Mylène Freeman

[Protecting Canada's Seniors Act, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this issue is very important to me. Since I was elected, my work as a member of Parliament has made me very much aware of the enormous challenges that Canadian seniors face, such as violence, negligence and abuse. These are very complex problems.

This bill seeks to ensure that sentencing reflects vulnerability factors in the situations of seniors who are victims of crime, such as their age and other aspects of their personal situation such as health and finances. All these factors would be considered aggravating circumstances for sentencing purposes. This responds in part to demands the NDP made during the last election, in 2011. Unfortunately, the bill does not entirely solve the problem, and I will speak about that a little later in my speech.

The population of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel is aging. Despite the fact that the rural municipalities I represent are strong communities consisting of engaged citizens who take the time to help their neighbours and the people in their community, the fact remains that it is hard to grow old in places where it is hard to access health care and services for seniors.

Elder abuse is a reality. When my constituents request legal or medical aid, or assistance in remaining independent, such as housing or money, for example, they are told all too often that there are excessive delays and that there is not enough funding for housing facilities. There is also a lack of training for workers in the legal system on how to handle elder abuse cases. A number of problems arise as seniors work their way through the system to regain their independence, something they are entitled to do. It is very disappointing to see that the system does not help those people.

I have heard from expert witnesses and seniors on the front line combating violence against seniors. When the Standing Committee on the Status of Women looked into this matter, it heard from several organizations that do excellent work in the field. They included the National Initiative for the Care of the Elderly, the Canadian Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse, the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly and the Réseau FADOQ.

Those prominent stakeholders agreed that people who abuse seniors do not receive appropriate sentences and that judges should be asked to consider the age and vulnerability of the victim. Several other witnesses talked about other aspects that are important to assess. Merely providing for adequate sentences will not solve the problem. To really address the problem of elder abuse, all stakeholders will have to work together to prevent such abuses.

All seniors, regardless of culture, gender or income, may become victims of abuse. This is a problem that affects all segments of society. However, some social determinants such as income, social status, gender, education and housing security may leave an individual more vulnerable to abuse. Older women are more often victims of abuse. This is not necessarily because they are physically weaker than men their age but rather because poverty and housing insecurity are more serious problems for all women.

This affects older women because it affects all women. All women have a lower income than men their age. It is therefore a generalized problem.

So as women grow older, they have an income problem and a problem with access to housing. These are the kinds of issues we should be discussing, because the percentage is higher among women and there are many more elderly women because of their longer life expectancy.

I firmly believe that the independence of seniors is essential if we are to end discrimination and systemic abuse. If that is how we treat our grandparents, it says a lot about who we are. If we ignore this systemic problem and do not give them the pensions they deserve, then our society has a problem. Housing insecurity is a problem for many seniors. That is why we need a national housing strategy. We asked for it during the last election. It should be part of this specific amendment to the bill. We believe that the response to this problem should be coordinated with all sectors of society that are involved and all levels of government. Some provincial initiatives have been helping seniors get out of situations in which they are abused or neglected. Above all, public awareness of the importance of the issue is essential.

Major efforts are being made in my riding. For example, the seniors' round table in Argenteuil performs a play in the Laurentians called Faudrait pas prendre grand-mère pour une dinde et grand-père pour son dindon, meaning do not make the mistake of thinking grandma is a silly goose and grandpa is her gander. It is an excellent play whose purpose is to break the silence around abuse, to raise awareness among young people by performing the play in schools, to condemn the widespread infantilization of seniors and to recommend tools they can use to protect themselves. The play will be presented in schools so that young people can understand the issue, and it will also be performed in retirement homes. Workers will also be present to explain that help is available if they ever want to free themselves from abusive situations.

The government created the federal elder abuse initiative, but funding for the program ended last year. Its role was to develop awareness campaigns to ensure that people could recognize and report elder abuse. It was a good start, but unfortunately no more than a first step. The program should have been allowed to continue.

But that is just the first step. The government really has to address elder abuse and neglect. Programs that support independence and personal freedom should be introduced, rather than punitive and paternalistic programs based strictly on legislation. Ageism is the underlying cause of neglect and abuse. Training is needed throughout the judicial and social system if stakeholders are to be able to help elders escape their situations.

This would not necessarily be a compulsory whistleblowing system. It is important to understand that people might be in situations in which they do not wish to report their assailant because he is a family member.

As I was saying, it is an extremely complex issue. The bill is nothing more than a starting point, and I hope that more will be done to prevent elder abuse.

