Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 61 - 75 of 114
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-10-03 18:24 [p.10787]
Expand
moved that Bill C-424, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (contestation of election and punishment), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak today to private member's Bill C-424, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.
The bill would strengthen the federal electoral system to ensure all citizens would have access to due process in the case of contested elections as well as prevent, we hope, the repeat of the potential electoral fraud on a wide scale, which has marred Canadians' confidence in the last general election.
This bill accomplishes two very important things.
First, it would add the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada as somebody eligible under the law to contest an electoral result. Under the current law, and based upon the prescribed grounds in the act, an electoral district result can only be contested by an elector who was eligible to vote in that district or a candidate who ran as a candidate in that district as well.
As we have recently seen, contesting an election is a very expensive proposition and something many Canadians simply cannot afford. By adding the Chief Electoral Officer to the list of people who can contest an electoral result, we are making it possible for Canadians who cannot afford this process to have access themselves to the courts.
We are in no way seeking to alter the burden of proof in contesting a result or changing any other evidentiary requirement. We are simply giving the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada standing to bring an action before the courts, as could any eligible elector or candidate.
In addition, in circumstances where electoral fraud is suspected in more than one riding, this bill will permit the Chief Electoral Officer to better investigate the allegations.
Under the current system, if centralized fraud that affects a number of ridings is committed, Canadians in each individual riding must challenge the election before the courts, still as individuals.
While the act itself may be centralized, the only means available to these people to address the crime is limited to the electoral boundaries.
If the Chief Electoral Officer can challenge all of the electoral results, he or she will be able to ensure that no person or group can hide behind this technical detail.
This approach is entirely consistent with other electoral systems in Canada such as in British Columbia, Ontario and Nunavut, where the chief electoral officers are able to contest the election result in a particular electoral district.
Second, the bill would simply increase the fines for obstruction of the electoral process, for example, on a summary conviction from currently not more than $2,000 to not more than $20,000. For conviction by indictment, as members well know, the current legislation prescribes a fine of not more than $5,000. This bill would increase that to $50,000.
Canadians need to trust our electoral system and its integrity. Anyone who tries to undermine that trust and cheat the system must know that the consequences will be significant. The intent of this clause is to provide an even stronger deterrent to people who might think about cheating our electoral system.
Therefore, two very simple changes are being proposed.
The first aspect is the Chief Electoral Officer will have the ability at law to contest an electoral result in a district. Obviously, this will be done following a thorough analysis by Elections Canada, which is very conscious of the legal requirements of such a contestation.
The second aspect of the legislation we are proposing would simply increase the existing penalties. It would not change the nature of the offences. It would not add new offences. It would simply say that if someone is convicted on a summary conviction of election fraud, we think $2,000 is not the right sanction as a maximum penalty. It should be increased to $20,000 and the same thing on indictment, from $5,000 to $50,000. There is no mandatory minimum prescribed in our changes and our proposals, we are simply increasing the existing penalties for existing offences.
I believe the changes in the bill will strengthen our democracy and help rebuild some of the trust that perhaps has been lost in recent months. The last federal election cast a shadow over a number of electoral districts. Investigations are ongoing in a number of different electoral districts. We think that these changes will ensure that the respect for our electoral system is maintained and that those who seek to violate it would face consequences commensurate with the nature of the offence, that being the undermining of the basic democratic rights of Canadians.
I hope all members of all parties in the House will ultimately support the bill when it comes to a vote. Obviously, should it be sent to committee, I would be willing to entertain amendments or suggestions from all sides of the House in an effort to strengthen the legislation. If there are technical aspects that perhaps can be improved, I would remain very open to the suggestions of my colleagues.
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-10-03 18:31 [p.10788]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Toronto—Danforth raises a very appropriate question. All we would be seeking to do is give the Chief Electoral Officer the legal standing to contest a result or number of results when he feels an action should be brought before the courts. It is my understanding that in their legislation, Ontario, Nunavut and British Columbia have that authority in the hands of their respective chief electoral officers. Obviously, the discretion would be entirely in the hands of the Chief Electoral Officer should he choose in a particular case to contest a result before the appropriate board or tribunal.
