Sylvain Chicoine

[Last Post Fund, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 422.

I would like to touch on a few comments made by the member opposite about the programs and services offered to veterans. He said that the government has done a lot in recent years, but I feel that there is still much left to do before our veterans actually receive adequate services and health care. There is much work left to do, and I hope that my colleague agrees with me. I also hope that the new veterans charter will soon be improved so that veterans receive the amount they deserve. That would go a long way toward giving them the recognition they are worthy of.

My colleague said that he has never met a veteran who had problems accessing services. I cannot say the same because I have met a great deal of veterans who said they had a hard time getting information on the services to which they are entitled. Just recently, one veteran told me that he had been entitled to receive certain services for a number of years already, but that he only just found out. He could not find the necessary information. The closure of eight offices next year across the country is despicable. This will force older veterans, who do not necessarily have access to a computer to get information about the services to which they are entitled, to travel hundreds of kilometres to find the closest office to get the information on the services they are entitled to receive.

I want to come back to the motion before us today, Motion No. 422, on improving the Last Post Fund. I will elaborate. The Last Post Fund was mandated by Veterans Affairs Canada to provide financial assistance to veterans in need, in order that they may have a funeral worthy of the sacrifice they made for their country. The financial assistance is used to pay for burial, cremation, and grave marking.

The Last Post Fund is a non-profit organization that, since 1909, has been providing financial assistance to veterans in financial difficulty at the time of their death. It has been administering the Veterans Affairs Canada Funeral and Burial Program since 1998. The funding does not come from the federal government alone. It also comes from private donations that help provide veterans with a proper burial worthy of the sacrifice made by financially disadvantaged veterans.

Since 2009, further to observations made by the ombudsman, the NDP has been saying that the Funeral and Burial Program, which is very important to veterans, is clearly underfunded. What is more, the eligibility criteria are such that veterans have a hard time getting financial assistance, with two-thirds of families applying for this financial assistance being denied access to this funeral fund.

Since then, the NDP has been calling on the government to respond to the ombudsman's report. A number of other stakeholders have also called on the government to improve the fund. There is the Royal Canadian Legion, the Funeral Service Association of Canada, the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada, Canadian Veterans Advocacy, the National Council of Veteran Associations, and many other veterans' organizations.

Of course, the NDP will support the motion. I think the Liberal member is admitting that it was a bad decision on the part of the Liberal government in 1995 to cut off access to this funeral fund. Thus, if veterans are having eligibility problems today, it is because of a Chrétien government legacy that decreased the estate exemption from $24,000 to $12,000, where it has remained since then.

Thus, we can understand that with this very low exemption level, very few veterans' families are eligible for this financial support for funeral expenses, which is truly appalling.

Liberal members recently sent an open letter to some local media outlets in the ridings of several of our MPs, calling for support for this motion. Of course we will support it. However, I deplore the fact that they presented themselves as ardent defenders of veterans' rights, when it is because of the legacy of one of their own governments that we are in this unfortunate situation today.

While accessing the Last Post Fund is one problem, veterans also come up against many other problems, particularly concerning the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, or VRAB, which they often have to fight. The NDP abhors this situation and is calling on the government to replace that board with another body that, in co-operation with veterans, will better meet their needs and their families' needs.

I hope to have the opportunity to finish my speech in order to emphasize how important this motion is, at least so we can try to solve some of the problems related to eligibility regarding the Last Post Fund, which is seriously flawed at this time.

[Last Post Fund, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a few questions. I thank her for moving this important motion that seeks to resolve some problems.

However, I would like to mention from the outset that, like the member opposite said, if there is a problem with the accessibility of the Last Post Fund, it is partly due to the legacy of the Chrétien government, which reduced the estate exemption from $24,000 to $12,000.

According to my colleague, what amount would be acceptable today? Would $24,000, which was the amount that could be accessed in 1995, be acceptable today?

