January 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to something that the member opposite touched on when he spoke about the shared responsibility of employees, employers and the government, and the viability of the PRPP system being proposed by the Conservatives.

We find this system to be completely disconnected from reality for a number of reasons, mainly because the risks would be borne only by employees. They are being offered a plan that would produce results based on the market. We hope that the investment income will grow. However, we know that Australia introduced this type of plan and realized, 12 years later, that the plan was completely ineffective because management fees were too high and inflation was almost as great as income. This plan does not provide any guarantee that investments will grow in the end.

If all the risks are borne by employees, what responsibility will the government and employers have?

[National Strategy for Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI) Act, December 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the importance of the bill being introduced today by the hon. member for Etobicoke North. Nearly 75,000 Canadians live every day with multiple sclerosis, a very debilitating, chronic autoimmune disease. Canada has one of the highest incidences of MS in the world: one person in 500 is affected by the disease. In Canada, three people are diagnosed every day and the disease often strikes people in the prime of life.

Multiple sclerosis is a complex and incurable disease, and the cause is not yet fully understood. It attacks the central nervous system and is characterized by episodes during which symptoms disappear or reappear. Living with multiple sclerosis means living with many physical disabilities. Symptoms include vision problems, muscle pain, tingling or numbness in the extremities, loss of balance, impaired speech and sometimes even partial or total paralysis.

Although multiple sclerosis is incurable for now, medical research has found drugs for managing the symptoms. Some treatments help reduce the attacks and slow the progression of the disease. However, the drugs are often quite expensive and are not always covered by insurance. Life for those with MS is very difficult. Finding out that you have a chronic, incurable disease when you are 18, 19, 20 or 35 and that you will have to live with its effects for the rest of your life is painfully difficult.

The hon. member for Etobicoke North spoke about the discoveries made by an Italian doctor, Dr. Paolo Zamboni. In 2009, he published a study that seemed to show that multiple sclerosis might be linked to poor blood circulation in the neck veins. The Italian researcher called this problem chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency, or CCSVI. His study raised the hopes of many who suffer from multiple sclerosis.

Other studies have been conducted in a number of countries to try to establish whether there is a link between venous insufficiency and multiple sclerosis. Some clinics in the United States, Poland and Italy have begun unblocking veins to help alleviate patients' suffering. The procedure, which is called angioplasty, has produced astounding results in some cases. Patients say that their symptoms decreased by 50% to 80%. In some cases, they regained some of their mobility. Other patients, however, did not experience any beneficial effects. In addition, at least two Canadian patients who went abroad to receive treatment died as a result of the procedure.

One of the problems with the CCSVI treatment is the lack of international standards. Techniques vary, as does the quality of treatment. Private clinics that offer treatment are not all supervised. It is also important to point out that researchers do not agree on CCSVI. Some articles confirm Zamboni's hypothesis, while others refute it, which is why it is important to conduct clinical trials, as called for by the member for Etobicoke North.

In June 2011, a few months ago, the federal government announced that it would provide funding for the first two phases of clinical trials. On November 25, it launched a request for research proposals, some 13 months after the initial request made by the hon. Liberal member. The research team will be selected in March 2012. It will not begin its trials until May 2012. That is an extremely long time from now. It is far too long.

In a phase I trial, a small group of people is selected to evaluate the safety of the procedure. Phase II trials are performed on a larger group of patients and are designed to assess the efficacy of the procedure. We look forward to getting reliable results. The government could have launched clinical trials as early as 2009, but it took the opposition's insistence for the government to finally take action. Patients are waiting. It is time to act.

The government says that we have to trust the scientific data, and that is precisely what we are asking it to do, to trust the scientific data and to proceed as quickly as possible with clinical trials conducted by health researchers. The government has to move on this as soon as possible. It has to show political will and leadership on this matter, which is vital to thousands of patients in Canada alone. Until there is a cure for this disease, we have to help those living with multiple sclerosis and their families.

Many people who have MS must use a wheelchair to get around. We know that there are still many barriers to mobility in our buildings. Some people have to renovate their homes, others have difficulty finding suitable housing, and still others even have to live in long-term care facilities. Daily life is not easy.

Despite the disease and its symptoms, many people continue to work, some full time and some part time. In order to lead an active life, they often have to count on help from their loved ones. Our society should recognize that care. There are a number of things we could do to support people who have MS and their families. For instance, the federal government could make employment insurance sickness benefits more flexible so that people who have MS can work part time without losing any income.

The government could also offer refundable tax credits to people with a disability and to family caregivers. Many family caregivers have also been calling for tax benefits, given their very difficult financial situation.

Society as a whole must engage in the fight against MS. Canadian researchers must advance the science and find a cure for this disease. Our governments must commit to supporting not only research, but also the people who have the disease in their quest for a healthy life.

We therefore support the bill introduced by the member for Etobicoke North. We hope it will pass quickly and that the government will manage the clinical trials effectively in order to find solutions to this terrible disease as soon as possible.

As I said earlier, the government must show political will and leadership so the scientists can begin the clinical trial process and so that MS patients can finally have access to Dr. Zamboni's treatment, or any other treatment that is proven safe, effective and reliable by our experts in health research.

[International Trade, December 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, as part of the European Union free trade negotiations, talks have been under way since 2009 to get Canada to agree to extend patent protection for prescription drugs by at least three years, which would increase their price by close to $3 billion. An independent report published this summer and commissioned by the European Commission indicates that this agreement could have a negative impact on consumers of pharmaceutical products in Canada.

In light of this report, will the government finally protect the interests of Canadians and our health care system?

[Senate Reform Act, December 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her fiery remarks that shed some light on the Conservative government's anti-democratic and unconstitutional practices.

Bill C-7 clearly has flaws. Despite the fact that this bill has been introduced three times by the Conservatives, it still has flaws. That shows there is no democracy in the government's will. In addition, the Senate has voted at least twice against the interests of Canadians. For example, it killed a bill on climate change and another bill allowing Canada to send generic drugs to Africa to fight AIDS. Those bills were passed in the House of Commons, but were defeated by the Senate. Meanwhile, a lot of Canadians were in favour of that bill.

Where is the legitimacy? Where is the democracy? How is keeping the Senate relevant, if it goes against the interests, the values and the democracy that Canadians cherish?

[Senate Reform Act, December 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague what he thinks of the fact that the bill is undemocratic because senators will be appointed by the Prime Minister. Furthermore, even if the provinces do hold elections—and at their own expense—the Prime Minister is under no obligation to consider the senators elected by the provinces.

It is undemocratic, not to mention unconstitutional, because the provinces must be consulted—which has not at all been the case—anytime there is a proposal to change key elements of the Constitution.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.