If my colleagues support the legislation and we send it to committee, I would hope the committee would see fit to ask Elections Canada and the Chief Electoral Officer to give us their views of the legislation in committee. If the committee saw fit to make some suggestions following evidence from the Chief Electoral Officer, I would hope that we could all collectively improve the legislation.
However, I think the answer to my colleague's question is quite simple. In no way would this change the spirit or substance of the act. It simply adds one more person as having the legal grounds, the standing in law, to bring an application before the courts.
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-10-03 18:34 [p.10788]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Kitchener Centre makes a valid point. In no way would we seek to diminish the neutrality and the confidence that the Chief Electoral Officer has in the eyes of Canadians and in the eyes of the House.
I would remind my colleague from Kitchener Centre that it was the Conservative Party that voted no confidence at one point on another election scandal it was involved in, and that was the in and out scandal. The Conservatives are the ones who voted no confidence in Elections Canada and its Chief Electoral Officer. It certainly was not people on this side of the House.
At the end of the day, Elections Canada has an investigatory responsibility. The Commissioner of Canada Elections himself can make recommendations to the director of public prosecutions around quasi criminal prosecutions for fraud.
The Chief Electoral Officer has an essential role to uphold the integrity of our election system and cannot be simply a silent observer when he feels, in his wisdom, that the courts should decide. He would not decide. The courts would decide ultimately if there has been a fraud. He would simply have the opportunity to bring that case before the appropriate tribunals.
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-10-01 13:18 [p.10624]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to indicate my enthusiastic support for the motion introduced by the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.
I would also like to congratulate the Liberal human resources critic, the member for Cape Breton—Canso, for all his work on the employment insurance file.
Ever since the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development made her announcement in August—without ever having discussed it in Parliament—we have heard many times during question period and in debates in the House that the changes she proposed have had the opposite effect to what the government claimed.
Many times over, my colleagues in the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party have shown the government some very specific examples. They have explained how the changes the minister has proposed to the former pilot project, created by the Liberal government in 2003, were going to cause problems and discourage people from accepting additional hours of work or part-time work during the part of the year they receive EI benefits.
As the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso said, when we saw the budget in the spring and the changes described in the working while on claim pilot project, our first reaction was to commend the government. The government talked about improving the changes that had already helped employers a great deal, in my region, in New Brunswick, and across Canada. Those changes had helped workers, both men and women, to accept available work during times when a business is closed down for part of the year, or the workers’ usual employment is not available, or they are on parental leave. We commended the government because at the time, we thought that it was going to increase to 50% the amount that a person could earn without suffering a dollar-for-dollar reduction in EI benefits. In August we found out we were mistaken.
In fact, what the budget said was not entirely truthful. In her announcement, the minister changed the 40% base for calculations. Previously, under the old pilot project, a person was entitled to earn up to 40% of EI benefits without any reduction. The government said it was going to increase that to 50%, but in fact, that 50% of earned income will not be deducted, dollar for dollar, from EI benefits.
As we have seen with many other policies brought in by this government, it is more likely to benefit high income earners and, in a very limited number of cases, people who earn a lot of money during a period in which they are receiving the maximum employment insurance benefit.
In my home province of New Brunswick, like in many rural areas of Canada, people do not have the opportunity to receive the maximum amount of benefits or to work full time and earn $600, $700 or $800 during a week in which they are receiving maximum EI benefits. The examples the government used to claim that it would benefit everyone really relate to people with higher earnings, who receive the maximum EI benefits and the highest incomes from part-time employment.
Here is a very specific example. In my riding, there is a seafood processing plant located in the town of Bouctouche. A woman called my constituency office in Shediac to explain her situation. She was stunned to learn that she was being penalized for agreeing to work half a shift. It was the only work available in Bouctouche and she was penalized as a result of the changes to the EI program.
That woman's entire income so far this year is $7,868. Clearly, she is not a high income earner. She probably earns just a little more than minimum wage. As we all know, employment insurance is 50% of one's weekly earnings. Her weekly income, when she was working, was $562. Since she was getting 55% of that amount, she got $309 in EI every week when she was forced to turn to EI benefits.