[Reflecting the Realities of Canadian Artists Act, November 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the bill introduced by the hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber deals directly with justice and equality among all Canadians. The bill allows income averaging for artists and cultural entrepreneurs under federal income tax practices. It also makes some income that is derived from royalties or gratuities tax-free.

The Canadian tax system is crucial to our government, but it is hardly fair for artists. In addition, artists do not have much of a social safety net to rely on. The tax system puts them at a disadvantage because of the irregular hours usually associated with their work and because of punitively high taxation during years of high earnings. The years before and after a high-earning year should be taken into account, since they are often very modest. In terms of the social safety net, artists are often ineligible for certain government programs, such as employment insurance, Canada pension plan, and so on.

This bill addresses one of the challenges that comes with a career in the arts. At a reasonable cost, we could help nearly 100,000 Canadians make ends meet and guarantee that they are no longer put at an unfair disadvantage.

The performing arts are unparalleled for the flexibility required because artists are hired, but they can easily be fired. By definition, any creative work carries its share of risks and uncertainty that expose the artist to a precarious life, more so than the typical salaried worker. It is obvious that this work model is only sustainable if the government is prepared to provide an element of stability in the employer-employee relationship. That is what we would like to do.

Managing risk is a vital function that prevents prolonged and intermittent periods of unemployment from making employment in the world of arts and entertainment even more precarious. The principle of income averaging for artists, in general and in Bill C-427 in particular, has almost universal support from members of Canada's cultural community. They believe that this measure can mitigate the uncertainty of the artist's work. Unlike what the Conservatives seem to be saying, income averaging is quite common throughout the world and it is an effective means of spreading out the tax liability.

I will talk about an organization that is an economic driver in my riding and in the Montebello region: Outaouais Rock, which hosts the largest rock festival in Quebec. When Alex Martel, the business manager of Outaouais Rock, heard about Bill C-427, introduced by my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber, he wrote to me to say that he wanted to offer his support, as well as the support of all those involved with Outaouais Rock, for this bill that would do a lot for artists.

Artists and people who work on stage or behind the scenes, like Mr. Martel, recognize that work is needed to adapt our tax system to artists' realities. This year, the economic spinoffs of Rockfest in Montebello were estimated at $4 million. The festival brings in a number of investments to our region and is good for all those who live there. It also acts as a tourism draw for the region.

Careers in the arts, as in many seasonal industries, are often characterized by large fluctuations in income and by irregular work hours. This situation has an unfortunate consequence: it harshly penalizes artists on their taxes when they receive a higher income.

Contrary to what the government seems to believe, careers in arts and culture make an enormous contribution to our economy. The least we can do in return is to take into account the distinct nature of work in the arts and give artists their just due so that they can continue to enrich our culture. Artists, artisans and those who work in the cultural industry generate huge economic spinoffs and positive economic externalities. They need us to adjust the tax system so that it takes into account their reality.

To quote Gabrielle Roy, “Could we ever know each other in the slightest without the arts?” There is no better way to describe the importance of the arts in our society. This reminds us of the importance of supporting these occupations that are essential in our society.

This bill is an excellent example of how much the NDP supports artists and the cultural industry. This sector leaves a huge economic footprint. It accounts for a large part of our GDP. It provides many jobs and generates good economic spinoffs.

My colleague's bill recognizes the importance of this industry and is an excellent way to allow artists who live for their art to also make a living from it.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, November 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that has recently happened in Kanesatake is having its NCBR funding cut, unexpectedly. It just did not come in and it normally comes in every year. After attempting to find out what was going on, finally there was a letter from AAND saying that it had cut the funding, it was over and Kanesatake was not getting any, final decision. This is extremely frustrating. It took about six or seven months to get the letter to understand what was happening.

NCBR funding went toward youth centres where children would go after school if they did not have anywhere else to go, and that had programming. The funding also provided lunch programs at the schools. There are so many kids who cannot afford to have lunch and will not have a meal that day unless the school provides it for them. We are talking about serious problems. Ignoring these problems and implementing bills unilaterally that would cause more financial problems is worse for aboriginal rights than supposedly solving MRP.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, November 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the government is ignoring the rights of aboriginals to have their own ability to control these things.

Ellen Gabriel is a member of Kanesatake, which is within my riding. She is a former Quebec Native Women's Association president. She said:

It is reprehensible that the Government of Canada is so eager to pass legislation [that seriously impacts the collective human rights of Indigenous peoples] without adequate consultations which requires the free, prior and informed consent of Aboriginal peoples. While it is understood that legislation is not accompanied by commitments to adequate financial and human resources necessary to implement laws, these Bills will create further financial hardships on First Nations communities.

