House of Commons photoLost her last election, in 2015, with 27% of the vote.
Democratic Reform February 8th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, welcome to Fantasy Island, starring the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development.
However, we know that Senator Brazeau will collect another $7 million if he serves his full term until 2049. If we add up the tab for all of the Prime Minister's appointees, they will collect over $115 million from taxpayers.
Are a $115 million bill and Senate ethics rules that are stuck in the dark ages really going to be this Prime Minister's legacy on Senate reform?
Fair Rail Freight Service Act February 1st, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Pontiac, who works very hard representing the people in his part of the country, which is a very large riding. Sometimes we feel better when we take a look around us. I feel good looking at my colleague's riding from my beautiful Outaouais region.
I liked his speech for a number of reasons. The message we have been sending the government this morning is extremely important: the NDP will support the bill at second reading to get it to committee.
Having said that, this bill is not perfect. In my opinion, nothing is perfect. In this context, we would hope that our friends opposite are prepared to listen to the different viewpoints of the various stakeholders.
The government presents us with its bills as though they were perfect, necessary and very important. I am always surprised to see how long it takes them to introduce their bills. In fact, we have been waiting for this bill for five years.
Can my colleague explain why it has taken five years? Why has the government taken so long to introduce this bill, which various stakeholders have been asking for?
Fair Rail Freight Service Act February 1st, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all the work the hon. member has done.
I think we have been talking to the same people. When they talk to the government or government officials, everyone agrees that this is a step in the right direction. However, let us not pretend that the bill is perfect and does not need some slight adjustments.
The message that the official opposition is sending to the government is that it supports the bill. The bill will be examined in committee, but that is just for show. We want to ensure that the stakeholders support the bill. However, they too would like to see some changes made to it.
Fair Rail Freight Service Act February 1st, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.
As the English would say, he is right on the nail, direct. That is one of the major problems with the bill.
I repeat, for those who did not hear the speech either from my colleague or myself, that we will be supporting the bill at second reading to be sent to committee; hopefully, to solve those types of problems, because this is a major issue.
I was saying in my speech that it is a matter of carefully balancing everyone's interests. The hon. member mentioned it. In some places, there is basically a monopoly. The use of a dispute resolution mechanism that involves a tribunal is not necessarily a good idea when the balance of power favours one side.
That is not necessarily most conducive to solving the problem.
I do again hope that the other side of the House will be able to listen for once, because it does not happen too often. We do bring up those issues in order to ameliorate the situation.
Abortion February 1st, 2013
Mr. Speaker, since I came to the House, I have seen and heard plenty of Conservative rubbish about abortion.
However, nothing prepared me for the appalling letters that were sent this week. Three Conservative members, male of course, wrote to the RCMP asking them investigate certain instances of abortion that they feel constitute murder. These three pathetic musketeers are out to dismantle women's rights and obviously have not understood that this issue was settled a long time ago.
Threatening women who have opted for this procedure with imprisonment because they can do as they choose with their bodies and labelling them as murderers when they are already in emotional turmoil is irresponsible, dangerous, unworthy of a member of Parliament and downright disgusting.
If the Prime Minister is telling the truth and does not want to reopen this debate, he needs to break his complicit silence and clearly tell these backward-thinking members that this type of action is unacceptable. Otherwise, the weight of their offensive actions will also rest on his shoulders.
Fair Rail Freight Service Act February 1st, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues the House who gave me the opportunity to participate, along with my colleague, the House Leader of the Official Opposition, in the debate on a bill that is extremely important for the country. In my opinion, Canada was built on the railway.
If there is something that MPs, aside from the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina, do not talk about in this House very often, it is rail service, which is not necessarily seen as a priority. It is sad to see that, since the rise of the automobile, we talk less and less about the railway, on which Canada was built. It is a subject that is overlooked. From a transportation perspective, it is a big mistake to have allowed the railway to slowly be forgotten over the past 50 years.
In Gatineau, our infrastructure takes a beating. Temperatures between -40oC in the winter and +40oC in the summer and a large number of heavy trucks and other vehicles damage our infrastructure. Our bridges and roads are constantly in need of repair, if they do not need to be replaced completely. This creates urban sprawl. It is difficult to deliver goods.
I was shocked to see the statistics related to Bill C-52, given the tireless efforts of the NDP member for Trinity—Spadina, who even introduced a private member's bill in this regard. People may not be aware that 70% of our goods are transported by rail. Of course, this is a whole sector of trade.
We have a government that prides itself on always being there for the economy and on having action plans. However, the government needs to take action rather than just talking about its action plan.
