Manon Perreault

[Persons with Disabilities, May 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, although I truly appreciate that my colleague from Brant is willing to break down the barriers, myths and stigmas of hiring people with disabilities, I would like to know why his motion does not propose measures for housing, transportation and income security.

These are problems, and they are challenges that people with disabilities struggle with every day. It is part of the United Nations convention, which our government signed, but we have yet to see anything come out of it.

Am I to assume that my Conservative colleague honestly believes that those issues have nothing to do with the employability of people with disabilities?

[Multiple Sclerosis, May 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today is Multiple Sclerosis Day on Parliament Hill, and I would like to take this opportunity to talk to my colleagues, the public and the government about this disease. It is estimated that 55,000 to 75,000 Canadians suffer from MS.

As the disease progresses, it has a significant impact on a person's ability to work full time. Being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis should not condemn a person to poverty. Those people desperately need income security. The current income support programs are not flexible enough to accommodate their situation.

That is the case with EI sickness benefits, which do not allow for part-time work. Yet many people can work only part time.

I urge the government to make the necessary changes to the current programs so that they meet the needs of people with MS and enable them to fully contribute to Canadian society.

[Old Age Security Act, April 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the bill introduced by my colleague from Laval—Les Îles, Bill C-480, which would help reduce poverty among seniors.

My NDP colleague has a huge heart, but he is also a man of action. This bill before us proves it, because he is trying to fix a problem that primarily affects our seniors. I commend him for trying to bring in a measure to reduce poverty among seniors.

This bill would amend the Old Age Security Act with respect to funeral arrangements. Old age security recipients who have an RRSP could withdraw the taxable amount of $2,500 from their RRSP to make funeral arrangements in advance. This amount would be excluded from their income for their guaranteed income supplement calculation the following year. As a result, their guaranteed income supplement benefits would not be cut or decreased the following year.

All members know that many Canadian families are struggling to make ends meet, and having to cope with funeral costs only makes their existing financial burden worse. This is a tangible measure to combat poverty among seniors and improve their financial security.

We know that low-income seniors typically spend 60% of their monthly budget on housing and food. Their already tight budgets are further consumed by health care necessities, such as medication. They often have to go without essential care because they cannot afford it, and then on top of that, they have to cope with the cost of funeral arrangements, which is a considerable expense for these families.

This bill is in line with our social democratic values and our dedication to social justice. We believe that all seniors should have the right to a comfortable retirement. We want to reduce poverty among seniors, and this bill is part of the philosophy that inspires us as New Democrats. We should enable our seniors to grow old with dignity, and we should guarantee them financial and moral peace of mind. That is the goal of this bill. Seniors should not have to put themselves in a difficult financial position to pay for funeral arrangements in advance.

This bill would take care of that because the guaranteed income supplement would not be affected during the following fiscal year. It is unacceptable that families should have to bear such a huge financial and moral burden alone. Why give them another problem to deal with when they are already grieving the loss of a loved one? This measure will help our neediest seniors, those who receive the guaranteed income supplement.

We are working hard to fight poverty among seniors, but the Conservatives are doing just the opposite with their reforms. We know that two-thirds of the population does not have a private retirement fund and has to depend on public money after the age of 65. Need I remind the House that state support for seniors is minimal indeed?

Unfortunately, the Conservative government is not coming up with any concrete solutions to address poverty among seniors. On the contrary, it is proposing delaying access to old age security for two years. Raising the legal retirement age from 65 to 67 will only increase poverty for many people. It will only add to the number of seniors already living below the poverty line in Canada. According to a recent study by the Center for Interuniversity Research and Analysis of Organizations, or CIRANO, this increase will raise the proportion of people aged 65 and 66 living under the low income cutoff from 6% to 17%.

This bill proposes the exact opposite. It would help those who are the least fortunate in our society, and more specifically, it would help reduce poverty among our seniors. By supporting this bill, we can eliminate a huge financial burden for our seniors and their families. Fighting poverty among seniors was one of our campaign promises, and clearly, we are keeping our word.

We want to come up with real solutions to the problems facing Canadians, instead of making irresponsible cuts to old age security. The government should not be going after Canadian workers like this.

We in the NDP are committed to lifting seniors out of poverty and guaranteeing a comfortable retirement for all Canadians. We want to reduce social inequality and help those less fortunate so they can live in better conditions.

My colleague's bill has the support of many stakeholders. According to Janet Gray, certified financial planner and elder planning counsellor, everyone wants to help needy seniors. This bill is a good way to do that.

The Canada pension plan provides $2,500 to cover funeral expenses. However, Ms. Gray believes that today's seniors, especially older seniors, are less likely to have worked full time for most of their career and therefore may not be eligible for CPP. She also noted that the CPP benefit cannot be used to pay for funeral arrangements in advance. It can only be used to pay for funeral arrangements made after the death of the beneficiary.

