Sadia Groguhé

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.

He mentioned that the exceptions went too far when it comes to Bill C-6. They are a clear breach of Canada's international obligations. In any case, when we sign a convention and the bill to ratify it is completely inconsistent with the content of that same convention, as it has been pointed out, it is impossible to have any credibility internationally. What does my colleague think about that?

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.

I would like to return to the heart of the issue before us tonight, namely Bill C-6, and ask my colleague to comment on the position of Paul Hannon, the executive director of Mines Action Canada. He had this to say about the bill:

Canada should have the best domestic legislation in the world. We need to make it clear that no Canadian will ever be involved with this weapon again, but from our reading, this legislation falls well short of those standards.

What are my colleague's thoughts on this?

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is here tonight to discuss Bill C-6, a bill of some import. We would like to discuss it to impress upon the members opposite that some of its clauses are contradictory. We wish to continue discussing it.

I would like for cooler heads to prevail and for members to stop getting riled up and totally distorting the message we wish to send Canadians.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague on his speech.

I would like to point out that Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions, has an enormous number of weaknesses. Today, in 2014, no one can really be unaware of all the damage and deaths caused by cluster munitions.

These days, it is children who are particularly the victims, and they will continue to be for years to come. It is therefore high time to take the necessary action to put an end to cluster munitions.

My colleague said that clause 11 presented a real problem in that it is contradictory. Could he pursue that line of thought further?

[Social Development, June 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are trying to justify their mismanagement by telling us that the problem is the backlog created by the former tribunals. They should stop insulting people. The Conservatives have been in power for eight years.

If the system still poses problems, it is because of the Conservatives' incompetence. The Conservatives mismanaged the transition to the Social Security Tribunal, and they are not hiring enough umpires. Thousands of unemployed workers, disabled people and seniors must wait months without income before their cases are heard.

Why is the government once again trying to save money at the expense of the poorest Canadians?

[Social Development, June 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Income Security Section has just 35 umpires and has a backlog of 3,700 cases. When the Conservative government phased out the 1,000 part-time umpires, the crisis worsened. The least fortunate are once again the first victims of this government's negligence and mismanagement.

What emergency measures will this government take to fix this massive boondoggle at the Social Security Tribunal?

[Social Development, June 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, thousands of Canadians do not have access to disability benefits because of the Conservatives' mismanagement. Some people have been waiting over a year to appear before the Social Security Tribunal because there are not enough umpires.

At this rate, even if the tribunal did not receive any new cases, it would take nine years for it to catch up. That is unacceptable.

Does the minister think it is acceptable for people to die before they receive the benefits they are entitled to?

[Service Canada Mandate Expansion Act, June 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for allowing me to speak on Bill C-247 introduced by the member for Guelph.

This bill aims at establishing a single point of contact within the government for people acting on behalf of a deceased Canadian citizen or permanent resident, to resolve any outstanding issues.

Of course, we want to make services more accessible and simpler for families who have lost a loved one, because many of them are already under a great deal of emotional and financial stress.

I am very pleased to speak on this bill, because the primary duty of a parliamentarian is to represent his or her constituents in working toward the common good. We must never forget that a society’s level of civilization can be measured in the way it treats its weakest members.

Let us take a look at the current situation in light of our own experience. We all know people who have suffered the loss of a loved one and are on their own in dealing with the government and resolving outstanding issues. I am thinking of an isolated elderly woman in my riding whom I met one day when I was going door to door.

This woman has been a widow for a few months, and she lost her brother quite recently. Her independence is decreasing because she recently had several serious operations, and as her pension is very small she is no longer able to make ends meet. She is 76 years old. We can imagine her feeling of helplessness and her difficulties in trying to deal with all the administrative procedures when she has no one else around her to whom she can turn for support. Now she has to deal with many different officials.

For the Canada Revenue Agency, she must file two final returns, one for her husband and one for her brother. If one of the two had a passport, she will have to contact Citizenship and Immigration Canada to have it cancelled. To cancel any Canada pension plan and old age security benefits, she will have to contact Employment and Social Development Canada. If the person who died was a member of the Canadian Forces or the RCMP, she will also have to contact Veterans Affairs and National Defence or the RCMP.

