Hélène LeBlanc

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl.

It is Halloween, and the monsters are back. This is a monster budget. I rise today to speak in this debate to oppose Bill C-43, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, as well as the undemocratic process being used by this government and the Prime Minister to amend 30 or so pieces of legislation.

As the member for LaSalle—Émard and the official opposition's critic for co-operatives, I would like to express my deep concern about this shocking process, which consists of forcing the approval of hundreds of changes without giving members of the House or the stakeholders involved time to study them.

I am especially concerned about the changes included in division 22 that will have an impact on credit unions. However, before I go into detail about division 22 of Bill C-43, I would like to remind members of the House, especially government members, of the important role our credit unions play in Canada.

Excluding Quebec, there are 317 credit unions in Canada with 1,740 branches and over 5 million members. They have assets worth over $165 billon and are present in every province of this country. The Mouvement Desjardins has 360 credit unions in Quebec with 6 million members and over $212 billion in total assets. It is the largest private sector employer in the province, supporting 40,000 direct jobs and 25,000 indirect jobs.

The numbers speak for themselves. Credit unions are a big part of our economy and financial landscape, and their contributions are extremely important. I can assure everyone that every member of the House has thousands of constituents who are members of a credit union and/or use their services.

Nonetheless, beyond the numbers, credit unions really matter to all our communities. They are in the municipalities or regions of Canada that the traditional banks have abandoned. They offer products and services that meet the needs of the people and they reinvest in their community.

What is more, credit unions are more resilient to economic uncertainties. With regard to the riding of LaSalle—Émard, I can attest to how the LaSalle caisse populaire contributes to the vitality of community organizations. It contributes a great deal to the vitality of our community organizations and our community.

Despite the major growth in credit unions and their significant financial performance, the Conservative government is introducing another bill that does not take into account their needs or the differences between them and the banks.

I have said before that the Conservative government is incapable of taking into account the unique characteristics of credit unions or recognizing the benefits of that uniqueness. The same goes for SMEs. When drafting bills, the government is incapable of taking into account the inherent differences between large companies and small and medium-sized businesses. The same goes for the co-operative movement.

This proves it. Division 22 of Bill C-43 seeks to makes changes to the regulations on credit unions. More specifically, it amends the Bank of Canada Act by eliminating the central bank's role as lender of last resort for credit unions, forcing them to rely on provincial guarantees in order to get a loan.

It also amends the Bank Act and the Co-operative Credit Associations Act in order to facilitate the entry of provincial cooperative credit societies into the federal credit union system and to discontinue supervision of provincial central co-operative credit societies by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.

Instead of addressing the reality and the needs of credit unions— especially their request for the creation of a new tax credit enabling them to access other sources of capitalization—these amendments seek to make our financial system homogeneous by trying to subject credit unions to the same conditions and rules that apply to major banks.

Do members acknowledge that we can have a multi-faceted economy and financial system? That is what the regions, credit unions and big cities are asking for. We have to recognize that credit unions meet community needs and that chartered banks and credit unions can co-exist.

The proposed measures are once again in keeping with the Conservatives' philosophy of opposing, for ideological reasons, the expansion of the Canadian co-operative movement. The 2013 budget measures unfairly increased taxes on credit unions. The proposals in this mammoth budget bill represent an effort by the government to subject credit unions to the same rules as banks.

In other words, and I have said this before, the Conservatives are not taking into account how credit unions are inherently different. In Canada, chartered banks have their way of operating and they are favoured by the government. Meanwhile, the government does not stop creating obstacles for credit unions thereby preventing them from growing and meeting the needs of regions and communities that are not served by large financial institutions.

I am wondering whether the government would dare demand that banks rely on the same type of guarantee from the province where their head office is located in order to access Bank of Canada loans. I am also wondering whether this government consulted the provinces before proposing the risk transfer resulting from the amendment and whether it assessed what impact this measure would have on their finances.

I am concerned that the government seems to want to encourage provincial credit unions to transition to the federal system without taking into account their unique characteristics and the challenges they would face in making such a transition.

Finally, we must remind the government of the importance of working with the credit unions to find solutions that will help them to grow. This government cannot continue to ignore the demands of a sector that plays such an important role in our economy.

This government did not even include in these 460 pages provisions that would help promote the capitalization of credit unions and give them the means to assist families and small and medium-sized businesses, namely through a capital growth tax credit.

The government did not consider modifying the legal framework, which would have allowed credit unions to compete with the big banks without losing their status as a co-operative and while maintaining their commitment to serving their members.

Once again, these 460 pages do not take into account credit unions, which contribute to a sustainable, democratic and 100% Canadian economy.

I bitterly regret it, but I must oppose this monstrous bill that does not in any way take into account the interests of Canadians, co-operatives or credit unions.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, October 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to add my voice to those of my official opposition colleagues on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, which it is my honour to chair. They spoke eloquently to this motion and the confusion it would create.

