Paulina Ayala

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am a woman who believes in democracy and I fought for it. I firmly believe that the public must be involved in the making of such an important law. The government really needs to listen to the people and to open a dialogue in order to develop real legislation that can put an end to electoral fraud.

The real problem is electoral fraud. We have to be able to work together. By “together”, I do not mean the majority government alone. I mean everyone, even those who think in terms of red and black. Regardless, we must agree to change this legislation in order to prevent electoral fraud.

We need to work together to change things. I agree with the member in that regard.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the fair elections act contains provisions that are in no way related to electoral fraud and that have clearly been created to prevent certain segments of Canadian society from voting. In addition, it gets rid of the Chief Electoral Officer’s public education mandate. He will no longer be able to discuss certain aspects of the electoral process, including where, when and how to vote.

The bill will eliminate the practice of vouching, which poses a huge problem for aboriginal Canadians, students who live far from home, the homeless and seniors living in residence. They are all are less likely to have a valid ID card and would make use of the practice of having someone close to them vouch for them.

Voter cards will no longer be a valid option to identify the voter. Those ID cards are essential for people who have a hard time proving their address when it comes time to vote, and that includes students, seniors and aboriginal Canadians, who sometimes have to wait months to get their status card.

I would like to say more about the first issue, getting rid of the Chief Electoral Officer's public education mandate. This is really important to me. I would like to point out that, in my previous life, I taught history, which included civic education. I know the importance of teaching.

Democracy should not be taken for granted. It does not grow on trees or fall from the sky. It is a hard-won right. We can reassert that right every time we pass our democratic experience on to the next generation through education. However, if there is no more civic education, democracy will suffer, and that is very, very serious. We think it is scandalous when other countries do not have the kind of democracy we deem acceptable. With measures like this, however, we are starting to look quite a bit like some of those countries we tend to criticize.

Right now, the purpose of Elections Canada's civic education program is to increase people's knowledge of and interest in Canadian democracy. It targets people under 30, including those who have not yet reached voting age, instilling in them a belief in the importance of voting and creating a foundation for citizen involvement. The program has two parts.

I want to talk about this today because I used the program, not just as a teacher, but as a mom, when I went to volunteer in my child's school. Several activities are ongoing. Some schools hold parallel elections. Kids really like it when their teachers bring all of the gear in so they can vote in their schools. They take it really seriously. I have seen it, and it is really something. Those kids keep talking about politics afterward.

During every federal election since 2004, Elections Canada has worked with Student Vote, a parallel election program for Canadian schools. In 2011, I was a teacher, and I can tell you that my students voted. They did not necessarily vote for me, but they voted, and that is the beauty of democracy.

During the 2011 election, almost one-third of all Canadian schools participated in the program, and over 560,000 students voted for real candidates. Their feedback showed that the program significantly improved their knowledge, raised their level of interest and strengthened their belief that voting is a civic duty.

I will make one comment. In the schools in major urban centres where I worked, the students are mostly new arrivals. Some of these families left their countries because of the lack of democracy. Thus, we can show them that it is possible to have democracy, but that it has to be protected. Education is a fundamental pillar of our democracy.

All the teachers who also participated in this program said that they became more confident about teaching civics. There is something else: parents are also affected. When you can reach out to a sixth-grader, that child is going to talk to his parents. He will say to his mother that his teacher taught him how to vote and will ask if she knows who the candidates of the political parties are. We have definitely raised the child's awareness as well as that of his parents and perhaps his grandparents, who may decide to vote. Not only do we have to reach out to the young people, but we also have to reach out to adults who feel let down by politicians.

This is a very important program. I remember very clearly when, as an MP, I participated in the program with grade six students at Wilfrid-Pelletier school. After one of the meetings, the parents of these children told me that I had spoken to them about the importance of democracy, which is a fundamental value.

We are here, we are quite happy, and we take it all for granted. However, we should realize that democracy is always under threat and it must be protected.

Another activity in Elections Canada's civic education programming is Canada's democracy week, which was launched in September 2011. In the spirit of the United Nations, this activity celebrates democratic values. We belong to the big United Nations family and we cannot shirk this democratic role.

Now I want to address another point, namely voter education resources. Elections Canada provides teachers, free of charge—and I can confirm this to be true—voter education resources that are adapted to different age groups and easily accessible online or on paper.