I would also like her to comment on whether the increased amount of approximately $7,300 set out in the government's economic action plan is enough to cover the funeral costs of our veterans.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 18th, 2013]

With regard to the Government Employees Compensation Act and the financial compensation provided to injured reservists by the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces between 2006 and 2012: (a) how many Canadian Forces reservists were injured during service between 2006 and 2012, sorted by year and province; (b) how many Canadian Forces reservists injured during service were medically released between 2006 and 2012; (c) how many Canadian Forces reservists injured during service had their injuries declared to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) by the Canadian Forces between 2006 and 2012, sorted by year and province; (d) how many declarations of injury during service for Canadian Forces reservists were made to provincial workers’ compensation authorities by HRSDC between 2006 and 2012; and (e) of those who were medically released between 2006 and 2012, how many are receiving a disability pension?

[Order of Military Merit, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today I had the honour of attending the Governor General's ceremony to award the Order of Military Merit at Rideau Hall.

The Order of Military Merit recognizes distinctive merit and exceptional service displayed by the men and women of the Canadian Forces, both regular and reserve, who have demonstrated dedication and devotion beyond the call of duty.

Today this service medal was awarded to Master Warrant Officer François Vidal, originally from Châteauguay. Master Warrant Officer Vidal joined the Canadian Forces in 1989 as an air defence artilleryman. He has taken part in four Canadian missions: one in the Persian Gulf, one in Israel and two in Afghanistan. I am very proud of Master Warrant Officer Vidal's dedication and achievements, and I was pleased to be able to congratulate him personally.

Canadian Forces personnel exemplify honour and sacrifice, and all Canadians have a duty to recognize the contribution they make to creating a safer, more democratic world.

Congratulations to all the recipients of the order, and especially to Master Warrant Officer François Vidal.

[Veterans, March 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the more days go by, the harder it is for the Conservatives to protect the privacy of veterans. The Conservatives refuse to take this problem seriously, even though the number of privacy breaches has grown. The most recent case is that of a veteran who requested a copy of his file and received the files of two other veterans. It is about time that the Conservatives begin taking seriously the breaches of our veterans' privacy.

Why is this happening time and again under this minister?

[Disability Tax Credit Promoters Restrictions Act, March 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking today to an important bill, namely Bill C-462, which addresses disability tax credits.

Each year, Canada Revenue Agency receives 200,000 disability tax credit applications. In 2010 alone, the government paid out refunds or assigned non-refundable credits worth $700 million.

A CBC story revealed that promoters were charging exorbitant fees to people asking for help and advice in order to obtain the disability tax credit.

Like many of my colleagues, I will be supporting this bill because I think there should be a limit to the fees charged by disability tax credit promoters. People with disabilities need to be protected so that they do not fall prey to certain promoters' scams.

The member sponsoring this bill hopes to accomplish that by reducing the fees charged by consultants when someone applies for the disability tax credit.

I, for one, feel that this needs to be studied in committee in order to clarify certain clauses of the bill so that they better respond to disabled people's financial goals. Disabled people have said that their most significant tax credit issues are unfortunately not addressed in this bill.

The disability tax credit application process is not entirely transparent, and disabled people have a hard time obtaining the tax credit because of the difficulty they have in filling out the certificate. The process needs to be simplified so that the disabled can have fair and equal access to the tax credit.

The application process is complex, and the tax credit remains very difficult to obtain. In my opinion, we must simplify the application process. Unfortunately, some unethical consultants prey on these people because they know the application process is complex and difficult. The terminology and definitions used in the paperwork are restrictive, unfair and result in inconsistency and discrimination. People find that the process for obtaining the tax credit is difficult, lengthy and overwhelming. They find the form difficult to understand and, consequently, often do not complete the process. They give up because, unfortunately, they often believe that it is pointless.

