Ruth Ellen Brosseau

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am not on the finance committee, but I know that we did have 33 amendments. I think the Liberals put up eight at one point.

It is very important to have a full debate, but every day now we see time allocation. When we are being shut down in the House, we do not have a full debate, and we are still feeling the effects of what we saw last year.

I said in my speech that Canadians will pay the price of these decisions. We have to do better for future generations. We have a responsibility, and I do not think we are doing enough. It is very sad to see what is going on right now in Parliament. Canadians deserve better.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking to Bill C-60 today. I know that many of my colleagues would have liked to have the time to speak today because the bill is quite complex. It is important that our voices be heard here in the House so that we can discuss the bill and have a healthy debate.

I want to begin my speech with a personal comment that I think is appropriate here. With this budget, the government is forcing Canadians to tighten their belts. It is asking workers, parents, youth, the unemployed, seasonal workers, seniors, middle-class families and so on to get with the program and accept a budget that is clearly not in their interest and will require an even greater effort on their part to make ends meet. I find that appalling.

There are a number of scandals, not just one, currently plaguing the government. While Canadians work to pay their taxes, senators are spending wildly and claiming ineligible expenses. Unelected senators have no respect for Canadians. While senators are banking an extremely generous salary, taxpayers are paying for their antics. As if that were not enough, the government has lost track of $3.1 billion. Honestly, how it is possible to lose $3.1 billion? I simply cannot get over it. It is incomprehensible.

A number of my constituents telephoned me personally, in a panic, when that hit the news. They are asking me to do something, to take action. My opposition colleagues and I are doing everything we can to get some clarification, and we want answers. Canadians deserve answers.

The government should be ashamed of this budget. We are obviously going to vote against it. The budget should contain measures that make life more affordable and create jobs for Canadians. Instead, the government is raising taxes on a number of consumer items, such as hospital parking, safety deposit boxes, labour-sponsored investment funds, bicycles and baby strollers. These tax hikes will cost Canadians nearly $8 billion. That is far too much. People have had enough.

One important point caught my attention: the elimination of the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds. This decision will affect the middle class and its ability to save for retirement. It will deprive Quebec SMEs of significant support for their development. Instead of creating jobs and supporting local initiatives, the Conservatives are going after the unemployed, families, seasonal workers and especially our regions.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer analyzed the economic situation and the government's bills. She found that budget 2012, the 2012 update and budget 2013 will result in the loss of 60,000 jobs by 2017 and will cause a 0.58% decline in the GDP. Needless to say, this will have an impact on our country's economic growth.

I would like to talk about transparency and control of the CBC. The Conservatives are trying, for the third time since the beginning of their mandate, to circumvent parliamentary and public oversight by trying to sneak this budget through. This week, they went even further by imposing a gag order to shut down debate. This is the 39th or 40th gag order we have seen in the House. Parliament should be a place where elected officials can show respect for their constituents and have a good discussion, a good debate. What are the Conservatives afraid of? Transparency is definitely not part of the government's values.

Another change this bill makes would enable the government to compel a crown corporation to have its negotiating mandate approved by the Treasury Board so that it can reach a collective agreement with a union, particularly in the case of the CBC. Canadians do not want to see the government exercise that kind of control over our national public broadcaster. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, and the CBC must be able to retain its independence.

On this topic, my colleague, the NDP heritage critic and member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, had this to say:

The federal government already appoints CBC’s directors and determines its annual budget. That’s already a lot of control over a public broadcaster that must remain independent in its role as watchdog of democracy...Bill C-60 is another attempt by the Conservatives to interfere in CBC’s affairs and we cannot let it pass.

The government is flying in the face of common sense and ignoring protests by moving forward with these misguided measures. Cuts to environmental research are another weakness of the budget. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, AAFC, is one of the departments that is most affected by the budget cuts. Close to 700 workers just recently found out that they will lose their jobs and that a number of research centres will close.

At the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, several witnesses told me that research and development are key to the future of agriculture in Canada. When the government eliminates funding for public research, it lets the private sector—often big, multinational companies—do its own research. That is alarming.

AAFC will eliminate 350 jobs: 144 commerce officers, 79 scientists, 76 information technology officers, 29 engineers, 14 biologists, 5 research directors and 3 procurement officers.

This also makes me think of the decision that will affect the Montreal Biosphere, the only environmental museum in North America. This is another one of the Conservative government's attacks on science education. When most of the staff was laid off, this institution lost scientific and environmental expertise. Through this decision, the Conservatives are failing to live up to a 25-year agreement between the Government of Canada and the City of Montreal.