I can still remember when those large boxes from Elections Canada arrived at my children's school. Even the teachers were amazed. The boxes contained polling stations. The young school children lined up and showed their ID cards. It went swimmingly. I am sure the feeling of being included as citizens will remain in their hearts and minds forever. I can attest to the fact that this works. I used this educational tool in the past myself.

Elections Canada provides a host of educational programs. Why would the government want to make cuts to that? The Conservatives are saying there is a decline in voter turnout and they blame these programs for never producing any results. I apologize for reacting like a teacher, but there are quite a few people talking.

If we apply the same analysis to schools and dropouts, is the government going to start closing schools? Teenagers quit school, so we will close the school. That is more or less what the government has done by saying that it wants to eliminate the voter education programming by Elections Canada. On the contrary, if we see that there is a decline in voter turnout, then we have to find out why young people no longer want to vote. Perhaps it is because we waste a lot of time in the House talking about all sorts of things, but not things that really matter to our youth.

I will conclude with a very personal story. When I was young, I remember civics courses being taught, back in the old days in Chile. Under the dictatorship, it was forbidden to teach civics education programs. I want to protect Canadian democracy. What is more, as a teacher and citizen, keeping educational programs for our children and for future generations is important to me.

[International Women's Day, March 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, International Women's Day is this Saturday. I would like to congratulate all women in Canada, especially those in my riding, Honoré-Mercier.

Today, the Rivière-des-Prairies women's centre is celebrating its 30th anniversary. As much as I would like to celebrate with them, I am here in the House, because my constituents gave me a mandate and I am proud to represent them.

Speaking of our role here, 77 of the 308 members of Parliament are women. That is just 25%. Canadian parliamentary democracy has a long way to go.

Still, there is hope. In the 2011 election, the NDP fielded a record number of female candidates. Of the party's 308 candidates, 123—40%—were women. The NDP now has 36 female MPs, which makes ours the caucus with the most women in Canadian history. Our party walks the talk. With the NDP, women have a real opportunity to help build our democracy and to make gender equality a reality.

[Canada Post, March 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Honoré-Mercier are worried. Some of the suburbs north of Montreal just lost their home mail delivery service, and now my constituents, many of whom are seniors, are wondering whether they will be the next to be hit by the Conservatives' cuts.

The government lacks vision. It slashed services, rather than finding ways to maintain them. Why did the Conservatives decide that seniors and people with disabilities no longer have the right to receive their mail at home?

[Mandatory Disclosure of Drug Shortages Act, February 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that the serious drug shortages Canada is facing are jeopardizing our health care. Health Canada issues notices and warnings about medications.

Obviously, when health care is affected, our economy is as well. We can all agree that sick people and people who are not working cost a lot of money. A mom or dad who has to stay home when their child needs treatment because they could not get the right medication also costs a lot of money. Hospital costs are also affected. It is not good for anyone.

Who has to find the solution? Since health care is a provincial jurisdiction, some say that it should be up to them. That is not how it works. It is not that easy. It is true that provincial governments share part of the responsibility, especially with respect to supplies. When pharmaceutical companies are getting virtually exclusive contracts, competitors have less interest in manufacturing drugs, which therefore limits the choice of drugs.

However, the federal government must shoulder some responsibility too. Drug shortage problems have been growing since the mid-2000s. They affect both generic drugs and innovative drugs, which are more expensive and are not necessarily Canadian drugs. Those are drugs imported form pharmaceutical companies abroad. They are more expensive, of course.

That is why a number of countries, such as France and the United States, have introduced policies to reduce and control the magnitude of those shortages. There are many reasons for the shortages. It is not just because not enough drugs were produced. For instance, there have been cases where the raw materials went bad because the facilities of a pharmaceutical company were in bad shape. The drugs that were subsequently produced were not of good quality; they were actually dangerous. Therefore there can be many causes and quality control is very important.

In the past, we knew where the drugs came from. They often came from certain European countries. Now they can also come from emerging economies, where quality control is less rigorous than in North America or Europe. We must be careful. That is the federal government's responsibility. Emerging economies have supply problems. As a result, there is a significant increase in demand. Our population is aging and therefore needs more and more drugs. For some diseases, we can now find drugs that we did not have before, so demand has gone up. However, the main reason is that the population is increasingly aging. We must look after our seniors who have worked for us to be where we are today.