This time, she was asked to work six hours and earned $62. Under the former system, as my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso explained, she would have been allowed to earn up to 40% of her benefits—40% of $309—or $123.60. She could earn $123 in wages without causing a reduction in her employment insurance benefits. Unfortunately, under the new system, the $62 she earned by working six hours were reduced to $31 because 50% of the $62 was deducted from her EI. Instead of finishing up the week with $371—her EI benefits plus the $62 she earned—she took in $340. As my college from Malpeque said, the idea of working six hours for $31 does not make sense. These workers are often women, who have to have someone look after their children. They have daycare expenses. The cost of gasoline in my riding and throughout Canada is very high. These people travel 30 to 60 minutes to get to work.
With these changes, the government is discouraging this woman from going to work when the only work available in her area is a six-hour shift per week.
This also puts employers in my region and across Canada at a disadvantage. This does not penalize only those who receive employment insurance benefits. In fact, employers, such as Mills Seafood in Bouctouche, will have a very hard time finding employees when they have work available for a day or a day and a half a week.
It is the same thing in the tourism industry, where, back home, companies operate a few weekends in November and December, to organize Christmas celebrations, for example. In this case, employees will hesitate to go work because they will be punished as a result of the harmful changes made by the current government.
The solution is simple. Instead of punishing a nurse who decides to work eight to 12 hours in a week while she is receiving parental leave benefits, the government should reinstate the old system that encouraged people to work and that helped employers find workers during certain periods of the year when it is often difficult. The changes brought in by the government will have the opposite effect of what they keep claiming. They do not understand the challenges faced by real families and small- and medium-sized businesses across Canada.
We are opposed to these changes. Other proposed changes to employment insurance worry us. We are pleased to vote in favour of this motion, because we believe that the government must do better for Canadian workers.
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-10-01 13:29 [p.10625]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg North is absolutely right.
The minister gets up during question period time and time again. Her parliamentary secretary provides equally sad performances. They continually regurgitate talking points written by bureaucrats in an office tower in Gatineau, Quebec.
They do not understand the reality of everyday living in small town and rural communities across the country, or even in larger urban centres like Winnipeg, represented so ably by my colleague from Winnipeg North. People may be encouraged to take part-time work during the year when perhaps there is no work available when they find themselves laid-off through no fault of their own or while they are receiving the parental or compassionate leave benefit.
The minister clearly does not understand the changes she has made. She consistently reverts back to the high-income earner examples, the people receiving maximum EI benefits and working part-time for $600 and $700 a week. That is not the reality in many communities across this country and the minister should do better for those people than simply regurgitate lame talking points.
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-10-01 13:32 [p.10625]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso, initially I thought that the changes, which were vaguely described in the budget document, were intended to increase to 50% the previous pilot project. As has been said many times, the previous pilot project allowed someone receiving EI benefits to earn the greater of either $75 or 40% of their EI benefit, without the earnings being clawed back dollar for dollar. In the example I gave of someone making $309 a week on employment insurance in my riding, that person would have been able to work up to 40% of that EI benefit for $123 without a clawback.
However, that example no longer exists. The government was very deceitful in talking about an increase to 50%. It did not say that it was changing the base on which that percentage was calculated. It is not based on the amount of one's EI benefit; the government changed it to the amount of income one earned separately and apart from the EI benefit.
Therefore, if the base of the calculation is changed and the government starts clawing back earnings dollar for dollar, it perversely and severely punishes low-income earners and, of course, continues the Conservative way of benefiting the highest income earners among us. That is what they like. That is not what we like on this side of the House.
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-10-01 14:52 [p.10639]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives showed their true colours when they eliminated funding for the Afghan Canadian Community Centre in Kandahar, a school for young Afghan women. Last year they were saying wonderful things about the school; now they are abandoning this initiative, which has reduced poverty and offered hope to young Afghan women. The United States government, which is more enlightened than the Conservatives, is keeping its school open.
How can the Conservatives abandon young Afghan women after all our soldiers' work and sacrifices?
