Hoang Mai

[The Budget, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague with respect to consultation. We need to have more discussion between the federal and provincial governments.

I mentioned the example of infrastructure, but that also applies to health care and at all levels. What we have seen is the Conservative government doing things behind closed doors, then telling us that we can take it or leave it. We have seen it with the provincial government, with first nations and with aboriginals. The government is not collaborative and not consulting. It basically comes up with solutions and it is a take it or leave it situation. Most of the time the conditions are not as favourable as the ones we currently have.

[The Budget, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

I rise today to speak to budget 2013. I cannot say it is a pleasure to do so, since the budget is not really going in the right direction. It is my pleasure, however, to report on the concerns of the people in Brossard—La Prairie.

A budget is a series of choices. The Minister of Finance and the government decide to go in one direction or another when they bring in a budget. The Minister of Finance and the Conservatives have chosen austerity. That is their choice.

The government's goal is to balance the budget in 2015, the election year. That is a purely political choice. In fact, when we look closely at what is happening today and when we consider the world economy and the situation in Canada where economic growth is less than what the government projected, it makes Canadians worried. The economy is not as strong as the government wants them to believe.

Talking about choices means looking at the measures that have been taken. Ever since the Conservatives came to power, the youth unemployment rate has remained twice that of the average rate in the population. The gap between rich and poor is increasing at incredible rates and reaching record levels. Household debt has reached 167%, which means that for every dollar they earn, people owe $1.67. That is huge.

The Conservative government has also decided to reduce tax rates for big business. They said that would stimulate the economy. What has happened? Companies have $600 billion stashed away. Even the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Minister of Finance have said that the situation is worrisome. That is dead money, money that is not being reinvested in the economy and is not helping Canadians and their families. The government's measures are to blame.

For the 2013 budget, we propose a long-term vision that will also help employment. One of the first things we want to emphasize is the green economy. All members of this House can agree that a long-term vision should include a green economy, but this budget has nothing to offer in that respect. It still favours the big oil companies and subsidizes them to the tune of $1.3 billion.

The government decided to discontinue the eco-energy program, which was working well. The program helped people and families do renovations and get tax credits in order to save energy and help the economy at the same time. Unfortunately, the government has not come up with anything new to achieve that. It mentions the program and says it is proud of it, but it cancelled the program all the same. In my opinion, that is a flaw in the government's vision.

We agree that budgets ought to be balanced. The NDP has demonstrated that at the provincial level. We have the best record on budgets. We are the party with the best-balanced budgets and the least debt. These figures come from the finance department. We agree on this, but timing is critical. Right now is not a good time for an austerity budget such as the government is proposing. An austerity budget slows down the economy and creates a problem.

Since household debt is at very high levels, we cannot count on consumer spending. Moreover, private companies are not reinvesting their money. All that leads to a possible economic slowdown and worse, a recession. I am not the one predicting this; the information comes from the IMF and OECD. Many studies have shown that such a problem would occur.

We made a proposal with respect to infrastructure. I am very disappointed that the government's budget did not include a national plan for infrastructure and public transportation. We proposed that the money from excise taxes be reinvested directly by giving it to the municipalities, enabling them to take the long-term view and invest, especially since our infrastructure deficit is about $123 billion.

That is enormous. We cannot expect the municipalities to make this kind of investment on their own. There will have to be co-operation with the federal government, and unfortunately, it is not happening. I know the government struts about proclaiming the many infrastructure investments in this budget. They talk about investment over 10 years, for example. It is a nice idea.

However, when we crunch the numbers, we can see that after 10 years, these proposals will lead to a loss of $4.7 billion. The government is taking money that already exists and pretending to make new investments, saying that it will be good in the long term, but if we look at today's figures, the money already invested and the existing programs, we realize that we lose in the end, and the consequences will be felt directly.

In my riding, Brossard—La Prairie, the Champlain Bridge is a good example. I know the government boasts that it is investing in the Champlain Bridge. However, I would remind the government that it announced $124.9 million—supposedly new money—last summer. That was for a temporary bridge connecting l'Île-des-Soeurs and Montreal. The money in this budget is not new.

We want the numbers for the Champlain Bridge. The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has already said that it would cost between $3 billion and $5 billion. We have no other details about these figures, and no other information about costs.

Having lived through the sad fiasco of the F-35s, we have many questions, particularly about the reliability of and methods behind the Conservative government's management of public funds. We do not want to deal with another F-35 fiasco. That is why we, on this side of the House, are demanding real numbers and an open, transparent, competitive tendering process with public input.

In Quebec, sadly, we have had many problems in the construction sector. Now is the time for the government to pay attention and choose to use a more open process. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening.