I asked the Minister of State for Transport a question about the fact that this has taken five years. I would like to believe him and I find it quite amusing that the government refers to time in terms of what is happening here. Five years may go by quickly, as though it is only nanoseconds, but at some point, we should not be satisfied with this type of situation.
One thing that frustrates me about this House is how long everything takes. When we know that the stakeholders are in agreement, when we know what the problem is, we have to stop playing petty politics and simply resolve the matter. That is why we were elected in the first place and why we are here in this House. Our job is to get these things done.
The leader of the second opposition party wants us to speed up the process. No one opposes the idea of speeding up the process as long as we know that everyone is willing to really listen to the complaints and suggestions. When we complain or make suggestions, it is not to play petty politics, but to ensure that, at the end of the process, we have legislation that makes sense and meets the needs of small businesses. It should be noted that this bill affects small and medium-sized businesses.
Let us move away from the duopoly for a moment. I like the expression the minister of state used. This is a great idea for a new Parker Brothers game, but this game will not necessarily be fun for small and medium-sized businesses. It verges on what I would call forced negotiations. It is hard to negotiate when you have a sword hanging over your head.
Considering that rail service is the driving force of our economy, there is a serious problem here. As parliamentarians, we must try to solve this problem regarding the balance of power. Indeed, this will serve small and medium-sized businesses, but at the end of the day, who will it really benefit? It will benefit our constituents, all Canadians who need these products and services, who need them to get to the right place safely and quickly.
Speeding up the process will save money. So we have a big job ahead of us. Yes, we are always looking for ways to speed things up.
As the House Leader of the Official Opposition pointed out—and as justice critic I see this quite often—it is all well and good to show up with non-partisan proposals guided by the common good and respect for legislation and charters, but we always seem to hit a brick wall. The government does not even bother to find out whether the proposals have merit, which is seriously undemocratic.
For some members of the House, these are extremely important issues because they affect their constituents who have small and medium-sized businesses and who use rail services. These people have a few things to say about this issue. If we listen carefully we will see that they may have something worthwhile and important to say, which can benefit the debate. It does not help to always be so paranoid and think that people only ever speak to take down their opponent. On the contrary, sometimes they speak to enlighten the debate and improve the situation.
As the House Leader of the Official Opposition so eloquently explained before me, the NDP plans on supporting the bill at second reading so that it can be sent to committee. I truly hope that the government will pay close attention and that enough expert witnesses will be invited to guide parliamentarians from all parties, so that they can draft a report on the committee's deliberations. Then, when we return to the House, the official opposition will be reasonably satisfied that this was taken seriously, that we were listened to and that the people who have a vested interest in this bill were heard. If that is the case, we will have the best bill possible to help the rail service, an industry that is fundamental to this great, beautiful country we call Canada.
Fair Rail Freight Service Act February 1st, 2013
Mr. Speaker, why did it take them five years to table this bill? Why did they wait, given all the work that has been done by the member for Trinity—Spadina, who introduced a private member's bill?
What was the motivating factor? Why did they take so long to partially correct the problem? Changes will need to be made. It seems to me that five years is a long time to finally table this sort of bill.
Business of Supply January 31st, 2013
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Those are great words from my colleagues. I agree that it is time for action. I appreciate that they will support the motion, but at the same time, I think it was time for action in 1993. It was time for action in 1997 and it was time for action in 2000, when the Liberals were a majority government. It would have been so easy, especially around the 1997 and 2000 mandates, when there were huge surpluses. There could have been so many things being done by the government.
What I fail to understand is why the Liberals waited until the mandate of 2004 to 2006, of which I was part, to come at the last minute with the huge Kelowna accord, when they were a minority government and they were going to absolutely face the wall.
Abortion January 31st, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I heard the Prime Minister earlier, but I am not sure that his entire caucus was listening. Just a few days after the 25th anniversary of the Morgentaler decision and a few days after the Minister for Status of Women acknowledged that Canadians did not want to reopen the abortion debate, unfortunately, that is exactly what three backbench Conservative MPs are doing. These Conservatives want the RCMP to investigate three abortions as murders.
Does the government realize that the abortion issue has been closed for 25 years, and will it stop going after a woman's clear right to choose? Does the Minister of Justice know that abortion is not murder?
Criminal Code January 30th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague from Red Deer gave an indication of our position. In fact, we will be pleased to support the government. When it comes to justice issues, that does not happen often. However, we will support Bill C-444.
I congratulate the member from Red Deer because he resisted the temptation to impose minimum sentences, something we see all too often in justice or crime bills. He chose instead to focus on the aggravating factor.