While demand has gone up, production has remained the same. Clearly, private companies want to make a profit. We all agree that they are not there as a charity.

Finally, since major patents have expired, pharmaceutical companies are focusing on producing new drugs that are more expensive instead of producing existing drugs that are just as effective and cheaper. That is also something to keep an eye on.

In 2011, the United States tried to find a solution to this problem. They required that all companies disclose all shortages. They also encouraged them to report any slowdown in production because these situations can be prevented.

It is up to the provincial governments and especially to us, federally elected members, to find a solution. I would like to address my colleagues now. It is up to us, as legislators, to pass the right laws. The health of Canadians is also our responsibility.

Clearly, I will be supporting my colleague's bill, Bill C-523, An Act to amend the Department of Health Act concerning the disclosure of drug shortages, which would oblige drug suppliers to advise the minister of any interruption or cessation of the production, distribution, or importation of drugs and oblige the minister to prepare and implement an emergency response plan to address drug shortages.

[Grain Transport, February 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, western farmers had a bumper crop, but have been unable to ship their products to market.

The Conservatives dismantled the Canadian Wheat Board without coming up with a plan for shipping grain. On Monday, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food announced that the government would conduct a five-year transportation study. Five years is a bit too long.

Does my Conservative colleague not think that the government should work more efficiently to solve this problem?

[Protecting Taxpayers and Revoking Pensions of Convicted Politicians Act, December 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-518, which would amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.

This bill would revoke the privilege of a retirement pension or compensation allowance for former members of the Senate or House of Commons who are convicted of an offence under an act of Parliament.

Parliamentarians must have been indicted for an offence with a maximum punishment of imprisonment for not less than two years. The offence must have been committed, in whole or in part, while the person was an MP or Senator. Most Criminal Code offences fall into this category.

The idea of punishing these offenders is not new. Nova Scotia's NDP government has already passed similar legislation. Under that law, all entitlements of a former spouse, or any court-ordered restitution, can be deducted from the pension of the MP in question. This is a very important point because it is not included in the bill that I am debating.

In a few moments, I will give an example that demonstrates how this gap in the law can lead to the victimization of someone who is already a victim of an act of violence. I will come back to that shortly.

We know that a parliamentarian sentenced to a jail term of less than two years does not lose his status as a parliamentarian and may continue to sit, unless he is expelled by the Senate or the House. However, this power is rarely used. Some charter provisions could potentially protect parliamentarians.

The proposals include parliamentarians found guilty of crimes subject to sentences of more than two years, but they could be punished with a shorter jail term or perhaps even a suspended sentence or community service. The proposal is more specific with regard to the fact that the crime must be committed when the parliamentarian is in office. This is an important point. The crime must be committed while the parliamentarian is performing his duties, not before and not after. In any case, if it were before he was elected, the bill would not apply to him.

Today, a parliamentarian may commit a crime, complete his term as a parliamentarian and be convicted a number of years after completing his term in office. Current sections 19 and 39 of the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act do not take this situation into account. Right now, senators and members of Parliament must have been defeated or expelled before they can be penalized. The new proposal would be retroactive to June 2013 for a parliamentarian found guilty well after the period when the crime is committed.

What is the loss for a parliamentarian who commits a crime? They are just going to lose the additional contribution by Parliament. Parliamentarians lose a privilege, not a pension entitlement.

Of course, with all the scandals we have heard about, the general public and we ourselves are sick of all these stories and we want justice to be done. It is not surprising that sometimes, when we are taking part in an activity, people ask us to give them money. They make inappropriate comments because they perceive politicians as corrupt. This must be stopped. More than just changing the legislation, we—senators and members of Parliament—must change our behaviour in Parliament. It is the culture that must change.

Of course, the legislation goes with the culture, and with the changes, but to date we have put up with too much. People have even decided not to vote because they no longer have confidence in us. They say that they vote, but nothing changes. They think that parliamentarians commit fraud and they are paid by taxpayers. We must bear in mind that the money we receive is money that comes from taxpayers.

All this is important, and this bill aims at improving the situation. However, some things are missing from the bill. We cannot just change the legislation; we must change our behaviour and the way we engage in politics.

