Ève Péclet

[Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, November 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-26 as it also gives me an opportunity to talk about our justice system more generally and the approach the Conservatives have been taking since 2006, when they were elected to government for the first time with the current Prime Minister as their leader.

It is hard to know where to start. We have talked about mandatory minimum sentences, about how to make our streets and communities safer, and about how to address issues that our communities are facing. I would like to point out that the Conservatives' policies are a far cry from what we have known in Canada, historically speaking. This is a complete 180. It is more than a 180, it is more like a 360, but that would put us back where we started, so I will stick with 180.

Bill C-10 is a perfect example of the Conservatives' approach to criminal justice issues. I would like talk about what we do in Quebec since my riding, La Pointe-de-l'Île, is located on the Island of Montreal in Quebec. We have a long-standing, deep-rooted tradition of working with victims, in accordance with the reintegration and rehabilitation principles that have guided our criminal justice policies. These are principles that do not rate for the Conservatives, values they may not care about. I am being the devil's advocate here. Is one side more right than the other? I do not think that this debate should be about who is right and who is wrong. It should be about what works on the ground. That is what I am going to talk about in my speech.

This debate is not about adding mandatory minimum sentences, but since my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, talked about that, I feel I can talk about it too. Adding such sentences not only takes away judges' discretionary power, but also makes the system we cherish, a system based on rehabilitation rather than repression, completely ineffective. That might be something we could debate. Some experts will say that it works, and others will say that it does not. If we want to talk about a system that focuses on repression, we can look at statistics from the United States. We know that the American system is one of the most repressive in the world.

I did some research on the Internet. I found articles and speeches given in American legislatures in extremely conservative, Republican states such as Texas, South Carolina and Ohio. These states have adopted the kinds of policies that the Conservatives are trying to sell us. The Conservatives are trying to force Canadians to abandon the fundamental values and principles that we have fought so hard for in favour of an almost biblical vision—the parliamentary secretary actually mentioned the Bible—of the justice system. I would like to quote a few remarks by some extreme right-wing governors in the United States.

In one article, the following is said:

Conservatives in the United States' toughest crime-fighting jurisdiction—Texas—say the Harper government's crime strategy won't work.

The judge in question went on to say:

"You will spend billions and billions and billions on locking people up," says Judge John Creuzot of the Dallas County Court. "And there will come a point in time where the public says, 'Enough!' And you'll wind up letting them out [without any support whatsoever]."

The article continues:

Adds Representative Jerry Madden—a conservative Republican who heads the Texas House Committee on Corrections, “Its a very expensive thing to build prisons and, if you build 'em, I guarantee you they will come. They'll be filled. OK? Because people will send them there.”

He was referring to the American people.

These comments are in line with a coalition of experts in Washington, D.C. who attacked the Harper government's omnibus crime package, Bill C-10--

[Agricultural Growth Act, November 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is very bizarre for the minister to talk about supply management. We presented a motion to protect supply management and the government supported it. I think our efforts are made at the right place.

We will wait to vote for about an hour. Almost a dozen MPs could have talked about agriculture and our farmers during that time. The minister has talked for the past 30 minutes on how he is proud of our farmers and our agricultural sector. We are all proud of this, but why is he preventing members to talk about our amazing agricultural sector and why is he preventing members who represent Canadian farmers to talk about this in the House? I would like to know.

[Committees of the House, November 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the same question I asked my other colleague.

As I said, the Canada summer jobs program, which helps hundreds of thousands of Canadian students acquire experience, has never been reviewed. Its budget no longer meets the demands of the past 20 years. Funding has not been increased for 20 years. Everyone would agree that, for years now, we have been seeing an increase in demand every year. I think that all of the members here can attest to that.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the recommendation in the report that addresses the Canada summer jobs program and calls on the government to review the program. What will his government do for the Canada summer jobs program and how will it help young people gain experience and find work?

[Committees of the House, November 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the only number I want to point out to my colleague is 1995.

In 1995, the Liberal government decided to cut transfer payments to the provinces for education. When he gave his speech about education, I thought he should have looked at his own history, since his party balanced the budget on the backs of students and young people.

His government never reviewed the federal Canada summer jobs program. Demand has only increased since the program was created. Nevertheless, the Liberal government did not take that increased demand into account during all the years when it could have introduced legislation.

What would his party do if we had to review the Canada summer jobs program?

I hope that he would say that he would increase the budget.

[Ethics, November 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have found a new way to dip into taxpayers' pockets by issuing tax receipts to Dean Del Mastro's friends, who are trying to keep him out of jail. At the end of the day, it is the taxpayers who will pay the legal fees for the Prime Minister's former parliamentary secretary.

Does the Minister of National Revenue, whose new priority is to target birdwatchers, really believe that taxpayers should foot this bill?

[CBC/Radio-Canada, October 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, CBC executives announced yesterday that 392 jobs will be cut by next March. These cuts will primarily affect regional newsrooms and programming in minority language communities.

How can the minister say that the CBC has the resources it needs to carry out its mission when it will be cutting a quarter of its positions by 2020?

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2, October 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member on his excellent speech. As usual, he used the right words to explain to Canadians how completely ridiculous this bill is.

Something our Conservative colleagues do not often talk about is social housing. The NDP has repeatedly called on the Conservatives to adopt social housing programs. We are the only OECD country that does not have a national infrastructure plan.

Nonetheless, once again the Conservatives are introducing a budget in the House that makes absolutely no mention of the important role social housing plays in bringing homelessness to an end.

Would my colleague care to comment on the Conservatives' lack of vision?

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2, October 30th, 2014]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am here tomorrow.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2, October 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying I am not lazy and no member of the House is lazy. It shows a great deal of disrespect when a member of the House makes that assumption and says that any of the members sitting here are lazy. I would like the member to retract his comments, because it shows a great deal of disrespect to my constituents and his constituents.

I might or might not be able to talk about this budget, because the government says we only need a couple of days to discuss this bill. I would like the minister to tell my constituents why the government thinks members do not need to discuss their constituents' interests and needs. What does he say to the people of La Pointe-de-l'Île?

[Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, October 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the question I have for the member is simple.

The facts are clear regarding chapter 11 of NAFTA, which contains the first investor state dispute settlement mechanism that Canada included in a free trade agreement. The Government of Canada had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars of public funds, taxpayers' money, to a number of American companies. Canadians had to pay American companies because they challenged Canada's right to make environmental and public health regulations.

What do Canadians stand to gain from the inclusion of such mechanisms in the free trade agreement with South Korea? Will it mean that, in addition to having to pay millions of dollars to American companies, Canadians will now have to pay Korean companies and assume those costs too? We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money.

I would like my colleague to tell us what Canadians stand to gain from this type of provision.