Hélène LeBlanc

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, June 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech, especially the part about trademarks. For two and a half years I was a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology that studied intellectual property and trademarks extensively.

Like my colleague, I was extremely surprised to see that a large part of the budget implementation bill concerned trademarks. The bill should have been split.

I would like the member to further comment on the impact that implementing Bill C-31 will have on Canada's economy.

[Federal Framework on Lyme Disease Act, June 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking after my colleagues, particularly our health and environment critics. Every speech teaches us a little bit more about Lyme disease. I am pleased to also say a few words about Bill C-442, An Act respecting a Federal Framework on Lyme Disease.

I must say that this bill is of interest to me, as are so many other bills. We have heard some stories, and last February I received a letter from a constituent about this bill:

I am one of your constituents and on behalf of the thousands of Canadians suffering from Lyme disease, I am asking you to support Bill C-442 respecting a national strategy on Lyme disease. Debate on the bill begins on March 4.

Later on in the letter, she wrote:

We need to support Bill C-442 so that we can develop a national strategy to fight this serious disease.

The person who wrote me asked me to meet with her, which is what I did. The meeting was truly amazing for me. I was there with the mother of someone with Lyme disease.

She told me about the ordeal that she and her child, now an adult, had to go through before getting a diagnosis. Finally, after several years, it was discovered that this person was afflicted with this terrible disease. The child experienced a number of symptoms, got several diagnoses, and underwent numerous tests before being accurately diagnosed. Despite numerous doctors’ appointments and hospital tests, they were faced with more questions than answers. Over this time, the disease took its toll, and became chronic. This person will have to live with the chronic symptoms of Lyme disease.

Finally, thanks to a test in the United States—not in Canada—a clear diagnosis was obtained. In spite of the trials and tribulations, and an established diagnosis, the parents told me that it was actually a relief for the person with the disease to know what the diagnosis was. Indeed, once the disease becomes chronic, many of the symptoms of Lyme disease closely resemble chronic fatigue syndrome.

What happens when a person has symptoms but no clear diagnosis? Often, those afflicted get depressed because they do not know what has caused the symptoms. Their family and friends are left wondering what to do. They do not know how to help people with the fuzzy diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome. When a diagnosis was established in this case, the family was able to support the person with Lyme disease and at that point they could come together to develop a plan of action as to how to cope with the disease.

The parent in question also praised the Canadian Lyme Disease Foundation, commonly known as CanLyme. The Foundation carries out very important work to raise awareness about the symptoms, diagnoses and ways to prevent Lyme disease. CanLyme is also a not-for-profit organization, and its website contains a great deal of information dispelling a number of myths and misconceptions around the disease.

I would like to commend the foundation on its extraordinary work. I would also like to salute the courage of this parent who came to meet with me to talk about their story and the plight of their loved one with Lyme disease, who had to go through quite an ordeal before getting a diagnosis.

The bill calls on the government to develop a national strategy to combat Lyme disease. I think that the government has to understand not only the need to put a strategy in place, but also the need for resources and financial backing. Parks Canada needs tools to advise people visiting our national parks on how to recognize the infamous insect that infects people with Lyme disease and the steps they should take if they are bitten, to ensure that the illness does not become chronic.

If it can be done for poison ivy, I do not understand why it cannot be done for Lyme disease. Moreover, a national strategy would help us work together with the provinces to develop tools to prevent this disease.

It is important to understand what is happening. Why is this disease spreading? It was previously a little known disease because it did not occur in Canada, where many insects die in our frigid winters and therefore do not cause a problem. However, climate change and global warming are having an effect on us as a Nordic country.

I am an agronomist by training. I got my training not so long ago. In class, we were told that Canada needed to adapt to changes in agriculture and prevent diseases that will emerge as insects head a little further north. The government must tackle these problems head on.

That is why the An Act respecting a Federal Framework on Lyme Disease is a step in the right direction, and that is why I support it. I also support it on behalf of a parent who came to meet me in my office to tell me about Lyme disease and make me more aware of it.

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, who served with me on the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. He mentioned a lot of the topics that came up in committee. However, I still was not clear about his position on income splitting, which his government seems to want to implement.

How will income splitting make the gap between the rich and the poor and between men and women even wider? Could the member talk more about how income splitting will affect the well-being of Canadians, which he mentioned?

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, in a confederation, the federal government's role is to ensure that it meets with the provinces. I would even take it further than that. Cities are increasingly being called upon to play a very important role, not just in the Canadian economy, but also in the fair distribution of wealth.

My colleague spoke about housing. The federal government and its partners need to find common solutions to the challenges Canada is facing. It needs to show some goodwill.

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I think the double taxation in the 1950s was probably higher.