I believe that this bill respects victims' rights. It also respects judicial independence which, in my opinion, is indispensable in a true democracy and will also result in appropriate sentencing.
Some people find this to be a rather unusual bill, but it is not complicated. It refers to the notion of a peace officer, which already exists under section 130 of the Criminal Code:
(1) Everyone commits an offence who
(a) falsely represents himself to be a peace officer or a public officer; or
(b) not being a peace officer or public officer, uses a badge or article of uniform or equipment in a manner that is likely to cause persons to believe that he is a peace officer or a public officer, as the case may be.
(2) Everyone who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
As the member for Red Deer made clear, this bill creates an aggravating circumstance for anyone committing an offence by pretending to be someone he is not for the purpose of committing another crime.
I am sure that all of my colleagues have heard horror stories other than those we heard from the member for Red Deer. Such incidents have happened everywhere. I remember that a few years ago in Gatineau, people were posing as police officers and trying to collect money. They were passing themselves off as peace officers or police officers—it does not really matter what they were calling themselves—to fool people. That is not quite as serious as the incident described by the member for Red Deer, the one that led to the creation of this bill.
I appreciate the fact that one of our fellow citizens brought this problem to our attention. Now we are trying to find a solution, which is what we are here for. I was pleased to see that this bill received unanimous support during a previous Parliament. I do not expect that our colleague will have any trouble obtaining unanimous support for his bill.
The NDP intends to fully support the bill introduced by the member for Red Deer. We will certainly have some good discussions about this, not because we want to change anything, but because we want to make sure that people understand how important this bill is.
Other members have mentioned the fact that this bill is important in situations where a person claims to be someone we hold in high regard. I have in mind the definition of peace officer in section 2 of the Criminal Code, which the member from Red Deer spoke about: “a mayor, warden, reeve,...deputy sheriff, sheriff’s officer,...justice of the peace,...a member of the Correctional Service of Canada,...police officer, police constable, bailiff...” In Quebec, a bailiff is authorized to go to people's homes.
People are usually a little alarmed if approached by a person in uniform or someone acting in an official capacity. People believe in law and order, and they are prepared to do things they would not normally do if they had a few moments to think about it. As with any form of abuse, if someone takes advantage of a situation, as parliamentarians we must ensure that we crack down on these types of crimes.
However, we must allow the courts to do their job with the power given to them in a free and democratic society such as Canada, where we have the principle of the presumption of innocence.
As our colleague mentioned—and he is right—this is a hybrid offence. Thus, when the case goes to trial, the judge who hears the case can hand out different sentences. This can be prosecuted by indictment or summary conviction. It is the responsibility of the crown prosecutor to determine the seriousness of the matter based on the facts. The prosecutor must then formulate the sentence accordingly.
For once, I am applauding a bill. More often than not we are handed bills that impose a vision on the courts. This hinders the work of the trial judge, whose job it is to properly evaluate the different points of view and try to determine the appropriate sentence based on the case and the facts that are proven.
I very much appreciate how much work our colleague put into this bill. If they want to have our support, they should not boast that they know everything.
I felt the hon. member for Red Deer's passion about his file, and I know how hard he has worked to try to move forward on this issue. We are certainly not going to stand in his way on such an important issue. He also took the time to send us additional information so that we could make a decision at this stage.
Not all of us were necessarily present during the 40th Parliament when MPs began examining this issue. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to say just how important it is for the new members of the 41st Parliament to have the chance to participate in such an important debate. It is a good thing that this is not done with private members' bills, but the same principle applies to any bill. We have talked about this enough over the past two, three or four years, and it is time that we do something about it.
The problem is that many members of the House are talking about Bill C-444 for the first time. It is worth taking a serious look at this bill.
As I was saying, the addition to the Criminal Code after section 130 does not apply in the aggravating circumstances that are already set out in section 718 but, rather, it applies specifically to the offence set out in section 130 where a person tries to facilitate the commission of another offence. For example, the person could impersonate a police officer in order to rape or kidnap someone. The person could also impersonate a bailiff in order to try to get money.
Unfortunately, many older people are targeted by such actions. Sometimes, criminals take advantage of their vulnerability. It is unfortunate, but true. So, once passed, this bill would give the courts the tools they need to make this type of behaviour an aggravating circumstance.
I hope that this is what will happen in cases such as these. I sometimes have to wonder about the sentences imposed in some cases, but who am I to say since those cases have been heard by judges. However, this time, the judges will not have any excuse and will have to consider the act of impersonating a police officer for the purpose of committing another offence as an aggravating circumstance.
I would once again like to congratulate the hon. member for Red Deer. The NDP will support this bill at all stages.