Jean Crowder

[Main Estimates, 2014-15, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly did cover in my speech the aspect of where the duty to consult rests. It clearly rests with the government in terms of initiating constitutional change and pieces of legislation that would have that kind of impact.

However, what I also indicated in my speech was the fact that we could use this as a starting point to talk about instituting real accountability in the Senate. Again, as the member for Timmins—James Bay and others have suggested, this is an opportunity to put a real ethics package in place in the Senate. It is an opportunity to stop the kind of partisan spending that happens in the Senate, where there is party fundraising and that kind of activity. It is an opportunity to stop taxpayer-funded travel on measures that are not related to a legislative agenda.

I agree that constitutional change is going to take time and that it is going to require working very closely with the provinces, but in the meantime, we cannot continue to let this kind of unaccountable spending continue to happen. It is just the wrong use of taxpayers' dollars.

[Main Estimates, 2014-15, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for sharing his time with me and, of course, for very ably laying out the reason we are having this debate tonight.

It is all about accountability, and as I listened to the various comments, questions, and speeches, I have found it interesting that by and large members other than the NDP have not wanted to talk about the issues of accountability.

I was fortunate to be elected back in 2004, so I have been in this august place for 10 years now, but we so rarely get an opportunity in this House to discuss the issues around accountability in the Senate. There is simply very little mechanism for us to do this.

I want to applaud the member for Winnipeg Centre for consistently raising this issue year after year. He has been tireless in attempting to get this place to talk about accountability issues with the Senate. It is tonight that we get this very brief period of time to shine the light on the lack of accountability in the Senate.

I was interested to hear the member opposite ask the question about the very strict accountability that was put in place in December. We eagerly await, at least on this side of the House, the Auditor General's report on expenditures in the Senate. We eagerly await that detail and the recommendations for the kinds of measures that need to be put in place to ensure accountability in the Senate.

The other issue that has come up consistently this evening is the fact that people are talking about the Supreme Court decision and the fact that the government proposal in its piece of legislation was not deemed as meeting the requirements under the Constitution.

Certainly, I do not think any of us here is questioning the wisdom of the Supreme Court position with regard to reform of the Senate. However, there are still other mechanisms that we could put forward to talk about making the Senate more accountable. The NDP has certainly made some recommendations about the reformation of the Senate that do not require constitutional change.

The member for Timmins—James Bay mentioned that one of the things we could do is prohibit the senators from taxpayer-funded partisan work. The senators would no longer participate in party caucuses or do fundraising, organizing, or public advocacy on behalf of a political party, using Senate resources. That seems like a really good plan. We do not require the provinces' consent to make that particular reform. In fact, the leaders of the Conservative and Liberal parties, who are the only parties here who have Senate appointments, could actually work with their senators right now to institute that policy this very minute.

Second, we could end taxpayer-sponsored travel that is not directly related to senators' legislative work. This sounds like a reasonable accountability measure. Certainly here in the House we have rigorous reporting requirements in terms of how we report our expenses with regard to flights: what we were doing, where we were going. There is no reason why the Senate cannot have that same kind of rigorous approach.

Third, we could establish a single ethics code and a single ethics commissioner for all parliamentarians. Again, that would make absolutely perfect sense. I mean, there are standards that parliamentarians in the House of Commons have. We have to fill out detailed forms with regard to other activities we may be engaged in. The Ethics Commissioner reviews the forms to ensure we are fulfilling our requirements and responsibilities.

We have seen very rare occasions, fortunately, in this House where members of the government have had to stand up and apologize because their conflict of interest form perhaps did not reveal the details that were required. However, again, we have a rigorous process here, and members by and large abide by that process. It would seem a good process to put in place with regard to the Senate.

I have heard talk about the sober second thought. If only that were true. Since 2011, there have been very few bills that have been amended in the Senate. Where bills have been amended in the Senate, it was because the government gave it marching orders. It was because the government blew something on a bill and then told the Senate what amendments it had to do because they were required. However, in terms of independent review of legislation, that sober second thought that people keep talking about simply has not happened. We have a Senate that is heavily stacked on a partisan basis, and that is the kind of review that is brought to those pieces of legislation.