He actually did not listen very carefully to my speech because, since the Conservatives and the Liberals came to power in the late 1990s, the gap between the rich and the poor has widened. We are talking here about poverty—there are more and more inequalities—and the government's role in sharing the wealth. In fact, the beauty of our federal system is the redistribution of wealth to reduce these gaps between the rich and the poor. I believe this government has completely abrogated its moral duty as a government to ensure that, regardless of where we live or the circumstances in which we were born, we have our fair share of that wealth.

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as a woman and the chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I am pleased to rise in the House today to support this NDP motion decrying the increase in income inequality in Canada under successive Conservative and Liberal governments and stating the NDP’s position on the Conservatives’ income splitting proposal.

Pardon the pun, but there is a split between the perspectives of the Conservatives and the New Democrats. The Conservatives seem to want to return to the 1950s, as evidenced by the many retrograde initiatives they bring in. They are nostalgic for an era when the traditional family—as portrayed in the famous U.S. television series Leave It To Beaver—cast women in the role of housewife.

I was born in the 1950s, but I must admit that, as a woman, I am in not at all nostalgic for that period. Not only am I proud that, over the years, women have been liberated through numerous struggles, I am also proud of women’s participation in the labour force, their financial autonomy, and their political and economic leadership.

However, we must not become complacent: although Canada ranked first in the area of gender equality according to the United Nations Human Development Report for the decade from 1990 to 2000, since 2001 Canada’s ranking has plummeted to 20th and 31st, respectively.

How is it that a progressive and modern nation like Canada could become a global laughingstock in the area of gender equality? Successive austerity budgets, starting in the mid-1990s, and recent fiscal policies have only widened the gap between the rich and the poor and deepened economic disparities between men and women.

Even though about 70% of mothers with children under the age of five work, their employment rate is still far lower than that of fathers, according to Statistics Canada. In my opinion, it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to introduce policies to restore balance and establish working conditions that make it possible for parents—not only women—to balance work and family.

In Quebec, the child care program has led to the creation of good jobs, and a 9% rise in mothers’ labour force participation. The program has also benefited the economy because every dollar invested has boosted the GDP by $2.30, according to a study by the Université de Sherbrooke.

Since the Conservatives announced their intention to fulfill their pledge to institute income splitting, as a former coach of the Canadiens would say, a lot of ink has gone under the bridge.

I would like to quote a number of newspaper headlines. Le Devoir published two articles: “Income splitting: The wrong track” and “Federal taxation: Income splitting lines the pockets of the wealthy”. The Globe and Mail ran an article with the following headline:

“Probing the pledge: The Tories' flawed tax break for families”.

One recent report states:

“The Big Split: Income Splitting's Unequal Distribution of Benefits Across Canada”. From the Progressive Economics Forum, we have “Income Splitting: A Bad Idea Returns”. Then there is “Income Inequalities in Canada: Fiscal and Gender Dimensions”, a briefing paper to the finance committee, and “Income Splitting in Canada: Inequality by Design”, from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Even the C.D. Howe Institute came out against this measure.

Barrie McKenna stated in The Globe and Mail that this measure was seriously flawed because it would mainly benefit the wealthy.

A recent Broadbent Institute study, based on Statistics Canada data, shows interesting regional disparities. In particular, the study shows that most of the couples who would benefit from this measure are in Alberta and Saskatchewan. If I may say so, that is fertile territory for the Conservatives. It comes as no surprise that these measures would be less beneficial to provinces like Prince Edward Island and Quebec.

The C.D. Howe Institute's comments on this are as follows:

The measure would:

...fail to achieve its particular notion of horizontal equity, likely by overtaxing dual-earner couples. It would also distribute gains disproportionately to a small share of all households (mostly at the highest incomes), fail to assist families that most need help..., and create new distortions to work incentives.

I must pause to announce some good news, which is that I will share my time with the hon. member for Trois-Rivières.

I will continue with quotes that denounce income splitting. Economist Erin Weir pointed out the significant impact that this measure would have on the federal government's revenues:

Another aspect of the proposal that should be questioned is its likely impact on provincial governments, whose taxes generally apply to income as defined by federal tax rules. If it would reduce annual federal revenues by $2.5 billion, it could also reduce combined provincial revenues by about a billion dollars.

Mr. Weir then continued by asking:

The Conservatives have promised to wait until the federal budget is balanced. Would they also wait until provincial budgets are balanced?

It seems to us that these revenues could be judiciously used to promote increased labour market participation by parents and greater recognition of work that is currently unpaid.

These revenues could also be used to reduce the gap between the rich and poor, a gap that is growing very rapidly in Canada, where 86 Canadians have the wealth of the 11.4 million poorest Canadians and where 14% of the country's total revenues go into the pockets of the richest 1%.

The Conference Board of Canada stated:

Do government taxes and transfers help to reduce inequality?

Yes. Personal income taxes and government transfers (such as social assistance, employment insurance, child benefits, and old age security) have helped to reduce income inequality.

No one can say that the Conference Board of Canada is leftist.