Eligibility for the credit requires a substantial change that prevents an individual from taking part in basic activities of daily living. I believe that the scope of this tax credit is too narrow, because people dealing with episodic disabilities all too often are not eligible for the tax credit. It is difficult for them to prove that their daily activities are significantly altered by their disability. Some days, they are less affected and they can do certain activities. However, on other days, they are not able to do them at all. The assessment criterion of basic activities of daily living is quite often a problem. The definition is too restrictive and, above all, contradictory. It is not in keeping with provincial and territorial definitions that doctors use, or those of other programs such as the Canada pension plan disability benefits.

The other problem is that it requires understanding and good will on the part of the doctors who must fill out the required forms. They find it very difficult to complete the certificate mainly because some disabilities are very complex and cannot always be assessed based on the definitions of daily activities.

Some people have missed out simply because their doctors gave them incorrect advice, based on an incorrect interpretation of the eligibility criteria. Any kind of family support could make the person ineligible for the tax credit, since this support helps make their lives easier.

Many participants and doctors are seriously questioning the reliability of the eligibility certificate.

This bill will prohibit a promoter from charging or accepting more than the established maximum fee.

A promoter is defined as a person who, directly or indirectly, accepts or charges a fee in respect of a disability tax credit request. I have to wonder how these fees will be determined by the Governor in Council and how the public and promoters will be informed about the tax credit.

An exemption is still possible, but promoters will have to inform the Minister of National Revenue if they are charging more than the maximum. This provision makes me wonder how the minister will determine whether the higher amount is acceptable. Promoters who are found guilty of charging more than the established maximum or of providing false or misleading information to the minister will be liable on summary conviction to a fine ranging from $1,000 to $25,000. These offences will be set out in the Criminal Code and could result in a criminal record.

We are obviously not against all promoters, since many of them have integrity and provide important assistance to the people who could benefit from this credit but who do not understand the eligibility criteria and process, as I mentioned. However, we have some serious concerns about the less scrupulous consultants who tend to try to exploit these people.

In 2005, this government changed the criteria and began offering retroactive tax refunds. So promoters began offering taxpayers their services to help them maximize their refunds. However, some promoters abused the system by charging exorbitant fees for their services. This is quite problematic and certainly unacceptable because these fees can be up to 30% of the tax credit, which can add up to thousands of dollars because this tax credit refund is retroactive.

It is important to prevent promoters from abusing the system, while keeping in mind that not all promoters take advantage of their clients. It is therefore important to make a distinction between promoters who abuse the system and promoters who act as consultants by helping disabled individuals get this tax credit, which they probably would not have received were it not for the help of a promoter.

By limiting these billable fees, the bill will protect disabled individuals from these abuses. It is a good provision, which is why we support this bill.

The Conservatives' budget cuts to the Canada Revenue Agency has made the situation even worse. Unfortunately, disabled individuals now have limited access to certain services that they could have gotten from the Canada Revenue Agency. The situation is utterly appalling.

Last year, I was able to hold one last information session for disabled people in my riding on the disability tax credit, and the Canada Revenue Agency took part. It was unfortunately the last time we were able to provide this service to our constituents because the cuts made to the Canada Revenue Agency will mean that CRA will no longer be able to help us with the information sessions.

I would like to thank my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster, who continues to support us when it comes to this tax credit. He has been providing this information in his riding for several years now. So he is used to these kinds of information sessions, which my colleagues also greatly appreciate.

The assistance that the government is supposed to be offering to Canadians is being jeopardized by the cuts that the government is making to the Canada Revenue Agency. As a result of a lack of resources, the agency will no longer be able to adequately inform the public in question about the tax credit and meet demand by providing information sessions and other services. We are therefore seeking better protection against financial abuse and we want the government to place restrictions on the fees promoters charge people with disabilities. We also believe that additional information is required to make the bill more user-friendly in that regard.

Since my time is up, I would like to say in closing that we will support this bill and will thoroughly examine it in committee in order to improve it.

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Jean for his comments and his entirely accurate observations.

We see in the committees that nothing suits the government, and often the witnesses they invite are not completely free to state their opinions or real, scientific facts. Nothing we propose suits it. That is more than despicable, because this government is anti-democratic in a number of ways. The way it behaves is quite frustrating, and not just in the House of Commons where it constantly muzzles us and imposes gag orders. It also uses its majority in committees to present bogus studies, and so on.