I do not understand the motion's sponsor, who is also a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. After all, she is aware of the issues that affect all women in Canada, including the three issues at the top of Status of Women Canada's agenda: violence against women, leadership and women's economic circumstances.

I will quote from the motion, which makes it difficult to discern the government's intent since several factors seem to be mixed together:

That the House call on the government to take action to prevent forced marriages...

As we have already pointed out, like Canada as a whole, we are opposed to forced marriage, which is a form of violence against women. Marriage should be between two consenting adults. I will continue:

...and any kind of non-consensual sponsorship in the immigration system by amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations so as to:

(a) ban the use of proxy, telephone, and fax marriages as a means to spousal sponsorship;

Careful. First the motion talks about forced marriage and then it talks about proxy marriage. A forced marriage is a form of non-consensual marriage. Sometimes, both individuals are forced to marry against their will. Such unions violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, according to which everyone has the right to marry and to found a family without any limitation due to race, among other things. The marriage must be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. So much for forced marriage.

Proxy marriage is a culturally and legally acceptable way for a couple to unite. This practice is more common in countries affected by war. These marriages are legal and binding, and they are carried out with the consent of both parties.

A Canadian or a Quebecker like me might be surprised to hear that proxy marriage can happen. However, that does not mean that it is not a marriage between two consenting adults.

Earlier we heard about forced marriage, and we all understood that it was prohibited. Then, the motion goes on to talk about proxy marriage:

(b) disallow explicitly, in section 5, the use of proxy [and] telephone...marriages...

(c) set out administrative measures that communicate clearly to visa officers how to detect a proxy, telephone or fax marriage.

According to this motion, marriage by proxy is the same thing as forced marriage. These two types of marriage are not at all the same. Experts say so.

One thing is clear to me, my colleagues in the official opposition and many of the experts we consulted when preparing our position on this motion: we are not talking about the same thing. If the government really wants to put an end to violence against women—and forced marriage is a form of violence against women—then we need to ensure that those who suffer this type of violence have access to services and resources that will help them get out of a forced marriage if it has already been performed or prevent a forced marriage in the first place. They need to be able to get help to prevent this type of marriage and get out of that situation.

I have the privilege of representing a very diverse riding, the riding of LaSalle—Émard. I must admit that I am always very humbled as I get to know the people in my riding and understand the different people and cultures that I have the honour of representing. People call upon me and my team to resolve immigration issues. I must say that requests for assistance have been piling up since the changes were made to the immigration system. Unfortunately, things are not getting better. They are getting worse.

I recently had to defend a family from Cameroon that includes two Canadian-born children. There were many appeals to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. Many petitions were signed by members of the community in support of this Cameroonian family. I think this family faces real dangers, especially for the two daughters. This deportation really affected and upset the people in my riding. They are still talking about it. It affected me tremendously.

We see that this motion before us does not take into account all the problems refugees face in Canada. The doors close in their face. What is more, the motion does not respond at all to the extremely significant problems of violence against women, including women from all communities that are fortunate enough to live in Canada.

[Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), October 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and riding neighbour for his speech.

He also spoke about yesterday's events, as well as what companion animals do for people. These animals can include cats, which he loves. For the constituents we represent, especially seniors, these companions are important.

I would also like the member to talk more about the importance of pets. As we have heard, they can help with security, but they can also help with general well-being. Pets are good for our psychological well-being, which is an important aspect of the role these animals play.

[Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), October 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East, who spoke about the government's strong tendency to amend the Criminal Code. She also spoke intelligently about the long-term consequences of these changes to the Criminal Code. We still do not know all of the repercussions. However, we can look at the impact the Bush years had on prisons in California, for example. We can look at the facts to see if legislating tougher sentences really deters crime.

She also talked about the monetary costs for Canada and the provinces as well as the social costs of imposing minimum sentences for the sorts of reasons set out in the various bills that we have studied in the House.

[Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), October 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that the Criminal Code already includes provisions for this kind of offence.

Based on his quick assessment, does he think that this bill has anything new to contribute, or is it redundant considering what is already in the Criminal Code?

[Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), October 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for taking the government to task, especially given that this is a democracy and we should be able to have thorough debates. This also applies to our committees. We are sending this bill to committee, which is where we can make changes based on the testimony of the experts who appear.

I would ask all of my colleagues on all sides of the House to please listen to the experts, who will give us the facts, so that we can amend the bill properly.

[Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), October 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments and reiterate my thanks to all the House staff, particularly the security services, who welcome us, protect us and guard us every day.

We talked about our democracy a lot yesterday. Separation of powers is at the heart of democracy. Canada has a healthy democracy. The proof is in the fact that we, as representatives of Canadians, debate bills here in the House.

However, we need to be able to benefit from the breadth of judicial experience, which has existed for far longer than I have been in the House. Cases need to be judged based on the experience of past judges and our Criminal Code.