This 76-year-old woman, who is unable to travel, is on her own in dealing with six federal departments and agencies, let alone the provincial government.

The only way for her to do this is by telephone. In 2013-14, only 64% of calls to Service Canada were handled within the maximum waiting time of three minutes. Once you have managed to get through, however, in most cases, you reach an automated voice messaging service.

Even for people who are active, it is difficult to be served and find your way through the labyrinth of numbers to dial on your telephone as you follow the instructions. We can imagine how difficult it is for an elderly person who sees poorly, hears poorly and has no one close by to help her.

What is the Conservatives’ solution to improve the quality of service? The answer is twofold, and it demonstrates how contemptuous this government can be toward the most vulnerable members of our society.

First, because too few calls met the quality criteria, the statistics were bad. The Conservatives, true to form, rather than dealing with the cause, prefer to twist the facts. The quality threshold guaranteed by Service Canada was that 95% of calls were to be handled in three minutes. Well, since the Conservatives were not able to meet this target, they lowered the threshold to 80%.

Second, they found a trick to reduce the volume of calls. They thought it was infallible: you have to contact Service Canada via the Internet. This is a disgrace. How can they imagine telling a senior citizen, someone who helped build our country, perhaps even someone who shed blood to defend it, that now he has to use the Internet.

That is the outcome of a disastrous policy that we, the members of the NDP, have condemned ever since it was brought in. This government spends its time demonizing public servants and their ineffectiveness. The current Conservative government has reduced accessible front-line services in every single department.

In 2012 alone, in Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, which has now become Employment and Social Development Canada, the Conservative government announced that there would be a reassessment of the essential nature of the jobs of 1,500 employees. In the meantime, the government changed the name of the department. This government spends taxpayers’ money on changing the names of departments and considers that the jobs held by public servants are superfluous expenses.

By 2015-16, the Conservatives will have managed to cut $243 million from the services provided by Employment and Social Development Canada.

This is a drop of 50% since 2010-11. This government can only say one thing: “cut”. The only thing the Conservatives can say to Canadians in need who are asking for help is that they cost too much.

Our seniors do not need Conservative solutions that come straight out of Cracker Jack boxes; they need front-line officers. Our seniors need access to public servants who answer their questions. Our seniors deserve our full care and attention. They need to be able to meet with an officer face to face who will look after their file and help them.

This is the result of one single policy. Rather than strengthening the front line, they lower the quality criteria. Rather than offering services, they cut the public service. Rather than helping people, they tell them to use the Internet. However, the Conservatives are not the only ones responsible for this policy of cutting services.

The Liberals must take their share of the blame. There were the ones who started the cutbacks. When they were in power and had an opportunity to establish the single point of contact that they are proposing today, the Liberals preferred to cut program spending. They cut expenditures by 10% over two years starting in 1995, and over the same period, they cut 45,000 jobs in the public service. How paradoxical it is that this party is now proposing to make public services more accessible.

Even though the Liberals’ intention to establish a single point of contact for the government is commendable, who can trust the Liberals? They had 12 years to do it, but instead they chose to cut budgets and staff. The Conservative and Liberal records speak for themselves: Canadians cannot trust either party to provide the services they need. This is why we are supporting this bill, with all due reservations.

On the other hand, when the members of the NDP form the next Government of Canada, we will establish a single point of contact in the government for everything that must be done by someone who has lost a loved one.

[Service Canada Mandate Expansion Act, June 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

In our view, his bill is a positive one. On the other hand, it will be difficult for Canadians to believe that the Liberals are going to improve services, given their past history in cutting services and transfer payments when they were in power.

In light of the repercussions on privacy, which certainly will come up in the exchange of information between departments, can my colleague tell us whether the former privacy commissioner was consulted on this bill?

[Citizenship and Immigration, June 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, millions of Canadians have dual citizenship. The minister is creating two classes of citizens with this bill. On one hand, there will be citizens who could have their citizenship arbitrarily revoked. On the other hand, there will be citizens for whom that is not the case.

Can the minister explain why Canadians such as I, who have dual citizenship, are going to be treated like second-class citizens?