Making a budget is all about making choices. I, personally, decided to keep the same car I had before the election and pay off my student loans. I make responsible choices. Presenting a budget is a choice. It is not easy. I understand that it is complicated. However, in this budget implementation bill, the Conservatives are failing families, workers, the environment, job creation and science. At the end of the day, Canadians are the ones who are going to have to pay the price.

I hope the government will realize how inconsistent it is being. It is asking people to tighten their belts at a time when it is involved in scandals, such as the ones in the Senate. Making cuts in areas as important as science and the environment does not make sense, especially when we know that this government lost track of $3.1 billion. Instead of putting research into the hands of industry, the government should be investing in research and making more of an effort to find the missing $3.1 billion.

Nevertheless, I am sure that the NDP will be able to turn things around. Canadians need to feel like they can trust the people they vote for. They need to be able to identify with the people that they vote for and that is where we come in. We are voting against this bill.

I am ready for questions and comments.

[Ethics, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have two simple questions.

On what basis did the Prime Minister assume that Mike Duffy had even agreed to repay his expenses? Who informed the Prime Minister of that?

These are straightforward questions, and they deserve a straightforward answer.

[Ethics, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives continue to say that Nigel Wright wrote a personal cheque for $90,000, but how can they know that for sure if they did not see the cheque?

[Relay For Life, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to congratulate all those who organized and participated in the Relay For Life that took place on May 25 in the D'Autray RCM, as well as those involved in a second relay, which is scheduled to take place on June 1 in the Maskinongé RCM.

The Relay For Life is an opportunity to raise money, celebrate life and fight cancer. It is also a chance to honour survivors and the memory of those who have passed on. It takes enormous courage to fight this terrible disease. Research is key. Researchers have made remarkable progress, but funding is still needed.

My thoughts turn to Jack Layton, who shared this message of hope with those battling cancer: “You must not lose your own hope.”

Once again, congratulations to everyone involved in the Relay For Life. It is a wonderful initiative.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, he said that the government has been waiting for this for six years. Why did it not act any sooner?

The member for Trinity—Spadina has been on record many times pushing for more accessibility and reform of the witness protection program for many years. We are very happy that it has come to fruition.

As I said, we could have a battle of quotes. I was not on the committee, but I could read more quotes. Just to keep it simple, 30 people were accepted in this program in 2012 and if we are to accept more applicants, I am really worried the funding will not follow. I do not want there to be too much downloaded on the municipalities when we know they do not have enough resources at times.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is right. With expanding the admissibility and allowing more people to apply to this program, common sense would say that more money would be allotted to this. More people would be applying; hence, more people would be accepted. I think that on both sides of the House there is general consensus. It is good legislation and we are definitely voting for it.

However, when the money is not there, it is something that bothers me. With more people applying for this, I would hope the government could at least ensure there will be financing for it to ensure these people are accepted and witnesses are protected. It is only right.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.

I am pleased to speak today in support of this bill. The issue is a very important one that the NDP has worked hard on for many years. I know that my fellow New Democrats who were members of previous parliaments often pointed out the need to expand the federal witness protection program.

In fact, ever since this program was created in 1996, the NDP has called for improvements. It has often called upon the government to act and protect the safety of all responsible Canadians who do their duty. I am pleased that the Conservatives have finally listened and that the government has finally decided to act. I might say their hearing is selective, though, because some elements are missing.

The people who need the witness protection program are people taking risks, putting themselves in danger and sometimes putting their very lives in danger, in order to help the police and ensure public safety. They must have access to a robust and effective program that will protect them.

For years we have been calling specifically for better coordination between the federal and provincial programs and better overall funding.

We are not the only ones who have pointed out problems. As I was preparing my speech I came upon quite a few criticisms of the rigid admission standards. Stakeholders have sounded the alarm about poor coordination with the provincial programs and the small number of witnesses admitted to the program.

Before this bill, witnesses in cases involving national security were excluded from the program. Justice O'Connor criticized this exclusion in his 2010 report on the Air India tragedy. The report revealed that a number of witnesses were afraid to divulge important information to the RCMP, fearing for their safety. He recommended broadening the admission criteria to include witnesses in cases involving national security. More than two years after the report, the government woke up and decided to take action.

Even though Bill C-51 is late, we are satisfied with it in general. It proposes a better process for supporting the provincial witness protection programs and applying the program to other organizations responsible for national security, as I mentioned.

The bill will broaden the criteria for admission to the witness protection program by including a new category of individuals who may come forward to help the federal authorities, for instance, street gang members.

Federal departments and agencies with a mandate related to national security, national defence or public safety will also be able to refer witnesses to the program.

The bill will extend the period for emergency protection and clear up some of the technical problems that were occurring in relation to coordination with provincial programs.

However, in order for it to be effective, the bill should also include provisions for an independent agency to administer the program, as recommended in the Air India report.