The government’s behaviour is simply despicable. That is the word that comes to mind, and that is what it is. It cannot be repeated often enough. With this government, doing anything in the House of Commons or in committee is an exercise in frustration.

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for her question.

I may actually not have taken the time to read all the committee “blues”, but the parliamentary secretary is reporting only what suits her, in this case, because there were admissible amendments. They were all completely shrugged off by the government, as is the case every time in every committee, not just this one. It happens every time a bill is introduced and reasonable amendments are proposed, as in this case. A number of amendments were proposed. Some of them may have been ruled out of order, but that is not the case for all or a majority of the ones we proposed.

That is completely despicable. The parliamentary secretary says they were out of order, but most of them were not.

The government is not listening to Canadians. Canadians want a civilian police force that investigates the police and they are tired of having police investigate the police. There is an appearance of a conflict of interest there, and once again, the government is disregarding the opinion of Canadians.

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-42. In my last speech on this bill, at second reading, I mentioned that we welcomed the introduction of this bill, despite certain problems we had noted regarding harassment, an urgent public concern for Canadians. We also pressed the Department of Public Safety to make sexual harassment within the RCMP one of its priorities.

However, the initial version of Bill C-42 did not directly address the systemic problems rooted in RCMP culture. The bill, as introduced at first reading, would not have changed the climate currently prevailing within the RCMP. When the bill was drafted, the Minister of Public Safety does not appear to have considered the various recommendations made by the Task Force on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP.

We nevertheless supported the bill at second reading so that we could study it adequately in committee and improve it so that it could solve the problems that seem firmly rooted within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Unfortunately, that is not how matters unfolded, and we were not satisfied with the committee's study of the bill. I am genuinely disappointed by the government's lack of co-operation on this matter, and, unfortunately, on others as well.

The Conservatives did not want to co-operate with us to ensure balanced representation of the various options and positions available. In committee, they were able to invite 12 witnesses, whereas the opposition could only invite seven. We also observed that the Conservatives' witnesses were unfortunately not entirely independent. All but one were representatives of the government or the RCMP. Consequently, they came and asserted the government's position without qualifying it in any real way. The witnesses selected by the Conservatives were thus not there to offer an independent opinion. That is what we observed.

The Conservatives were also not that eager to hear from our witnesses. Our first witness was unable to appear before the committee until the fourth meeting, and most of our witnesses were not invited until the last day of hearings. The Conservatives also forced us to submit all our amendments on the day of the last meeting in which we heard from witnesses. They asked us to provide our amendments three and half hours later that same day. That did not leave us much time to evaluate or consider the recommendations made by the witnesses before the committee.

We wanted to introduce amendments that would have made the legislation more effective so that it could achieve its objective, based on the recommendations of those same witnesses. This kind of behaviour on the government's part is unacceptable and impedes the proper conduct of parliamentary proceedings. This lack of co-operation by the government is what we have observed since the start of this Parliament. As far as I know, virtually none of the amendments introduced has unfortunately been accepted.

We proposed a number of amendments that were rejected by the Conservatives without any discussion. We proposed to include mandatory training on harassment for RCMP members in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, but they said no. The Conservatives simply do not want to hear a dissenting opinion, or even recognize its validity.

The director of the Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement sexuel au travail de la province de Québec appeared before the committee and said:

With the 32 years of experience we have, we have found out that when companies do have a clear policy, when employees do know what is acceptable and not acceptable, it makes it much easier for management to deal with the problems.

But the Conservatives preferred to ignore that testimony and the others heard in committee. It is also disappointing that the minister did not ask for a clear policy on sexual harassment in the RCMP, with specific standards of conduct and criteria for assessing the performance of all employees.