I would like to mention two examples, one of which is Senator Brazeau, who is accused of sexual assault. The Prime Minister told the House that it was a personal matter that made it necessary to remove him from the Senate caucus. He is still a senator.

He said:

Our understanding is that these are matters of a personal nature rather than Senate business, but they are very serious and we expect they will be dealt with through the courts.

I am mentioning this because the man in question assaulted his partner in their home. There is another case, that of Raymond Lavigne, the former senator who is currently in prison. He was convicted of fraud and breach of trust. However, he committed the offences in his role as a senator, using public money.

I am raising these examples because when we were discussing the Nova Scotia law earlier today, it was said that the spouse of the accused still has the right to part of the pension. However, under the new proposal, if Mr. Brazeau is convicted, he will lose his privileges and, since the law is retroactive to June 2013, his partner, the victim, will lose them as well. It will be his ex-wife, since I imagine that they will divorce. She will be a double victim. We need to take those aspects into consideration in order to improve this bill. That is why the NDP is committed to supporting it at second reading, so that the committee can address certain gaps in the legislation.

However, in the case of Senator Lavigne, the legislation unfortunately came out too late. He was convicted of misappropriating Senate funds. He is presently in prison, but, for the six years that the trial lasted, his pension fund continued to grow. This legislation therefore still lets him profit from his transgressions because it is retroactive to June 2013.

The task I am giving to committee members is to improve some aspects of the legislation. Just now, I mentioned that Mr. Brazeau's wife is twice a victim, but I have a bit of a problem with something else. It has to do with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the idea of a double penalty. We have to be careful because we are talking here about a punitive sanction on a privilege. We agree on that. However, say a senator leaves a Christmas party having had a bit too much to drink and hits someone with his car because he is driving while impaired, he will be convicted and will pay for what he did. However, at the same time, he will be punished again. I am just concerned about that. It must be improved.

With people using public funds, like Mr. Lavigne, or like the others we have spent a lot of time talking about here—Mr. Duffy and Ms. Wallin—we get it. The money belongs to us all. It is related to their duties. We must therefore pay attention and specify the penalties more clearly so that we do not descend into an inequality of sorts. That is what concerns me.

The NDP will be continuing to discuss that aspect. As parliamentarians, it is in our nature to believe deeply in democracy. In committee, we must work to improve the legislation, because what we have to stand up for above all is the greater good and the advancement of democracy.

It is fine to sanction people who break the law in the performance of their duties. However, as I said, we have to be careful not to victimize someone a second time, as in the cases I mentioned.

We must change our way of engaging in politics. We must not shelter those who commit fraud. We must not become complicit. I am sure that many of us feel ashamed of the actions of some people, who shall remain nameless. Those of us who are seriously committed to our work feel tainted by things not of our doing. We must have the courage to say that it must stop.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, December 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, why does my colleague think the government uses omnibus bills? It puts everything in a budget implementation bill and, in the end, it becomes a bill about unions, safety, and so on.

I would like to hear my colleague's opinion. I feel as though this bill is really discordant. Some of its elements are acceptable, while others are not.

What the Conservatives are proposing here is discordant and confusing. In short, they are not allowing any real debate, and this is an affront to democracy.

[Respect for Communities Act, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise today and add my voice to those of my colleagues in the official opposition against Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Bill C-2 is designed to make it more difficult to grant an exemption for supervised injection sites. The problem here is that at this time, there is but one such site, in Vancouver. This site was rightly granted an exemption, because it offers proven benefits. This bill is merely a reflection of Conservative anti-drug ideology. Yet tabling such a bill, which would prevent the establishment of supervised injection sites, will not eliminate addicts from our society. Unfortunately, they are here to stay.

I would like to acquaint you with some scientific data showing that supervised injection sites benefit both drug users and public safety. I will shortly be providing some additional information on public safety.

The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse concluded in 2008 that such establishments provided a clean, safe and above all supervised place in which to monitor addicts’ injections. As we know, a used syringe can be used by another drug user, and may transmit disease.

Next, the federal Minister of Health asked an advisory committee of experts to assess the impact of the InSite centre with respect to its objectives. The conclusions are persuasive. It was found that InSite encourages users to seek advice, detox and treatment, and this resulted in increased use of detox and treatment services. These successes were achieved because of the exemption they obtained, which the government wishes to restrict.