While no one will argue against the fact that solutions must be found on the issue of gender discrimination in regards to MRP or that we must work together to find ways to help First Nations communities to have access to safe drinking water. Sharing equal responsibility requires the means to effectively implement measures that do not create further burden upon communities; financial or otherwise.

The thing with this bill is that it will require more financial resources and actual consultation so we can implement rights for aboriginal peoples, not—

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, November 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am standing in the House on behalf of my constituents of Kanesatake who have outwardly expressed their opposition to this. I have consulted with the band and spoken with Ellen Gabriel, a member of the band of Kanesatake, and can clearly and without reservation say that first nations do not agree with this legislation.

Bill S-2 makes changes to the Indian Act that will allow provincial family law to apply on reserves in the event of a matrimonial breakdown or the death of a spouse or a partner. While the intention of the act is to give equal property rights to both spouses in the event of a separation, the problem is that the bill cannot be implemented and that the government completely ignored any consultation when preparing the legislation. Otherwise, it would have known that the bill could not be implemented.

There is a legal vacuum concerning real property on reserve due to the jurisdictional divide between provinces and territories, who have jurisdiction over property and civil rights within provinces, and the federal government, which has a jurisdiction to legislate regarding “Indians and lands reserved for Indians”.

The Indian Act does not provide for the division of MRP upon marriage breakdown, and first nation jurisdiction is not explicitly recognized by Canada in this area. This is a problem. However, anyone who is paying attention to the situation and issues facing first nations in Canada knows that it is the Indian Act that is flawed beyond repair.

New Democrats support the will of the Assembly of First Nations and the many individual nations that have explicitly called on the House to scrap the Indian Act of 1876. We need to begin anew. We need to do this through a broadly consultative process with equal partners. That is key. We need to understand that we are talking about equal partners in Confederation. That is the only way we are going to move forward out of this existing colonial structure.

We need to write laws for indigenous peoples that are not founded on colonialism and racism, like the Indian Act is. We need to do it while recognizing that first nations have an inherent right to their land and to govern themselves. That would be the way to move forward, through collaboration, consultation and in good faith. I believe that Canada can take effective steps toward de-colonialization of aboriginal peoples in this country. The Indian Act is not the road map toward de-colonialization; it is a template through which Canada colonized indigenous peoples in the first place.

The legislative gap surrounding matrimonial real property, MRP, is a problem created by the Indian act, which neglects to account for the division of property in the event of a matrimonial breakdown. It is a function of the Indian Act to place all reserve land and care for status Indians under the fiduciary responsibility of the Government of Canada. I do not think it is a matter of opinion at this point in history that Canada has not lived up to its responsibility and that it continues not to provide equality for first nations, as exemplified by the fact that first nations child welfare and schools continue to be grossly underfunded compared to non-first nations children by about 30%, according to the Auditor General.

When it comes to matrimonial real property, the obvious problem that arises from the jurisdictional gap created by the Indian Act is that an aboriginal woman is often not entitled to the lands or home she once shared with her spouse. Therefore, it would seem logical from a very shallow perspective, like the government has, that we should simply write a law that gives women on reserves the benefits of provincial matrimonial laws, thus neatly filling a legislative gap. However, this simply does not work in reality for the women living on reserve. First nations people do not own the land they are on. They cannot simply sell or divide the land in way that a non-first nations person can own, sell and divide land.

Even if the band council wanted to give a woman her own property on reserve, it would not be able to do so, as there is not enough land. We are seeing this problem in Kanesatake. The government is constantly causing problems and delays and changing the rules of the game while Kanesatake is trying to move forward. It is trying to have jurisdiction over its land for future generations. The government is not doing that for them; it is just continuing to cause problems.

We cannot talk about land without actually addressing the problem that first nations do not have jurisdiction over the land, or do not have the ability to control what is going on with their land, and cannot access the lands that are traditionally theirs.

As I was saying, the trouble with Bill S-2 is that, practically speaking, it is impossible to implement. Therefore, Bill S-2 has become an insincere and overly simplistic attempt to rectify a very complex problem caused by the Indian Act.

There are obvious gender discrimination problems with MRP on reserve, but the reason we cannot implement it is the lack of financial resources to support first nations governments actually implementing laws, including a lack of funding for lawyers. This is a problem, again, in Kanesatake. It is resulting in more and more debt whenever it has to defend its land from a mining company.