As for what is happening with the public transit that is supposed to operate on the Champlain Bridge, the government says it is co-operating fully. I have asked the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities a number of questions in the House on this topic. He says that co-operation with the provincial government is going well and reports that meetings are being held. However, when we read up on the subject, we find this is what the Quebec Minister of Transport has to say:

The Government of Quebec wants to work with the federal government on a common vision for this issue. Clearly, the Minister [of Transport] is not interested.

It is clear that the federal government does not want to work with the other provinces. It works behind closed doors without consulting anyone and then shows up after the fact. It should take a more open approach from now on.

The only thing I managed to find in this budget, on page 185 of the English version, is that for the new Champlain bridge, which will cost between $3 billion and $5 billion, no money is earmarked for 2013-14 and $14 million has been allocated for 2014-15. No other information is provided. That is a problem. There is not a whole lot of transparency. The government has to learn to co-operate more.

I am running out of time, so I will move on to the fact that the government is attacking labour-sponsored funds by eliminating the tax credit. Since the budget was tabled, I have received many emails from my constituents. I would like to read one from Bibianne Bédard from Brossard, which I received yesterday and which was also sent to the Minister of Finance.

I am writing to express my dissatisfaction with your announcement in budget 2013 that the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds will be phased out.

I urge you to reverse this decision that will have an impact on the middle class and its ability to save for retirement and will deprive small businesses in Quebec of significant support for their development.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, March 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I agree. We are the opposition. All parties are together. That is why we have come together with the government to make Bill C-15 a better bill. There are still holes in the bill. We want to make it better. That is why we said we would support it in the way we want it to move forward. It was a good step. However, there are things that need to be amended.

I would like to thank my colleague for mentioning that we came up with some amendments, which were better than what is currently proposed. However, they were already refused. There was debate and discussion at committee. Right now what we are saying is that we want to support the bill and make it a better bill, even though the amendment does not come from our party. We are not partisan on that front. We just want to support it, because we want to move forward, and we want to make it a better bill.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, March 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little disappointed with the tone of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. He knows full well that debate and discussion are important in this Parliament. This is the first government in the history of Canada to be found in contempt of Parliament by imposing a record number of gag orders, I do not know how many. The government clearly sees that the opposition is highlighting the issues, proposing amendments and trying to work to make the legislation the best it can be. He clearly said, "in the best interest of military justice". That is what we are trying to do and what we are trying to propose.

Unfortunately, when we arrived with some very reasonable amendments that the government could have accepted, they rejected them. That is why we are speaking about this today. It is important to discuss it today, contrary to what the government is used to doing. It is used to saying that if we oppose the government, we are against the government. That goes against what we should be doing as parliamentarians. That is why I was disappointed with the parliamentary secretary's tone.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, March 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue speaking to Bill C-15.

Before question period, I explained that this bill had been introduced during the 40th Parliament, and that it had been studied. Some changes proposed by the opposition parties had even been adopted. Unfortunately, the government did not do its homework before reintroducing Bill C-15, which means that we had to debate it all over again. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence complained during debate at second reading that we were debating these issues.

I would also like to remind him that in the House, not only must we debate bills, but we must also explain to Canadians the issue being discussed. It was only through that debate and the fact that the opposition was in a position to put forward all those factors, that the government backed down and accepted the amendments in order to improve the bill. Unfortunately, although we said that this bill was a step in the right direction, it includes one point that is still problematic.

I heard the parliamentary secretary ask a number of times this morning why the NDP is speaking today when it did not raise these questions in committee. However, that is not the case. Our position is clear. We raised it in committee; we discussed it. The Conservatives hold the majority in the House and in committees. They choose what they want to accept and they have accepted certain amendments.

I am thinking in particular about criminal records for members of the Canadian Forces. For someone who wants a normal life after having served his country, having a criminal record has some very negative repercussions. I remember rising here in the House to push the issue. We are happy that the government listened to us, that it listened to the opposition.

However, it backtracked on aspects that had been agreed upon during the 40th Parliament. Turning back specifically to the Military Police Complaints Commission, the MPCC, we are asking that the commission be truly independent. The proposal set out in Bill C-15 has a negative impact. This bill gives the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff the authority to establish guidelines and to issue instructions regarding police investigations. We also feel that has an impact on the terms set out in the current accountability framework and that it goes against the principle of independence. We feel it is a type of interference, which his problematic.

Glenn Stannard, chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission, raised this point when he testified before committee. I am not going to reread what he said, but I would like to make it clear that people will trust the independence of the military police when it is truly independent and when there is no interference. That is important. Again, when we say that we respect our military personnel and that they are important, we also must make sure that we have the best possible system in place.