It should also be added that the establishment of such a site provides a connection to treatment and rehabilitation services. Such a site gives young people a chance to get off drugs and opens a door towards rehabilitation. This is very important, and we are all in favour of it.

The qualified staff working at this facility monitor drug users and give them options to overcome their addiction.

I am presenting published facts, which the Conservatives cannot deny. They base their bill on the notion that public safety will be threatened by the kind of site we are talking about. I would like to point out such sites were established in response to concerns on the part of the authorities about the spread of HIV and hepatitis C. Such sites met the needs of addicts who were unable to stop using drugs by providing them with hygienic facilities. Furthermore, they also meet the needs of all those who do not use drugs and who sometimes find a needle in the street. It was thus a way of preventing the spread of drugs and disease in the streets.

In drafting this bill, the Conservatives pointed to the unsafe nature of neighbourhoods surrounding such sites. By imposing cumbersome administrative procedures to impede the creation of such sites, however, the Conservatives are forcing addicts to use drugs in the streets, in the parks or anywhere where children will be playing the following morning.

I do not believe that the presence of contaminated waste such as syringes or the spread of infectious diseases through unsupervised injections is reassuring for the public. I would like to emphasize this point, because I have witnessed the consequences of drug use in the streets. I will provide a few examples. We are talking about addicts, people who are already struggling with drugs. Let us take the example of a couple strolling in the park with their child. The child is playing in the sandpit, and suddenly he finds a syringe. Day care centres have complained about this phenomenon in the past. Children are playing in the park, and suddenly they are pricked by one of these needles. Obviously, they have to go straight to hospital. It is serious when people do not feel safe.

I do not have to look much farther: I live in Ottawa, 15 minutes’ walk from the House of Commons. I still remember that last spring, when my co-tenant was clearing dead leaves from the property, she found a syringe in the front yard. Fortunately, she was wearing leather gloves.

We were afraid. We told ourselves it was serious, but we thought it was an exception.

A few months later, arriving home in the evening after my workday in Parliament, what do I see? A young man injecting himself with drugs in front of my home. We are not in a poor neighbourhood, after all. This man dropped his dirty needle outside a hotel. I was very afraid, so I told the police about the situation, and they arrived shortly after.

The next morning, before I went to work, what did I see? Two women picking up leaves with very thin rubber gloves. Since my English is not particularly good, I did not know how to tell them to be careful, because this is serious. I tried to tell them about the dangerous things on the ground. I do not know if they understood me, but I continued to feel concern.

These women are working mothers, and they may prick themselves inadvertently by touching needles thrown down in the street. Drug users, of course, are thinking only about satisfying their need, and do not realize that their actions have consequences.

In some ways, these sites can help us to manage the social problems related to drug addiction. These sites do not just help addicts; they can protect all of us.

Another thing that troubles me about this bill is that it goes against a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in 2011. I would like to quote a key excerpt from that decision. It reads:

Where, as here, [the evidence shows that] a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety, [quite the contrary,] the Minister should generally grant an exemption.

The court therefore ruled that InSite should remain open under the exemption set out in section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Although the court left the decisions regarding exemptions for future supervised injection sites to the minister's discretion, it indicated that:

...the Minister must consider whether denying an exemption would cause deprivations of life and security of the person that are not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

It is important that any new bill pertaining to these sites take into account the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions.

In closing, throughout my speech, I presented arguments that show that supervised injection sites are safe, controlled environments that provide health and social services, and not just for drug users. They can also protect us and our families on the streets.

In light of such concrete evidence, the government must stop proposing bills designed only to satisfy its voter base and instead meet the needs of Canadians.

We are not living in an ideal, drug-free world. There are people who have problems that drive them to inject illegal substances.

It is our duty to offer them solutions. Preventing the establishment of the only services that can help them will not make their addictions disappear. It will even put us, our families and our children at risk of finding contaminated needles on the streets.

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, November 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, something is bothering me. I agree that our children need to be protected and that we need to protect victims of bullying.

I clearly remember that my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord moved Motion No. 385. I would like to ask the following question. Why did the Conservative Party reject that motion? It would have allowed us to already have a national strategy in place. I would like an answer to that question.