We have had unprecedented numbers of bills originating in the Senate. One would think, if the government thought they were that important, it would actually draft the bills and have them tabled in the House of Commons and then referred to the Senate. However, we are not seeing that kind of approach to a legislative agenda.

Others have pointed this out, but I was fortunate enough to be a member of the House when the climate change accountability legislation was passed in the House of Commons and then referred to the Senate. With some trickery and chicanery in the Senate, it was defeated. It makes no sense to me that we have the duly elected representatives debating and determining a piece of legislation that we feel is in the best of interest of Canadians, we send it off to the Senate, and it is summarily defeated. That does not seem a reasonable approach for an unaccountable, unelected Senate.

I want to turn to the scandals that have been plaguing the Senate over the last several months.

Again, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour pointed this out. I know from talking to my constituents and other Canadians that people are raising concerns about the Senate, about how money is spent in the Senate, how accountable it is, why it is that the Senate continues to operate in this fashion, and why somebody is not doing something about it.

New Democrats are. We are trying to actually highlight the fact that there is a significant amount of money—in fact, the total amount is $91.5 million, but the amount we are talking about tonight is $57.5 million—which is the part that requires approval of Parliament.

Canadians are asking why. Why are we continuing to spend this money when there are so many other pressing issues facing Canadians? Why does the Senate continue to be funded for a job that it clearly does not do? It rubber-stamps legislation for the government, so why is it continuing to be funded for that?

I want to turn to consultation for a moment. I have been lucky enough to sit here and listen to a number of comments and questions, so I heard the government and the third party ask us a number of times what we did to consult. I have to remind members of this House that the responsibility around consultation rests with the government. It is the one that develops legislation. It is the one that develops policy. It rests with the government.

The Supreme Court decision said that, in order to do that constitutional reform, we need to have the consent of provinces. We do have a long history of Reformers and now Conservatives talking about the need for Senate reform. If they acknowledge that there is that need for Senate reform and they saw what the Supreme Court said, what exactly have they done to move this conversation along?

Again, I want to remind people that it is the government's responsibility to take part in consultation.

I would argue that members in this House, whenever they put forward a private member's bill or a motion, do not engage in the extensive kind of consultation that is required with regard to government legislation. I am the aboriginal affairs critic and we do not even see the government doing appropriate consultation with respect to aboriginal issues. It hardly seems likely that it is going to conduct the kind of consultation required around constitutional change with respect to the Senate.

In the brief time I have left, I want to briefly touch upon a couple of matters with regard to expenditure.

Again, I think the member for Timmins—James Bay mentioned the $57 billion that some of us have argued was theft from the employment insurance fund. That is just one example of where similar kinds of money that should have gone to support the workers and their families in this country have just been removed from government coffers by arbitrary decisions, because of governments that could not balance their budgets any other way except on the backs of workers.

I certainly would like to talk about what $57 million would do for schools on reserve, what $57 million would do for clean drinking water on reserve, what $57 million would do for housing, what it would do for child welfare, and what it would do to implement Jordan's principle. There are many ways that this $57.5 million could be used to actually make lives better for all Canadians instead of for a few senators who are party hacks.

I would urge all members of this House to support this very important motion that the NDP has put forward.

[Main Estimates, 2014-15, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Timmins—James Bay was in full flight there. I will give him an opportunity to continue that because what we have seen is a history of both Liberals and Conservatives appointing their cronies, their bagmen and women to the Senate.

Would he like to continue elucidating us on the numbers of people who have been appointed to the Senate and who simply do not do the job that Canadians expect?

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, in January, Justice Paul Perell called out the federal government for suppressing evidence about what had happened at St. Anne's Residential School.

He ordered the government to turn over that evidence so that survivors could get the compensation they were entitled to. However, once again, the government is stalling and refusing to turn over key transcripts.

When will the government just come clean, obey the judge's orders, and allow the victims of St. Anne's to get the justice they deserve?