That is why we are rising today. We are standing up for a better military justice system because the members on this side of the House have a great deal of respect for our men and women in uniform who have served and are still serving our country, and I know that the members opposite do as well. In fact, all members of the House have a great deal of respect for them. However, we must respect them not only when they are working to represent us but also once their work is complete. It is our turn, as legislators, to ensure that they have all the tools they need, to ensure that those tools are in their best interest and to support them in their return to civilian life.

Peter Tinsley, former chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission, testified in committee as an individual, and he supports the NDP's position.

He said that Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction. However, he also said that the independence of the police, recognized by the Supreme Court in 1999, is also a problem. The provision we are talking about right now, namely, subsection 18.5(3) of the bill, violates the judicial independence recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1999 as a fundamental principle underlying the rule of law. What is more, the subsection deviates from the norm with regard to the relationship between the police and the government.

That is why we are rising today. This morning, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice repeated the same question several times. He was trying to find out why the NDP did not rise. I would like to answer him by saying that this was something that we raised in committee and that was put forward. Some progress was made on the issue and the government agreed to certain amendments, but there is a problem with this provision.

The motions moved by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands are a step in the right direction, but they are not exactly what we wanted. However, we know that, at this stage, these motions will allow us to move forward. That is why we are discussing this subject. It is important to debate it in the House. We have seen that this can have a positive effect because the government can learn from what is happening and move in the right direction.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, March 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Gatineau, who covered this topic so well.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-15 as well as the committee amendments that we are debating today.

I would also like to thank our defence critic, the member for St. John's East, for the work he has done on this file. He has done a marvellous, remarkable job.

I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence say over and over again that the opposition was not doing anything, that it was just debating and not offering any sort of solution. When we look at what really happened, we can see that meaningful changes came out of those discussions.

This bill was introduced, debated and studied in committee during the 40th Parliament. Then it was deferred until today.

When the government introduced this bill, it did not take into account the amendments that had already been proposed, considered and passed by the parties. Once again, the government came back with a bill filled with holes and things that could have been fixed at that time.

One of the main things that concerned me, and that I mentioned at second reading, is the matter of criminal records. In the NDP, we believe it is important not to say two different things when it comes to the men and women of the Canadian Forces. These people help us, and we owe them the greatest respect. We must not change our tune: we cannot support them when we send them off and forget them when they return.

We rose to speak about the impact this could have with respect to criminal records. This is a victory for the NDP and the opposition. We made sure that the government backed down on criminal records. It gave more consideration to the consequences this would have for CF members.

One of the important points we are talking about today involves the Military Police Complaints Commission and guaranteeing the independence of the MPCC. We discussed the aspect related to the interference that this involved.

As drafted, clause 4 presents a number of problems in that respect. On February 11, 2013, Glenn Stannard, the chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission, stated in his testimony:

As far as the commission is aware, there have been no problems with the accountability framework that justify its revocation at this time, and proposed subsection 18.5(3) runs counter to various efforts over the years to shore up public confidence in the independence of military policing.

Therefore, we are talking about subsection 18.5(3). In committee, the NDP made some proposals and asked to have it removed. That is exactly what Mr. Stannard said as well.

It is important to listen better. Unfortunately, once again, the government did not listen to us. That is why we are rising today and discussing that point.

[Petitions, March 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to present a petition calling for a ban on the importation of shark fins, knowing that every year, 73 million sharks are killed. We are talking about the cruel practice of shark finning.

Many people have signed this petition, and I am honoured to present it here today.

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague. I would also like to correct what my colleague opposite said. My colleague has always talked about the process the bill had to go through to get here, about the reason why we have reached third reading of that bill and about the fact that the government took so long. I very much respect your decision, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for my colleague. Before Bill C-55 got here, the government spent a great deal of time drafting Bill C-30 and demonizing all those who opposed that bill.

The Conservatives subsequently admitted their mistake, reversed course and drafted Bill C-55 at the last minute. That bill is nevertheless a step in the right direction, since it is consistent with what the Supreme Court requested. I would like my colleague to comment on the process the government used to table Bill C-30.

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

Since he is a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I would like to ask him a question about how the government has proceeded with other bills, including Bill C-30, for example.

How has the government proceeded and what could be done to improve this aspect? The opposition has proposed concrete solutions. I wonder if my colleague could talk about what this government could do better.

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague, whom I have the pleasure of working with on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

My colleague, our party's official justice critic, raised all of our concerns related to how this government acts when it comes to bills, which quite often violate the charter. In this case, my colleague had moved a motion specifically in order to avoid situations like Bill C-30.

I wonder if my colleague could talk about the advantages of having a system in place and how important it is that MPs understand this system, in order to ensure that all bills comply with the charter.