There is also a lack of funding to address first nations' limited geographic access to provincial courts. First nations, particularly aboriginal peoples living in remote areas, cannot necessarily easily access a provincial court, where they would have to go to defend MRP.

Moreover, there is a lack of on-reserve housing and land mass, which would be necessary to give both spouses separate homes on reserve. In a sense we would be doubling the amount of land needed for some people. The land just is not there. The housing is not there. There is the difficulty of getting more resources to maintain and build more homes on reserve, let alone the lack of space to put them on.

The government would know all of this if it actually took the trouble to consult and actually do the consultation required. By the way, consultation does not mean the government receiving a letter from first nations indicating what the latter want and then ignoring it. It means actually having a real discussion and coming to solutions together on equal footing.

According to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNDRIP, consultation requires consent. Canada has conducted limited consultation, but no consent was given. Therefore, Bill S-2 is in violation of UNDRIP, something to which we are a signatory, although it was difficult to get us on board. The Government of Canada, in all its previous forms and its current one, does not actually want to address meaningfully the problem of colonialism and racism toward first nations people. UNDRIP requires free, prior and informed consent on any matter relating to the lands and welfare of rights holders—not to mention the fact that we are basically continuing to ignore the Constitution Act, which states that first nations have jurisdiction over their own internal affairs.

Accordingly, New Democrats are not going to support this legislation. We need to have non-legislative remedies to problems that are occurring in the government's relations with first nations. We need to actually address violence against aboriginal women. What we have been doing up until now has not actually been addressing that. If the government were on the ground, if it had consulted, it would know this. If it had not ignored the testimony given at the status of women committee, it would know this.

We also need to address the housing crisis. We need to end the systematic underfunding that is perpetuating discrimination across generations.

The Conservatives just want to put a law on the books and say that they have solved the problem without actually dealing with the underlying problem. They continue to ignore first nations women's voices that are calling for us to have a meaningful discussion, to stop managing first nations like colonial subjects and to truly understand that they are partners in this confederation.

[Health, October 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Zarontin, an anti-seizure medication that can save lives, is longer being made in Canada. Patients and doctors are having a hard time finding a replacement drug. Some patients are so desperate that they are travelling to the U.S. to get the drug. Chronic drug shortages are causing more and more alarm in Canada.

How does the minister plan to help people who are suffering because they no longer have access to Zarontin?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, October 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as a follow-up to this recent exchange, I would like to ask my colleague why, in her opinion, all the recommendations were not approved, and why changes adopted by all parties at committee during the last Parliament were not included in this bill's newest version.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, October 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

I want to be quite clear. The NDP believes that Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction but it does not address all the issues. The problem is that the Conservatives have undermined the important work that all members did together in the previous Parliament in the defence committee and have ignored the recommendations made by Canadian Forces representatives during the last session of Parliament. That is my concern.

Why are they doing that? What is the point of taking something that was well-worked, well-rounded and thoroughly examined, and now go back to step one? I do not understand the point of that. It is going to make the process more complicated for us as members and it will take longer to go through. In fact, we could have done this much faster if they had introduced the bill as it was amended.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, October 23rd, 2012]

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

In fact, the Lamer report contained 88 recommendations, and this bill addresses only 28 of them.

On top of that, the NDP amendments on the previous version of the bill in a previous Parliament had done nothing but strengthen the bill. It was the subject of hard work and consideration by all parties and those amendments have not been included in this version of the bill.

Those amendments were with regard to the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process, which was a direct response to the Lamer recommendation; changes to the composition of the grievance committee to include 60% civilians; and a provision ensuring that a person who is convicted of an offence during a summary trial is not unfairly subjected to a criminal record. These were important things worked on in the previous Parliament. My question for the member is why those things are not included in this version of Bill C-15 in this Parliament.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, October 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for me to rise in this House and speak to Bill C-15 because justice is more than just a system of laws and regulations; it is also a fundamental value for me and for my NDP colleagues, as it should also be for the military system.

This bill is step in the right direction, but it does not address the key issues related to reforming the summary trial system and the grievance system and strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission.

That is why, although the bill's primary objective is laudable, it does not satisfy our objectives. Much more needs to be done to bring the military justice system more in line with the civilian justice system. We on this side of the House want a comprehensive bill that adequately addresses the problem. No justice system is perfect, but that should not stop us from trying to improve our system as much as possible.

Many elements have been left out of Bill C-15: reforming the summary trial system, reforming the grievance system and strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission.

