Annick Papillon

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time today with the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to support the motion moved by my esteemed colleague from Hamilton Centre. This motion, which would give the Chief Electoral Officer the power to request documents he deems necessary to investigations, is very important to me.

Canadians' right to vote is a symbol of democracy and something we can all be proud of. This right gives qualified voters the right to express their personal opinions freely and confidentially. This precious right is essential to the proper functioning of our democratic society.

Today, March 8, is International Women's Day, and I think it is important to note that this right was granted to Canadian women in 1918. The acquisition of this right was one of many pivotal moments in the history of Canadian democracy. Unfortunately, events of the past few days are anything but reassuring. The latest information from across the country suggests that some of our fellow citizens were tricked and thus deprived of their right to vote. These allegations are alarming.

I would like to briefly review the events that point to a need to strengthen Elections Canada's investigative powers.

Last week, we learned that during the 2011 election, robocalls falsely informed voters that their polling station had changed. Other individuals received harassing phone calls from people claiming to work for the party those individuals supported. These tactics persuaded voters not to cast their ballots. Should these allegations prove true, they would constitute very serious election fraud, and that is why they must be treated with the respect our Canadian democracy deserves.

Since this information surfaced, Elections Canada has been so overwhelmed with calls from individuals claiming to be victims of fraudulent calls that it has made an online form available to simplify the complaints process. At least 31,000 complaints have been received so far.

I would note that Elections Canada is a non-partisan, independent organization that ensures that Canadians can exercise their democratic right to vote. Elections Canada plays a key role in preserving a fair and honest democracy.

The problem is that there are currently no controls over the use of robocalling. Parties are not subject to privacy legislation or rules governing telephone solicitation. Parties are only required to comply with the provisions of the Criminal Code and the Canada Elections Act.

For that reason, the Chief Electoral Officer recently complained that he could not carry out proper investigations without full transparency by all parties.

In fact, the Chief Electoral Officer submitted a series of recommendations to the Speaker of the House of Commons on legislative reform after the 40th general election. He asked for the power to request that political parties provide “any documents and information that may be deemed necessary to verify compliance with the requirements of the Act with respect to the election expenses return”.

At present only local campaigns must file documentary evidence to support their election expenses returns. In his request, the Chief Electoral Officer indicated that his provincial counterparts have this authority, and he also pointed out that political parties receive public funds based on their election expenses returns.

The NDP wants to give the Chief Electoral Officer the authority to ask for documentation if he considers it necessary. This would ensure that the Chief Electoral Officer has the information he needs to fulfill his obligations under the Canada Elections Act. According to a report released last week, in committee, Conservatives opposed the Chief Electoral Officer's request that he have the authority to demand invoices and documents from political parties.

Now, the government is saying that it was not aware that Elections Canada claimed that it did not have the powers or the resources to investigate as it should. I now hope that the government will stop putting its head in the sand and will finally provide the Chief Electoral Officer with the power he requested so that he can conduct a full investigation.

Another aspect of the motion moved today would ensure that all telecommunication companies that contact voters during a general election are registered with Elections Canada.

Elections Canada is now spending a lot of time and a lot of taxpayers' money to find the telecommunication companies involved in the scandal and trace them back to their clients. Right now, there is a lack of responsibility from these telemarketing companies, which is particularly problematic when we consider the trend toward the outsourcing of calls and the use of automated telecommunications.

This results in a system where an increasing number of the tools that can be used during election campaigns require less and less accountability and are harder and harder to trace.

Under our motion, the identity of telecommunication company clients will have to be registered and verified so that it would be impossible for the imaginary Pierre Poutine of the non-existent Separatist Street in Joliette to order automated calls.

If those involved had not known that their actions would be difficult to trace, they would have never authorized the calls that disrupted voting on the very day of the election. The registration of telecommunication companies and their clients would prevent this type of scandal from happening again in the future. The NDP is continuing to do everything it can to resolve the current scandal. The Conservatives, on the other hand, will continue to divert attention and blame others without addressing the issue head-on.

In fact, since the rigged calls were first revealed, the government has only admitted that there were some irregularities in the riding of Guelph, in Ontario. As for the rest, including the repeated automated calls to destabilize their opponents, the government has been saying that the allegations are exaggerated. If such is truly the case, the Conservative Party should not have any reason to prevent the implementation of a registry for telecommunication companies that contact voters.

And, if this is not enough to convince the government, a survey conducted by Angus Reid shows that 81% of Canadians and even 72% of Conservative voters are calling for an independent inquiry to get to the bottom of things. In addition, 55% of the 1,667 respondents chosen at random as part of a telephone survey conducted by Forum Research said that elections should be held in the ridings where it has been proven that fraudulent calls were made.

In that same survey, one out of ten people said that they had received an automated telephone call about a polling station change during the last election. If we project these results to the 12.5 million households in Canada, that means that approximately 250,000 households would have received fraudulent calls.