Amending the Criminal Code is no small matter. The current government has made a great number of changes, and we still do not know all the long-term implications of those changes. That is why I find it very troubling that the government wants to impose mandatory minimums in this bill.

[Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), October 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am very proud to rise in the House today and resume my work as an MP and as a representative of my constituents from LaSalle—Émard. I am very pleased that we have the opportunity today to debate Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals).

I would also like to say that I am very pleased to share my time with the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

I would be remiss if I did not say a few words about yesterday's events. I must say that I felt safe at all times. From the very start, we were assisted by a security guard who entered the room where we were gathered. He really took charge of our group and ensured that we were safe and protected. I join all the members who spoke before me in thanking all the Parliamentary staff, including the security staff, and the police officers and the members of the RCMP who joined them to ensure that we could be in the House today to debate a bill and continue our work.

I would also like to thank my team and all the Parliamentary staff who experienced these disturbing events with us and who also did an incredible job. I commend my team in the House and also my constituency team with whom I was able to communicate, and who in turn informed the community about what was happening and reassured people that we were in good hands with the security team.

The bill before us today talks about the special relationship between people and animals, not just service animals, but also those in our lives. I am an agronomist by training and as such, and as an interpretive guide at an agricultural museum, I had the opportunity to learn more about farm animals, which are also service animals. I know that Canada's farmers and agricultural producers take special care of these animals and one of my concerns is to make sure that we continue to always have very high standards when it comes to livestock. The same goes for transporting animals and for slaughter facilities. All this must be handled properly. I believe that Canada must continue to have very high standards, whether we are talking about raising, transporting, or slaughtering farm animals.

I am raising this point because we do not talk about it very often. We are becoming more and more removed from our primary agriculture. Although we are still close, because we eat every day, we must also think about the farmers and the animals that serving us in a completely different way. Farm animals, just as much as the other service animals, deserve proper treatment, and even more than that.

Usually, service animals are dogs. As the saying goes, a dog is a man's best friend. Over the years, we have found many ways for dogs to help humans because of certain traits.

I for one am generally apprehensive of dogs. When I go door to door, I admit that I have had experiences with canines that were sometimes positive, sometimes not. I think all politicians, like most letter carriers, have mixed feelings when it comes to dogs, because these encounters are not always pleasant.

However, when I go door to door, I have the opportunity to meet many seniors who live alone and have pets, often dogs. For people living alone, these animals are valuable companions in their lives. That is why I must acknowledge the work, service and assistance that these animals provide to people in my community of LaSalle—Émard.

My colleague from Sudbury also talked about the importance of the assistance provided by service dogs and animals for persons with disabilities. Everyone knows about Mira dogs, which accompany the blind. There are also service dogs for persons with disabilities or, as my colleague mentioned, people with autism. These animals act not only as companions and assistants, but also as intermediaries when it comes to interacting with other people.

Furthermore, I want to pay tribute to the K-9 squad, which helped secure the perimeter yesterday. These dogs provided a very valuable service.

Now, I would like to talk about Bill C-35, which we are supporting at second reading. Our only concerns are very important, and we have expressed them on a number of occasions. This is nothing new; we have extensively debated our concerns in the House, and we have brought them to the attention of the government. Our concerns are about mandatory minimums.

We support the services provided by the K-9 squad and assistance animals, but we do not understand why this bill needs to implement mandatory minimums, since they undermine the discretionary powers of judges. I will give an example.

I will admit that I have a general fear of dogs. I have no intentions of committing an offence, of course, but I do not know how I would react if I were to be attacked by a dog. At such a time, you essentially react by defending yourself. That is why I would like to give the judge, and not the legislative authority, the discretion to impose a minimum sentence.

Judges, defence lawyers and crown prosecutors are in the best position to decide on a fair and appropriate sentence in each case.

We all applaud the work of service animals, especially in light of yesterday's events, when we were all able to see first-hand what they do. However, I must express my opposition to the institution of mandatory minimums, which undermine the discretionary powers of judges.

[Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), October 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech because he did an excellent job of explaining the official opposition's reservations about these minimum sentences.

As he so capably demonstrated, this is not the first time the government has included its infamous minimum sentences in one of its bills.

Can my colleague expand on how these minimum sentences undermine judges' discretionary power? Can he also tell us why it is important for our democratic society to separate the legislative branch and the judicial branch?

[Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), October 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank and again congratulate the hon. member for Churchill for her speech, which explained the connection between some very important aspects that she mentioned.

In addition, she always defends the most vulnerable residents in her riding, and does so fairly and appropriately. I highly commend her for defending them. We sometimes seem to forget what is going on in our own country, and we shut our eyes from time to time.

Would my colleague like to say more about the government's heavy-handed tendency to take away the discretion of judges, and how that tendency is often seen in the bills introduced by this government?