Such a policy is necessary to provide a basis for a fair and effective disciplinary process. The director of the Groupe d'aide et d'information sur le harcèlement sexuel au travail de la province de Québec spoke eloquently on the importance of such a policy. The Conservatives chose to ignore her testimony and stubbornly insisted on a magic solution that will not resolve all the RCMP's problems.

We also put forward an amendment that would guarantee the independence of the body set up to investigate complaints in the RCMP. Once again, the government said no. We also proposed adding a provision to establish a civilian investigative body, to stop the police from investigating themselves. Again, the government said no. Yet all Canadians are asking for such a provision. Trust in police investigations has to be rebuilt. When a police force investigates another police force, there may well be a conflict of interest or a perceived conflict of interest.

If the Conservatives do not want to listen to Canadians or the opposition, perhaps they should listen to the former chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, who stated that the bill did not meet the standards of review set out by Justice O'Connor and that it did not meet the needs of the Canadian public or even the RCMP itself. I would like to point out that Justice O'Connor, in the Arar inquiry, said that Parliament should create an oversight body for the RCMP. It would appear that these remarks, like all those that are not in line with Conservative ideology, have fallen on deaf ears.

The bill will give the RCMP commissioner new power to decide on appropriate disciplinary measures. This includes the power to appoint and dismiss members at his discretion. During my first speech on this bill, I said that the approach taken by the Minister of Public Safety was perhaps a little too simplistic, considering the size of the problem. It is not enough simply to grant final authority for laying off employees to the commissioner.

This is why we put forward an amendment to solve the problem and to create police forces that are better balanced in terms of human resources by eliminating some of the more draconian powers given to the RCMP commissioner and strengthening those of the external review committee in the case of potential layoffs from the RCMP.

As I mentioned earlier, although Bill C-42 gives the commissioner the power to establish a more efficient process to resolve harassment complaints while at the same time giving more disciplinary authority, he will not be able to bring about a real cultural change in the RCMP, a change that is necessary not only to get rid of sexual harassment issues, but also to deal with discipline and behavioural issues more generally among RCMP officers.

As evidence, Commissioner Paulson himself stated that legislation alone would not be enough to preserve public trust and that extensive reform would be necessary to address the serious underlying problems within the RCMP, in order to create a workplace that is more open, more co-operative and more respectful of everyone. We can see that the minister failed to provide the necessary leadership to deal with the broader issues faced by the RCMP.

Commissioner Paulson told the Standing Committee on the Status of Women that he thought the problem was bigger than simply sexual harassment. This situation must change, and the minister should have taken the commissioner’s extensive experience in the RCMP into consideration.

All the witnesses told us that this bill would not be enough to establish an open, co-operative and respectful working environment, and that giving so many powers to the commissioner would lead to more problems than it would solve. The Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada shares our view. In committee, an association representative said that Bill C-42, rather than mitigating the issues mentioned, would only make them exponentially worse.

If Bill C-42 is adopted as it is—including the charter violations and the measures enabling managers to continue abusing their powers—rather than correcting the problems that undermine the RCMP, our Parliament will be promoting misconduct and the culture of cronyism by legitimizing these kinds of behaviours.

For all these reasons, we will vote against this bill at third reading.

[Canadian Heritage, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to some of the comments made by my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Each time I hear a Conservative MP or a member of the government say that the NDP never supports government measures, I want to laugh. The measures the Conservatives are talking about are always hidden in a budget or in omnibus bills. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage to know that the NDP is not opposed to all of the measures mentioned by the Conservatives, when these are taken separately, but it does oppose them when they are taken as a package. I am a little disappointed to hear these same comments over and over.

In point of fact, the government spent $55 million to commemorate the War of 1812. An important battle of this war was fought along the shores of the Châteauguay River in my riding. Several historians in my riding claimed that this battle was merely a minor skirmish and that the government twisted history to praise the war. That is deplorable.

Let me say again that the House of Commons supported a motion recognizing Exporail and awarding it the status of a national museum. That is all I have to say. I am asking once again that it be awarded this status. It deserves it and it is important to my community.