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-09-27 14:41 [p.10538]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, let us try this again. A woman in my riding who works in a seafood plant receives employment insurance benefits when the plant is closed. She managed to find a minimum wage job in Bouctouche, where an employer is looking for someone to work just one night a week. Let us be clear: there are no other jobs in Bouctouche and, no matter what the minister believes, this woman is not lazy.
Why does the minister want to take away half of this woman's earnings?
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-09-19 14:29 [p.10141]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister once said that providing for the poor is not a federal responsibility. He does not think it is his job to help those people. The Prime Minister was clearly having a Mitt Romney moment.
EI recipients are worse off if they try to work. The government has failed to improve CPP while rolling back OAS. There are crippling mortgage rates on social housing. The Prime Minister does not care about those people.
Why is the Prime Minister trying to balance the books on the backs of the most vulnerable Canadians?
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-09-19 14:30 [p.10142]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, economic inequality in Canada is continuing to grow, and the Conservatives' solution is to punish people who are receiving employment insurance benefits and who are looking for part-time work. What is more, the unemployment rate among young people has reached 15% and the Conservatives' solution is to close the employment centres that help them to find jobs.
When will this government realize that it must govern on behalf of all Canadians and not just on behalf of those it thinks voted for the Conservatives?
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-09-19 14:31 [p.10142]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, the minister can continue, but the reality is 165,000 young people have simply given up looking for work. EI recipients who want to work while on claim are worse off financially. They suffer from a secret clawback. Millions of Canadians are without a pension plan and the government is rolling back the OAS.
For our economy to thrive, all Canadians must be the object of federal government policy. When will it reverse these destructive policies and begin to govern for all Canadians, every one of them?
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-09-18 14:54 [p.10112]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, all of the fishers of Quebec and the Atlantic provinces are very worried about the future of their industry because of the minister's refusal to drop his plan to destroy coastal fisheries and the communities that depend on them.
Will the minister rise here today and promise that he will not change the fleet separation policy and the owner-operator principle?
He did not do so in response to my colleague's question. His refusal to do so here today makes this a very sad day for our coastal fisheries.
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-09-18 16:29 [p.10124]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, let me begin, as many others have done, by congratulating you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker. I am very proud to see you in the Chair and I congratulate you.
In his remarks, my colleague from Hamilton Centre correctly referred to the tendency the government has to remove judicial discretion in much of Canada's criminal law.
From my perspective, victim surcharges are often very appropriate, and certainly supporting victims and initiatives that support victims of crime has a lot of merit in our justice system.
Does he agree that the knee-jerk reaction of the government is always to tie judges' hands by imposing mandatory minimum sentences, pretending that somehow that is getting tough on crime, often creating unintended consequences? Does he agree that the solution in the case of a judicial sentence that appears inappropriate or does not respect the principles of sentencing is to go to the court of appeal to seek to have that sentence changed instead of consistently taking away judicial discretion, as it is seeking to do in this bill?
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-09-18 16:44 [p.10126]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île on her speech. I agree that the government is often uninterested in parliamentary debates. However, it may be interested in the question I have for my colleague or my suggestion for her.
In her speech she referred to some of the failures of the Republican policy on criminal justice. I share her concerns about the fact that the government is basing programs, policies and bills on ones that have proven to be failures in certain U.S. states, such as California and Texas.
Could my colleague elaborate, for the benefit of everyone, on her concerns that the government seems to be inspired by policies that have failed in certain U.S. states?
What are her concerns for the future of the Canadian justice system in light of the Conservative government's blind faith in its American idols?
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2012-09-17 14:56 [p.10001]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, RMG is a company that contacts voters at the Conservative Party's behest. Former RMG employees signed affidavits stating that they were forced to call non-Conservative voters and direct them to the wrong polling station. The company says that it has recordings proving its innocence, but it is refusing to turn those recordings over to a Federal Court investigation. The integrity of our voting system is at stake.
What will the government do to ensure that RMG and the Conservative Party obey the law?
Collapse
Results: 61 - 75 of 114 | Page: 5 of 8

|<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data