It is true that the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan have similar benefits. However, the purpose of this bill is to establish a complementary measure not a competing one. It will help those most in need, our seniors who receive the guaranteed income supplement.

This bill shows that we are listening to our constituents and that, as MPs, resolving their problems should be our priority.

However, that is not all. This bill will also boost sales for co-operatives and stimulate the local economy. It will serve as an added incentive for people who are thinking about making funeral arrangements in advance. In the end, the sales of funeral co-operatives will increase, which will in turn stimulate the local economy.

That is the essence of this bill. It seeks to implement a practical measure to reduce poverty among seniors while allowing them to continue to have a respectable financial situation after paying for funeral arrangements in advance. Their guaranteed income supplement will not be affected in the following fiscal year. They will therefore have peace of mind and financial security, knowing that they will not be leaving their family with the burden of paying for their funeral.

It is high time we provided financial help to the most vulnerable members of our society. This bill does just that.

Given that the income gap between the rich and the poor has only grown over the years, it is time to take action. The income gap is the biggest it has been in 30 years. Given that financial status is one of the primary determinants of health, poverty should not be taken lightly.

Socio-economic inequalities are getting worse every day. This has a significant impact on people's health and on a growing number of older people, many of whom have barely enough money to house and feed themselves adequately, let alone pay for other essential resources.

Poverty is costly, and we have to do something about it. That goes double for vulnerable people. Seniors, who are at greater risk of living in poverty, are among those most vulnerable.

According to a study by the Institut de recherche et d'informations socio-économique, the number of low-income seniors climbed dramatically from 4.6% in 1996 to 12.3% in 2008.

We must take steps to improve our seniors' financial health. That is why I am asking all members to support this bill at second reading.

I would like to add that this is not about money. Those who support this bill will demonstrate good will, empathy and humanity. I urge them to listen to their hearts and realize that, because they cannot be against what is right, they cannot be against this bill.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, April 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

If we want to put this burden on the provinces, we will have to first find out whether the provinces have the financial means to support it. The best way to do so would be to meet with each province and with the experts who can answer that question.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, April 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

As I said earlier, in cases dealing with mental health issues, the recidivism rate is still very low. We must be careful not to jump to conclusions. Our actions must not create even more prejudices against those people. There is always room for a little respect in life. Those people are already suffering a great deal.

I would like to see an approach that would make it possible to invite and consult with experts and victims to ensure that no mistakes are made in rulings.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, April 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

We must bear in mind a number of things. Mental illnesses are not only difficult for those suffering from them, but also for their families and friends.

It would probably be a good idea to consult with experts who can provide us with their insight. Perhaps we could even consult with the victims, as I said earlier.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, April 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act. This bill is about people found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. Specifically, this bill would change the mental disorder regime relating to accused individuals found unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible.

As such, the bill amends the mental disorder regime in the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act to specify that the paramount consideration in the decision-making process is the safety of the public. It creates a scheme for finding that certain persons who have been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder are high-risk accused. It also enhances the involvement of victims in the regime and makes procedural and technical amendments.

This bill contains provisions to change how cases involving individuals who are not criminally responsible are dealt with.

Review boards have to consider public safety above all. Requirements to notify victims and their families when a not criminally responsible accused is discharged will be enhanced. Review boards will have the power to issue non-communications orders with victims. This bill enables the courts to designate an accused as high risk.

Review boards will have the option, not the obligation, to triple the length of time between reviews from 12 to 36 months. The bill will limit the number of community visits for high-risk accused and detail the release conditions.

Basically, there are three amendments: putting public safety first, creating a high-risk not criminally responsible accused designation, and enhancing victims' involvement.

With respect to putting public safety first, the legislative amendments in this bill would make public safety the paramount consideration in the courts and during the review boards' decision-making process relating to accused persons found to be not criminally responsible or unfit to stand trial.

This bill would amend the Criminal Code in order to create a scheme for finding that certain people who have been found not criminally responsible are high-risk accused. Under the scheme, the accused would be deemed to be high risk if he was found not criminally responsible of serious bodily harm and there is a strong possibility that he would commit other acts of violence that would endanger the public, or if the acts he committed were of such a brutal nature as to indicate a risk of grave harm to the public.

Those who would fall into this category would therefore be unable to get a conditional or absolute discharge, would not be authorized visit the community without an escort and would be extremely limited in their escorted absences. However, these people would have the right to treatment.

This would therefore be a way of explaining how an accused can have restrictions imposed on him when he poses a criminal threat to public safety even though it is not necessarily a violent threat.

The third component of the amendments in this bill deals with enhancing the involvement of victims. This part seeks to enhance the security of victims by offering them more opportunities to participate in the mental disorder regime in the Criminal Code. The victims would thereby have the possibility of being informed when the accused is discharged. The bill also provides for non-communication orders between the accused and the victim. Finally, the safety of victims would be taken into consideration in cases where decisions are to be made about the accused.