[Natural Resources, June 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, lack of preparation for an oil spill is just one of the ways the Conservatives have mismanaged this pipeline. Their lack of genuine consultation continues to cause them problems.

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip was clear this weekend. If the Conservatives continue to plough ahead, they will once again find themselves in court.

Will the Conservatives stop putting their oil lobbyist friends ahead of British Columbians and will they reject this proposal?

[Natural Resources, June 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of if northern gateway will lead to a massive oil spill on the west coast. It is a question of when. Even the B.C. government has said that a comprehensive oil spill response plan is needed before it will approve a pipeline permit.

The Conservatives have no coherent oil spill response plan. How can the government expect Canadians to trust it or its project if the Conservatives cannot even come up with a basic plan?

[Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, June 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the minister. First, what we are doing in this half-hour period is actually talking about parliamentary process. What we are talking about is not the merits of the bill, but parliamentary process, in terms of shutting down debate around a very important matter before this House.

I have to comment on a couple of things that the minister raised. First, he accused the NDP of not wanting to deal with the significant delays in citizenship and immigration. He is well aware that our constituency offices spend a significant amount of our time dealing with the unconscionable delays with regard to citizenship and immigration. It is ludicrous to hear the minister say that we support keeping those delays in place.

We do support legislation that is thoughtful, that takes into account the concerns of Canadian citizens, and that looks at due process. The minister is saying that everybody is happy about this legislation. I should perhaps send him three documents. The Canadian Bar Association, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, and a number of prominent scholars and academics, just to name a few, have done a detailed analysis of this legislation and have raised significant concerns.

I ask the minister, why is it that he supports shutting down a democratic process, a democratic debate, that would allow us to have a fulsome review of this piece of legislation in the appropriate kind of process? Why is he shutting down that opportunity?

[Canada Pension Plan, June 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak to Bill C-591, an act to amend the Canada pension plan and the old age security act. As was pointed out by the member for Victoria, the NDP will be supporting this piece of legislation.

I want to note that this bill seeks to end CPP survivor benefits for convicted murderers. The bill is remarkably similar to legislation introduced by the New Democrat MP for Hamilton Mountain. Because we have already had a history of introducing this legislation, we will support this bill.

It is unfortunate, and I suspect that many Canadians did not realize it until the matter came up for debate before the House, that part of the failure of the current Canada pension plan legislation is that the survivor's pension death benefit or orphan's benefit may be made payable to those convicted of murdering a spouse or parent. I will talk specifically about a story that was on the CBC recently, but I first want to put some numbers on the record.

Over the past decade, more than half of the spouses accused of homicide had a history of family violence involving the victim. That is, 65% of spouses accused of homicide had a history of violence regarding the victim. According to police-reported data in 2011, there were 81 female victims of intimate partner homicide in Canada versus 13 male victims. Finally, women are far more likely to be the victims of spousal homicide. This legislation removes the possibility that a spouse could receive a benefit following a conviction for murder.

In our own province of British Columbia, there was a recent story in that respect. The title is “Spousal killers shouldn't get survivor benefits”. This was with respect to the victim's daughter. This story appeared on June 7 of this year. A woman named Susan Fetterkind wants the government to plug benefit loopholes in spousal murder cases. The story states:

A North Delta woman, whose father killed her mother, wants the federal government to plug a loophole that allowed him to collect pension survivor benefits for 28 years until his death.

I cannot imagine what it was like for the children. This was an example of a known history of violence. The husband was estranged at the time he murdered his former partner. Although we commend the member opposite for bringing this bill forward, as Susan mentioned in the article the bill does not go far enough. She said:

His bill mentions first and second degree murder but it doesn't mention manslaughter. My father did a plea bargain and he was convicted of manslaughter.

That is a good case in point. This man collected survivor benefits for 28 years. He was convicted of manslaughter because of the plea bargaining that is part of our system, so this bill would not have dealt with that issue.

I also want to acknowledge that the member said that at committee stage, amendments could be entertained. The member for Victoria has ably outlined the concerns with respect to the manslaughter provision.

Because of the fact that we are talking about survivor benefits, and largely we are talking about intimate partner violence, one of the things we need to do as a country is tackle some of the issues that leave women so vulnerable that these kinds of things can happen.