As if that were not enough, this morning La Presse reported that an employee of Responsive Marketing Group, which raised funds for the Conservative Party, was fired after he harassed party members and contacted them under false pretences. This information came to light several days after party supporters in Quebec began to complain about being harassed by fundraisers.

Political analyst Guy Lachapelle, who teaches at Concordia, said that the Conservative fundraiser's aggressive approach mirrors tactics perfected by the Republican Party in the United States. He added that there should be a law to protect people from this practice because it is misrepresentation and puts undue pressure on defenceless individuals.

In addition, Le Devoir recently reported that voters were relentlessly solicited by the Conservative Party, which made false claims that they had pledged to donate money. It goes without saying that this is an issue that hits close to home for Canadians. People want answers, and that is why we want all parties to agree. Increasing accountability by requiring telecommunication companies and their clients to register is the most effective way to ensure that Canadian elections continue to be free and democratic.

In closing, I hope that the government will not stop at voting in favour of the motion, but will also act on it so that we can investigate potentially serious actions without delay and safeguard and preserve Canadians' confidence in our democracy.

[Petitions, March 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, today being International Women's Day, I am honoured to present a petition calling on the House to withdraw Bill C-19 to eliminate the gun registry, which, as we all know, will have adverse consequences for heath and public safety, not to mention the fact that it is a terrible waste of taxpayers' dollars.

This petition, with several pages of signatures, is the initiative of women's organizations in the greater Quebec City region, including Violence Info, Centre de ressources pour femmes de Beauport, Centre femmes d'aujourd'hui, and Viol Secours.

I wish to congratulate those women on their hard work and thank them for all the services they provide to women.

[Veterans Affairs, March 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Conservatives voted against our motion to spare veterans from the upcoming budget cuts. The Conservatives claim to support our troops, but they abandon veterans the first chance they get.

The minister says that services will not be affected. Some 1,800 jobs will be cut at Veterans Affairs Canada and 90% of its budget goes directly to services for veterans. Employees are needed to meet the needs of veterans and to administer programs. What dream world is the Minister of Veterans Affairs living in to think that cutting the budget by 10% will not affect services?

[Quebec City Armoury, March 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the government had promised that plans for the future Quebec City armoury would be unveiled in the fall of 2011. The plans are ready, but the Prime Minister's Privy Council is refusing to release them. The Conservatives are refusing to confirm the project schedule. They are refusing to tell us the total project cost and the costs to date. In short, once again there is a code of silence.

What are the Conservatives hiding? Can the Conservative government tell us how much it will cost? Why such a lack of transparency?

[Veterans Affairs, March 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, our veterans are asking for just one thing: access to faster services that better meet their needs.

Today, the NDP has moved a motion proposing that the government honour veterans by not making any cuts to the department's budget. The motion is simple and will not cost the government a penny. We are asking the government to maintain the Department of Veterans Affairs' budget as it now stands.

Can the minister give us one good reason for not supporting our motion?

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Beauport—Limoilou for his question. This government is planning to cut 68,000 jobs across the country, jobs that deliver programs and services. All departments and agencies, including Veterans Affairs, will be affected by cuts to programs and services. That is a problem. We hope that this will be a wake-up call for the government so that it understands the importance of reconsidering its position and supporting the motion.

I hope that all parties in the House will do the right thing and stand by veterans and all Canadians because we all know a veteran.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member very much for the question because it highlights one of the problems that we have noted. Veterans, the families of veterans and Canadians who are worried about veterans may be watching us at this time. They feel completely alone. They do not know if they are entitled to services. They do not know why they cannot access services more quickly. All too often, they end up having dark thoughts that I will not mention here, which is completely unacceptable. It is unacceptable to let them struggle with all those thoughts. We are here and we can provide the services.

It takes effort to quickly provide quality services and programs for veterans. It is imperative that the budget of the Department of Veterans Affairs not be cut. We are not asking for more money for veterans; we simply want the budget to be maintained in order to ensure that they receive services.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my party for giving us this opportunity to debate a very important issue. I would also like to thank my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore, my party's lead veterans affairs critic, for his excellent work. He has been a member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs for many years. All across Canada, particularly in Halifax, where we went recently, I have met people who recognize and appreciate the work he does. This motion is his latest effort on behalf of veterans. Our party is proud to support veterans. We believe in honouring the heroes who went where nobody wanted to go. They went proudly, and they rose to every challenge brilliantly. I think we can all be proud of that.

This motion is actually very simple. It would exempt Veterans Affairs from the government's budget cuts. All departments and agencies are expected to cut between 5% and 10%. We want to spare veterans, as other countries, including Australia, the United States and even Great Britain, did when the time came for them to cut their budgets. Those countries spared their veterans. I think that we should do the same thing. We must support them and show them that we do not want them to feel abandoned and alone in this situation.

This motion has the support of the Royal Canadian Legion and the ombudsman's office, which are very worried about the government's looming budget cuts. We hope that the government will not proceed with cuts that would affect the care and services provided to our veterans.