To conclude, the federal government has the means at its disposal to reduce inequalities and propose measures that will benefit all taxpayers, not just a narrow group of Conservatives. We believe in a sustainable and equitable economy, which includes a fairer, simpler and more progressive tax system.

Canadians are social democrats. They recognize the importance of the fair sharing of wealth, the value of work and fair compensation.

They recognize the importance of creating a climate conducive to full employment for everyone. They also want to be able to look after their families and loved ones, whether as parents or caregivers. It is therefore the moral responsibility of the government of a prosperous country such as Canada to foster a climate that will help our country become a country without inequalities, a country where prosperity will be accessible to all.

[Victims Bill of Rights, June 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for making that point.

It is not just about money. All the parties have deep wounds. Human nature is very fragile. When someone is a victim or witnesses a violent act, they need psychological help to cope with the ordeal. They also need more technical help in navigating all the steps in the process.

Furthermore, it is important to ensure that there is some possibility of redemption. That is part of our human nature and part of a long process and a long road.

[Victims Bill of Rights, June 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for also reminding us of this aspect of the issue.

Some of the comments made after this bill was introduced indicate that the federal government is backing away from compensation for victims of crime. It is doing so by trying to make offenders, those who commit the crime, pay.

However, how can that happen when some people accused of violent crimes live in extreme poverty? They will not be able to compensate the victims. It will be impossible. Nor will they be able to pay if they are in prison.

If the government really wants to help victims, it should provide more funding for programs that already exist and partner with the provinces that have victim compensation programs. This was one comment in an article that appeared in The Globe and Mail. It should also establish these programs across Canada and properly fund them.

The federal government, which says it stands up for victims, should be the first to rise and applaud this recommendation.

[Victims Bill of Rights, June 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I soberly rise this afternoon to debate Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts. This bill is quite large and just the summary takes up several pages. Thus, I will not be able to discuss the entire bill at length.

As legislators in the House, we are often called on to strike a balance. When we draft laws, we are always looking for balance, sometimes between complicated things that at first glance seem contradictory, and we have to be able to harmonize them.

In Canada, we are fortunate to have solid democratic institutions and law and order. There is a separation between the legislative branch, whose power we exercise in the House of Commons, and the judicial branch. It is very important to remember that when we draft and debate bills.

All members, no matter their politics, have the same objective: to improve this country, serve Canadians and defend the interests of all Canadians, not just those of specific groups. Sometimes when we launch our political career, we have different and deep personal convictions or motivations. However, we must not let these personal convictions get the upper hand of certain fundamental principles that govern our country.

With respect to the victims bill of rights, the NDP is listening to the victims and to their demands. We want their voices to be heard because they often suffer in silence and receive no support. They go through very trying times.

With this bill, the government seems to want to give victims a voice. However, will the bill give them the means to make this happen?

According to the analyses we have looked at, there is no evidence that this bill would provide the means to implement this bill of rights.

The summary states the following:

(h) the right to have the courts consider making, in all cases, a restitution order against the offender; and

(i) the right to have a restitution order entered as a civil court judgment that is enforceable against the offender if the amount owing under the restitution order is not paid.

I cannot discuss this in detail, but we have to ask ourselves whether these measures can really be implemented. What the government is trying to do here is make sure that individuals accused of crimes compensate the victims. That can be problematic because sometimes those accused of a crime do not have the means to compensate the victim at all.

The government actually had a commission in place that could compensate victims of violent crimes. I looked into this recently, and some provinces have created commissions to ensure that victims of violent crimes are compensated, but that is not the case across Canada. Maybe the government could find a way to include in the victims bill of rights a mechanism to help victims through a commission that could compensate them. I encourage the government to do that.

It will also be worth our while to carefully examine other issues in committee, because some of them may surface later on. Therefore, it will be critical to conduct an in-depth study of this bill in committee.

For example, as I mentioned, what steps will be taken regarding damages incurred by victims? Also, as I pointed out during the debates, the bill presents the theory, the plan, the intentions. However, how will this be implemented in our justice system? As we know, there are long delays right now. There are lineups, so to say. Will this bill make the process more cumbersome or not? I am not saying the government's intentions regarding the victims bill of rights are not good. However, we must determine whether this will bog down the process.

I also noticed that victims of domestic violence would be required to testify. I am not sure if I understood correctly, but we should really take a close look at this provision. We must understand that domestic violence is a very particular issue, and we really need to be careful.

This huge bill means well. It is a matter of knowing whether the government is prepared to take the necessary steps to implement it and to ensure victims are truly protected.

I also hope that at committee stage the government will listen to those who will propose necessary amendments to this legislation.

[Victims Bill of Rights, June 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my hon. colleague to say a few words about the repercussions this bill will have on the process. The courts are currently quite backlogged and trials take a long time. Does my colleague think that this bill will slow down the legal process even more?