In 2009, West Coast LEAF, which is the women's Legal Education and Action Fund, produced a report on CEDAW, which is the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. It relates directly to some of the issues in this bill, because we would not need to talk about this if we actually protected women from being subject to violence from partners or other family members. LEAF produced a report card and gave grades to particular initiatives governments had undertaken. This is not a partisan issue. The fact of the matter is that this is where Canada is at this stage, through a series of governments.

It talked about two things. The first was with respect to missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls. They gave an F grade.

Many of us in this House are very familiar with the Robert Pickton murders in British Columbia. He was arrested and charged with the murder of 26 of these women in 2002, which drew a national outcry.

The report continues:

—the systemic problems in the investigative process, or lack thereof, have not yet been addressed by the authorities, and the sustained and widespread calls for an inquiry into the missing and murdered women have thus far been ignored. In addition, increased investment in social services, including improved access to secure housing, may help reduce rates violence by protecting vulnerable women, such as those working in the sex trade.

This is an example of the fact that women are subject to violence. These are the kind of situations we see with the CPP survivor benefits.

Violence against women and girls received a grade C. It said that the CEDAW committee had noted that gender-based violence was a form of discrimination that seriously inhibited women's ability to enjoy equal rights and freedoms.

In 2008, the committee stated:

—remains concerned that domestic violence continues to be a significant problem.

The Committee was particularly concerned about a number of elements of the social services’ and justice system’s response to violence against women, including: the use of diversion and mediation in situations involving domestic violence; the practice of “dual charging”; an insufficient number of shelters for victims of violence; and the failure of courts to take domestic violence into account in custody and access determinations.

Despite past progress on this issue, the widespread nature of violence against women and recent regressive policy changes make this issue one of the most persistent barrier to women's equality in B.C. These are B.C. provincial government policies.

Further, evidence indicates that violence against women and children increases during times of economic crisis, calling for increased services rather than funding cuts.

Later on, they reiterate the issue around retrogressive social policies and say that decreased spending for services, such as social assistance, housing, child care and legal aid decreases women's independence, and consequently their ability to leave abusive relationships. Inaccessible and inadequate social services particularly impact the freedom of immigrant women who are sponsored by their abusive spouses.

First, when we have a justice system, as the member from Victoria rightly pointed out, that provides for plea bargaining, allows a spouse who has been convicted of murdering his spouse to then end up with a manslaughter charge and, as would be covered under this bill, that manslaughter charge would result in survivor benefits.

Second, we need to ensure that women are protected so they do not end up becoming the victims of spousal homicide.

Whether it is investments in shelters or legal systems that allow the families of the victim to ensure they have adequate legal representation when it comes to justice matters, these are all really important aspects.

Again, I commend the member for raising the bill before the House. I know the New Democrats will be supporting the bill. I look forward to a fulsome discussion at committee, so perhaps some amendments can be made to deal with the manslaughter aspect of the bill.

[Agricultural Growth Act, June 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the minister's answers.

First of all, the government has the right to set the agenda in the House. The government introduced this bill some time ago and then chose to wait until the dying days of June to bring it back for debate.

Second, the minister accuses us of holding up bills. Let me tell the minister that part of the reason we put up speakers on bills is that we know for a fact that the government will entertain virtually no amendments either in the House or at committee. We have a responsibility as parliamentarians to stand here and make sure that we highlight the concerns that are being raised by our constituents.

I need to tell the minister that I have hundreds of people in my riding who do not belong to some splinter group who are raising some serious concerns about this bill. We have a right to present their concerns in this place. That is our job.

I wonder why the minister is so afraid of hearing the concerns being raised by our constituents.

[Natural Resources, June 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives ignore concerns about climate change just like they ignore concerns from British Columbians about our environment. A new poll shows that two out of every three people in British Columbia are opposed to the northern gateway project. These numbers are even higher than in the January poll. The more people learn about this project, the more they oppose it.

Are the Conservatives really going to flout the wishes of 67% of British Columbians?