We were quite surprised that this recommendation was not included in Bill C-51. We see the Conservatives' selective hearing at work here. As a result, the RCMP will continue to be responsible for the program. This may be cause for concern since it could put the RCMP in a conflict of interest since the RCMP would be responsible for investigating the case and deciding who would get protection.

My biggest concern is related to funding. I listened carefully to the speeches given by my colleagues on both sides of the House, and I believe that we all agree on the importance of this bill.

However, I have a hard time understanding the arguments the members opposite are making about funding. How do they think they can expand a program without giving the RCMP and other police forces the money they need? That is not realistic. It seems as though this will prevent more people from participating in the program.

I thought that the bill was at least partly designed to expand access to the program. Will that be possible without the necessary funding?

We are not the only ones who have raised this concern. A number of witnesses addressed this issue when the bill was studied in committee. I want to share a quote from testimony given by Micki Ruth, from the Canadian Association of Police Boards, with my Conservative colleagues:

Like many issues facing government today, funding is one of the biggest and toughest ones to find solutions for. The problems identified back in 2007 with the adequacy of funding for the current witness protection program are not addressed in Bill C-51. Unfortunately, we see problems with the ability of municipality police services to adequately access witness protection because they lack the resources.

She went on to say:

Therefore we urge you to appreciate our position that unless the issue of adequate funding is addressed, the legislation will not produce the result that is intended.

If the Conservative government really wants to improve the witness protection program, it must provide the necessary funding. That is obvious considering last year's figures: only 30 of 108 applications were approved in 2012, mainly because of financial constraints. That undermines the program's value enormously. Seventy-eight witnesses were put at risk but did not receive the protection to which they rightly felt they were entitled. I really think that is a problem.

Adequate funding is essential if we want to bring about changes that yield tangible results, particularly as regards street gangs, a new group contemplated by this bill. We cannot tell young people we want to help them leave gangs, use their testimony in court and then leave them without protection. We know that gangs are very difficult to leave and that they can be aggressive toward individuals who decide to stand up to them and change their ways. Gang members are often youth who have made mistakes but are trying to right the wrongs for which they have been charged. We must support them in that effort.

I would also like to emphasize that this bill will help witnesses, but it will also ensure the safety of our communities. The NDP is always searching for intelligent and viable ways to ensure the safety of our communities. One way to achieve that is to improve the witness protection program in order to guarantee the safety of our streets by giving police forces additional tools to assist them in combating street gangs and organized crime.

In closing, I am pleased to see that the Conservatives have finally taken action on this matter and have selectively listened to the NDP's advice. Note, however, that, if the NDP were on the government side—and I can assure you that will be the case in 2015—we would go further. We would be sure to give the RCMP and police forces the financial and legislative tools they need to do their jobs and protect the public.

I will vote in favour of this bill, hoping that it will open the door to an expanded, more accessible program, which is necessary for the sake of national security and our public safety.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 9th, 2013]

With regard to the repeal of regulations related to container standards announced in Budget 2011: (a) when exactly will these changes be made; (b) what is the consultation process for making these changes; (c) how much time is scheduled for each step of the process; (d) in his testimony before the AGRI committee on February 28, 2013, the Minister of Agriculture said that some industries can choose not to adopt the regulatory changes, what does this mean for foreign products that do not meet Canadian sizes; (e) are there plans to set aside funds to upgrade equipment (for example, to package the previously non-standard new containers) so that manufacturing companies can remain competitive; (f) what industries were consulted to determine whether the regulations should be repealed; (g) what are the reasons for repealing regulations related to container standards; (h) what industries, groups, stakeholders or companies called for the repeal of regulations related to container standards; (i) are there studies or reports on the economic impact of repealing these regulations and, if so, what are they; (j) will there be changes for requesting and administering ministerial exemptions and, if so, what are they; (k) were analyses done to determine how repealing regulations related to container standards could improve inter-provincial trade; (l) are there expected to be savings or extra costs for Canadian food processors following the repeal of regulations related to container standards and, if so, what kind; (m) are there expected to be savings or extra costs for consumers following the repeal of regulations related to container standards and, if so, what kind; and (n) are there expected to be savings or extra costs for farmers following the repeal of regulations related to container standards and, if so, what kind?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 7th, 2013]

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

When I visit the mayors in my riding, which is made up of 34 municipalities, they often tell me they need money for infrastructure. When the government announced that there would be plenty of money for infrastructure, it was playing games.

Clearly, $4.7 billion is less money than what has been allocated in previous years, and yet investing in infrastructure creates jobs, meets genuine needs and constitutes a positive measure.

The government says it is investing more, but that is merely propaganda. It is simply not true.