As we know, 90% of the Veterans Affairs budget is spent on benefits, services and programs for veterans. Therefore, any cuts to the budget would clearly affect those services and benefits. Some 70% of Veterans Affairs staff provide direct services to veterans. With very limited resources, they manage to provide all necessary care. Although much remains to be done, they address these challenges remarkably well with very limited means. If the Veterans Affairs budget is cut, the services offered and the staff who provide direct care will be affected.

Let us talk about cuts. The Minister of Veterans Affairs said he wants to cut red tape and make it easier for veterans to access these programs and services. Yet he also announced the transfer of Ste. Anne's Hospital, the last hospital dedicated to veterans' services. This will cut 1,800 jobs. This means 40% of the department's staff will be cut. And 40% is huge. It is unbelievable.

Furthermore, the government is saying that despite the budget cuts, it will maintain the same services, if not do better. That is impossible. That logic is absolutely absurd. Everyone knows that, except perhaps this government, unfortunately. That is why we are sounding this latest wake-up call, to ask all the parties to come together to adopt this motion on behalf of our veterans, in order to put an end to that.

After taking a closer look at the problems facing our veterans, we think it is appalling that veterans have such a hard time accessing programs and services. There is also a shortage of resources. According to the ombudsman's latest report, that is precisely where we should be focusing our efforts. Of course, there is a shortage of human resources, for instance, but the department does not have the financial resources needed to provide all services. Problems in terms of mental and physical health also need to be considered.

Far too often there are waiting lists. In that regard, allow me to say a few words about Ste. Anne's Hospital, which is considered to be a hospital for veterans, mainly those from the second world war and the Korean War. We know that their numbers are decreasing. However, a few beds—I can count them on one or two hands—have been reserved for young veterans. Not only would we like to have more beds for young veterans, but we have every reason to believe that more beds are needed because there is a waiting list.

There are no long-term services provided for our modern-day veterans, and that is a problem. That is what we need to work on, by deploying more resources and certainly not by making budget cuts, as this government is doing.

These cuts have an impact on the quality of the services provided and how quickly they are delivered. We have very few resources right now. The department is dealing with that, but it still takes far too long before a veteran is able to receive benefits. Sometimes we are talking about months, even years before veterans get their benefits. If the government were to cut staff and resources, that would obviously have a very serious impact on our veterans.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the great importance of conducting health research for veterans. There is a desperate need. Although the claimants may fewer in number than during World War II or the Korean War, the complex nature of the cases of today's veterans requires a certain number of resources that really must not be overlooked. We must not think that we need fewer resources. Quite the opposite is true. These modern veterans need more resources. Information must be obtained and research must be conducted on mental and physical health.

If I may, I would like to provide some context. A few months ago, during Veterans' Week, a number of veterans spoke out about this situation. In my riding, Pascal Lacoste stood up to denounce the fact that he was having difficulty receiving care, as were many other veterans. These veterans' actions at the time, during Veterans' Week, showed that from coast to coast to coast, throughout Canada, many veterans are having problems obtaining care.

At that time, the Minister of Veterans Affairs indicated that he was aware that problems existed and that improvements needed to be made. He thus set up the scientific advisory committee on veterans’ health. To date, we still do not know exactly what this committee does. We know that it has met several times. The minister promised that the first subject that the scientific advisory committee on veterans’ health would address would be exposure to depleted uranium. He did this to reassure our veterans—including the veteran from my riding, Pascal Lacoste—and to let them know that this was important and that the problem would be looked into.

However, since that time, there has been complete radio silence. I was told to stay tuned. I remember asking a question, here in the House, to find out how all this was going to work, what the mandate of the committee was going to be and whether the committee would be tabling a report in the House, but we have heard nothing. There has not been any response from cabinet. It is absolutely shameful. This is a problem.

We are not going to abandon our veterans. We are going to push harder for more health research and more investments to support these veterans. We want to send a message to those who want to join the army: when they become veterans, we will not let them down. We will not leave them without care and services.

[Veterans Affairs, February 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is shameful. The government has violated the privacy of yet another veteran. Harold Leduc served for over 20 years and is a member of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. Yet this same board allegedly waged a campaign to discredit him by using his confidential medical information. It is unacceptable.

Why are veterans being intimidated in this manner? If the board is really concerned about protecting privacy, it will apologize and conduct an investigation immediately.

[Search and Rescue, February 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, by moving marine rescue services several hundred kilometres away from Quebec City, the Conservatives are gambling with the safety of Quebec's francophone fishers and pleasure boaters. The last thing that distressed boaters who need professionals to come to their rescue want to hear is, “Sorry, I don't speak French”.

The marine rescue sub-centre in Quebec City has 35 years of experience, it is the only bilingual rescue centre in the country, and it is vital to marine safety on the St. Lawrence.

Will the government reconsider its decision or not?