The fact that the NDP included these three elements in amendments of the previous version of the bill and that those amendments are now absent cannot be a coincidence. As I said, the NDP is not opposed to the spirit of this bill. We want to work with the Conservatives to get it right in order to ensure that the bill is relevant and that it has a broad enough scope.

I do not understand why the government did not include these elements in the bill. They are important in a consistent military justice reform.

Let us look specifically at the grievance system. We must understand it in order to appreciate the importance of the improvements proposed by the NDP.

I would like to quote the directive on military grievances, which is found on the Department of National Defence website. It indicates:

The DND and the CF shall manage all grievances through the Canadian Forces Grievance System...and ensure that:

all grievances are processed as efficiently and expeditiously as possible;

a CF member is not penalized for submitting a grievance; and

assistance is made available to a CF member in the preparation of a grievance.

The last point is important: the Canadian Forces has the responsibility to help its members because they do not have a union-type association to defend them. This lack of counter-balance is another reason why it is important to ensure that we have an effective and impartial system.

The NDP proposed two improvements. First, we proposed that at least 60% of grievance board members must be civilians who have never been an officer or a member of the Canadian Forces and, second, that the Chief of Defence Staff be given more authority to resolve the financial aspects of grievances.

The first improvement, namely, that the grievance board strike a balance between military and civilian membership, is important to ensure that this process is perceived as being external and independent. When it comes to the military, perception is very important for Canadians. Everyone in the country should be able to see that the system is independent and fair. Members of the military have a great deal of experience in managing such situations, so it is rather important that they are truly involved in the process. However, the presence of civilians is also important to dispel the idea that members of the military are subject to a different kind of justice than ordinary Canadians.

I would like to once again quote a Canadian Forces document. This time, I will be quoting an excerpt from chapter 34 of the “Military Administrative Law Manual” to demonstrate how this process, which may generally seem strange to Canadians, works. Point no. 24 of the section on the CF grievance board states:

The CF Grievance Board...is an external body independent from DND and the CF that has been established by section 29.16 of the NDA. The role of the CFGB is to provide findings and recommendations on grievances referred to it by the CDS. It does not have the authority to grant or deny redress regarding any grievance.

Article 25 states:

There are certain grievances for which the CDS is required to request CFGB findings and recommendations. These grievances relate to:

a. administrative action resulting in the forfeiture of, or deductions from, pay and allowances, reversion to a lower rank or release from the CF;

b. the application or interpretation of CF policies relating to expression of personal opinions, political activities and candidature for office, civil employment, conflict of interest and post compliance measures, harassment or racist conduct;

c. pay, allowances and other financial benefits; and

d. the entitlement to medical care or dental treatment.

Article 26 states:

The CDS is also responsible for ensuring that any grievance that concerns a decision or action of the CDS is forwarded to the CFGB for its findings and recommendations.

As the policy states, such an important board must be effective and beyond reproach. The NDP believes that a significant civilian presence on this board would help maintain this perception. When we look at how to strengthen the Military Police Complaints Commission, the merits of this idea and our position are quite obvious.

Police officers, as agents of social control, have a key role to play in our society, which is based on the rule of law. They are effective not only because they have the manpower and equipment, of course, but also because of their perceived legitimacy by the public. The military police is no exception. For a police force to operate properly, whether it is military or civilian, it must have the approval of those under its authority. A police force gains legitimacy through its perceived integrity. This perception is built on the actions of the police force and the perception of fairness and justice in its operations.

There is no better way to prove the integrity of a police force than by having a strong monitoring body. A Military Police Complaints Commission that is legitimate and reports to Parliament is the best way to ensure fairness in the actions of military police and, just as importantly, the perception of fairness and justice by Canadians.

The second improvement is that the Chief of Defence Staff should have more authority to resolve financial aspects related to grievances. This is a simple requirement to ensure that the grievance system is consistent. If the Chief of Defence Staff does not have the ability to resolve financial aspects, it calls into question the relevance of the grievance process.

I should point out that Canada is not the only country to be reviewing its military justice system. Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Ireland have recently done the same. We are in an excellent position to pass a comprehensive and effective bill while taking into account what has been done in other countries. Unfortunately, that is not the case with the bill as it stands. As I already said, the NDP proposed amendments to the bill in its previous form. But those amendments are no longer part of the current bill. We would like to see something constructive if and when the bill goes to committee.

In conclusion, although I focused mainly on the grievance system, it is important to note that this is just one thing missing from this bill. The NDP will continue to work to include the essential measures that it had passed in the former version of this bill. There is no reason for the Conservatives not to admit the relevance of these measures. Their hiding of this fact reeks of partisanship.