Although the provisions of the proposed bill would help to ensure that the law is interpreted and applied more consistently across the country, there is cause for concern about the impact this bill will have across the country. The provinces must not be forced to foot the bill for this policy.

As we saw in the main provisions of this bill, it is important to note that the bill addresses an issue that is very difficult for victims, families and communities.

We must ensure that protecting public safety is a priority while abiding by the rule of law and respecting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

What matters most is knowing how we can help victims in this process. They are an integral part of all the questions raised by the bill and the changes included in it.

We will therefore support the bill so that we can examine it more thoroughly in committee. In order to shed some light on the bill, we will need to hear from mental health experts, some victims, as well as the provinces, in order to determine which approach would be best. This is not a question of playing political games, but rather properly studying the merits of the policy.

Considering the extensive media coverage that certain crimes receive, we must try to avoid fueling the public's fears and increasing the negative stigma attached to mental illness. This would be completely counterproductive because it would undermine the reintegration of these individuals and, at the same time, do absolutely nothing to enhance public safety. It would only make the situation worse.

As I said earlier, we must make public safety our top priority, while respecting the rule of law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That being said, in the context of this bill, it is critically important that we make sure that the cases of defendants with mental disorders are managed effectively and that their mental disorders are treated. This bill should be based on consultation and co-operation with mental health experts. Our justice system and our mental health system need to operate effectively. In that regard, we will have to rely a great deal on the advice of mental health experts, some of whom have already expressed their reservations about this bill.

Furthermore, the question of cost also needs to be considered. In Canada, the full cost that flows directly from criminal acts is already too much for the provinces to bear. We must not increase their financial burden without ensuring that they have the necessary resources, which is clearly not the case.

According to Chris Summerville, the chief executive officer of the Schizophrenia Society of Canada, in Ontario, only 0.001% of those charged with Criminal Code offences were deemed to be not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. Furthermore, between 2.5% and 7.5% of them reoffend, compared to 41% to 44% of federal offenders. It is obvious that, contrary to what the Conservatives would have Canadians believe, the seriousness of a crime is not a gauge of the likelihood that these people will reoffend, or even their ability to improve their mental health and live a normal, healthy life.

The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, which would handle such cases in Ontario, currently has an occupancy rate of roughly 104%, which leads us back to the issue of the burden and the cost to the provinces. We must ensure that the provinces have proper funding because they will be managing these cases. The federal government is responsible for properly funding this policy.

To summarize, we agree with the spirit of this bill, but we do not want the government to try to use this issue to score political points. On the contrary, this bill needs to be studied carefully because of what is at stake.

Understandably, this is a very difficult issue for victims, families and the community. Naturally, public safety comes first. We also have to comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No matter what we have to say about mental health, we must be careful that we do not exacerbate or heighten the stigma of mental illness.

We know that we could meet with mental health experts, but we should also consult victims living in the provinces.

[Aboriginal Affairs, April 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that the Conservatives do not care about the future of young aboriginal Canadians, either.

There is nothing in budget 2013 to address the chronic underfunding of schools in aboriginal communities. Furthermore, the Conservatives are preventing post-secondary institutions from using the funds received under the Indian studies support program to provide quality education services.

Why is the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs coming down so hard on this program rather than providing aboriginal young people with the tools they need?

[Taxation, April 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' budget is full of hidden taxes. They want to increase taxes on thousands of consumer goods and are neglecting the Canadians who are hit the hardest by existing taxes, such as taxes on assistive technology for people with vision loss.

Under the current legislation, these items are fully taxed unless approved by a doctor or institution. This is unfair discrimination against people with vision loss.

Why do the Conservatives think they know best when it comes to people with vision loss?

[Air Passengers’ Bill of Rights, March 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's bill addresses a significant need in Canada regarding the rights of air passengers.

This issue can affect all Canadians, anyone who uses air travel. Indeed, some problems that can arise during a flight do not happen in other forms of travel. Whether it involves a cancelled or delayed flight, lost baggage, or if boarding is denied, these things can happen to anyone.

Many incidents can arise during air travel. Accordingly, passengers' rights need to be protected any time airlines are treating their passengers unfairly. Compensation rules and requirements for the carriers need to be imposed in order to ensure that travellers are not put at a disadvantage.

The bill places obligations on air carriers to provide compensation and other assistance to passengers in certain cases when a flight has been cancelled or delayed, when boarding has been denied, and when an aircraft has remained on the ground for a period of more than an hour at an airport.

It also requires air carriers to disclose all relevant information to the public regarding the pricing of flights and to keep passengers informed regarding any misplaced baggage and any developments in respect of their flights that could have a significant impact on their travel plans.

These rights apply in certain situations. First of all, when a flight is cancelled, passengers have the right to be reimbursed or re-routed to their final destination. They are entitled to meals based on the length of the delay, and to accommodation, if necessary. They are entitled to compensation in the amount of $250 to $600, unless the flight is cancelled due to extraordinary circumstances or if passengers agree to be re-routed.

Second, when travellers are denied boarding as a result of overbooking on the part of an airline, passengers are entitled to compensation in the amount of $250 to $600, as well as any benefits offered by the airline.

Third, when a flight is delayed, passengers are entitled to meals and refreshments in a reasonable relation to the waiting time, as well as accommodation, if necessary.

Fourth, when baggage is misplaced, passengers are entitled to $500 in compensation.

Fifth, when the advertised price is wrong, airlines must include all costs to be assumed by the airline, as well as all duties, fees and taxes that they collect on behalf of other parties.

This bill takes a page from European legislation that has been in place for several years. It must be said that we are lagging far behind in that respect. European regulations establish compensation for passengers when they have problems with air transportation.

If a flight is overbooked or cancelled, the passenger is entitled to financial compensation. Airlines are always required to provide assistance.

This month, the European Commission announced a number of measures to provide air passengers with new rights and better access to good information and assistance when they are stranded at an airport.

New procedures to handle complaints and new enforcement measures are also included in order for passengers to obtain what they are entitled to. Oversight of airlines by domestic and European authorities will be strengthened.

Even persons with disabilities are better served under the rules established by the European Union. The regulations adopted in 2006 are based on the simple principle that persons with disabilities should have the same opportunity to travel by air.

The regulations on the rights of people with reduced mobility when using air transport prohibits operators from refusing to make a reservation or board passengers because of a disability. However, there are some exceptions due to safety reasons established by law.

The person with reduced mobility must be informed of the refusal, together with the reasons, within five days of making the reservation.

Persons with disabilities are also entitled to obtain, from airport authorities, free assistance at airports and aboard aircraft. These services are funded by a levy collected from the airline companies. European Union countries also impose penalties and have independent organizations to deal with complaints.

This is the approach we should take in Canada, given how successful the common rules for the compensation of air passengers instituted by the European Union in 2004 have been.

If Europeans have such rights, then Canadians should have them too. Europeans do not hesitate to exercise their rights when they feel they have a valid complaint against an airline.

Whether passengers have been denied boarding or downgraded, or their flight has been significantly delayed or cancelled, these are forms of abuse, and we must legislate to prevent them from happening again. If people think that they have a legitimate complaint against an airline because they have been denied boarding or downgraded, or their flight has been significantly delayed or cancelled, they must be able to exercise their rights without any hesitation.

It is simply a matter of logic. Travellers should receive a refund or compensation for their trip if it is cancelled. Consequently, travellers must have access to clear rules regarding refunds or compensation in the event that the airline changes their travel itinerary without two weeks' notice. Otherwise, many Canadian families' vacations will end up being disrupted simply because of an airline's bad practices.

If airlines do not honour their commitments, they must compensate travellers. This bill is a good approach in terms of respectful relations between airlines and travellers.

We need to put rules in place to protect the rights of consumers by working with airlines. Quite frankly, some airlines have really good practices. Others, however, quite commonly engage in practices that are harmful to consumers, such as overbooking and cancelling flights.

When such situations occur, it is important to ensure that travellers are compensated by the airline. Reasonable compensation for travellers would be provided depending on the situation and the damage done, without creating false expectations on the part of the traveller.

It is true that some airlines already have good compensation practices in place, but that is not the case for all of them. This bill would penalize only the airlines that take advantage of consumers.

It is common practice among some airlines to offer refunds only to passengers who are refused boarding. When flights are overbooked, which happens often, people are not usually reimbursed. Bill C-459 would also provide compensation to passengers who end up in that situation, based on the distance of the flight in question.

I already hear the Conservatives saying that no one can control the weather, that not all the blame can be put on the airlines and that some of the responsibility lies elsewhere.

That is why this bill allows for exceptions when it is not the airline's fault. For example, passengers will not receive compensation in the case of a cancelled flight caused by extraordinary circumstances that could not have been avoided. In the case of extraordinary circumstances, airlines do not have to provide the compensation set out in Bill C-459.

That is the essence of the bill that would create a fairer relationship between passengers and airlines, something that has existed in Europe for many years. It will be particularly beneficial to middle-class Canadian families and SME owners. Whether we are talking about a family vacation, a business trip or any other kind of travel, passengers will not end up powerless and will have rights.

There is currently a serious legislative gap to be filled, and the bill introduced by my colleague from Laval fills the major gap we have in Canada. We must ultimately ensure that passengers are properly compensated when there is a problem at the airport.