Francine Raynault

[Safer Witnesses Act, February 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, yes, it is important to have an independent body so that the entity overseeing witness protection is not judging itself.

[Safer Witnesses Act, February 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that increasing sentences will encourage people to testify.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the member across the aisle. Increasing sentences will not protect witnesses.

[Safer Witnesses Act, February 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

In addition to telling us about the nature of our world and our origins, astrology also serves as a wonderful time marker. Much like two orbits crossing, on this rare occasion, my opinions are crossing with the Conservative government's. I will support Bill C-51. But much like two stars that align but do not touch, I want to add that the government could do much more to ensure that the witness protection program is successful.

To be clear: I applaud this bill. It is certainly a step in the right direction. However, time will tell if it goes far enough. I think that, after the provisions are in force for a few years, there will be three things the public will think are insufficient: the expansion of the eligibility criteria, co-operation with the provinces and the adequacy of funding.

Since the NDP called on the Conservatives to review the witness protection program in 2007, the earth has travelled around the sun six times. As they say, all things come to those who wait. All things? That is what we will see.

In 2007, the NDP started urging the government to address the problem of coordinating the witness protection program with the provinces. We repeated the demand a number of times, notably in 2009 and 2012. I am pleased that the Conservatives were open to our ideas, but I deplore the fact that the funding was not there so that these changes could be implemented properly.

Buying fighter jets is not the only way to protect the public. We also protect them by doing whatever we can to help people help us. This is the case with street gangs, for example. Naturally, a gang member would want to be assured of safety before testifying. The same should go for every first-hand witness. These people are key elements in the government's fight against threats to public safety. If the money is invested properly, I am positive that this can work.

The witness protection program makes communities throughout the country safer. In fact, witness protection often guarantees the success of an investigation. My fellow Quebeckers know something about that. Witness protection gives the police access to useful, first-hand information. It is deplorable that we have had to wait so long to extend protection to street gang members, for example. But we have had to wait a long time. In 2012, 108 potential witnesses tried to sign up for the witness protection program. Of the 108 people prepared to divulge important information to investigators, only 30 were accepted by the government. The government will probably say that those 30 people cost millions of dollars. That is true, but that is what our taxes are for.

Since coming to power in 2006, the Conservatives have increased the deficit by almost $150 billion and reduced corporate taxes by about $50 billion. Clearly, it is mainly about how we choose to spend the money.

Were dozens of cases closed due to a lack of money or poor procedure? That is really what we should be asking with regard to 2012.

Are we talking about 78 cases that could have been solved, but were not for lack of evidence? If the answer is yes, it was high time for action from this law-and-order government.

We also really wanted to review another problem raised by the program: coordination. At present, offences pertaining to national security are excluded from the witness protection program. We saw what happened with the Air India investigation.

One man, Mr. Hayer, was killed in 1998, and a number of others received threats. Mr. Hayer was therefore unable to testify, and the affidavit he gave the RCMP in 1995 became inadmissible.

Could this man's death have been prevented with better protection? I think so. Could the inquiry have gone further if there had been better protection? I think so. Mr. Hayer was the editor of the Times of India, in British Columbia. It is absolutely outrageous that we were unable to protect him.

I wonder why it did not occur to the Liberals at the time to look at the issue of witness protection a little more closely when that tragedy occurred. It is also sad to see that the Conservatives have not included more of the recommendations that came out of the Air India inquiry in their bill.

It should also be noted that in 2010, the RCMP submitted a report calling for beefed-up witness protection. It was December 2012 before we even found out about that report and a few months after that before the Conservatives did anything with it. It has been a long haul. It was high time.

The Conservatives do not seem to realize the magnitude of the costs being incurred right now by local police forces for witness protection. Several Canadian provinces have programs in place to ensure witness protection, but unfortunately, there is not enough money and federal-provincial co-operation is lacking.

Since Bill C-51 does not include any budget increases, I really have to wonder how we will achieve results that are any better.

The government should acknowledge the viewpoints of the RCMP, the provinces and the official opposition. There is no room for partisan politics on this issue. This is not the time to be dilettante. If the government wants to ensure witness protection, it must do so with all the necessary financial investments; otherwise, the proposed changes will remain but empty rhetoric.

One recommendation that came from the Air India investigation involved an eligibility process that is more transparent and requires greater accountability. Bill C-51 does not include any provisions in that regard. Why will the government not commit to making the program more transparent?

The bill contains no provisions allowing for an independent organization to administer the program based on the recommendations made in the Air India investigation report. The RCMP will continue to bear the responsibility for the program, which will eventually place it in a conflict of interest, because it will be both the investigating body and the one to decide who benefits from protection.

That said, I am giving this bill the benefit of the doubt, and I will support it at second reading, in the hope, of course, that the government will not disappear when it is time to pay.

[Employment Insurance, February 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, workers have had more than enough of the minister's evasive answers. They know that they are being unfairly punished by the employment insurance reforms, no matter what the Conservative Party says.

There are many workers and employers in Quebec and eastern Canada who depend on seasonal jobs, and now they are considered to be bad guys. The Conservatives are tearing apart the social safety net and passing the bill on to the provinces, which must now pick up the tab for social assistance.

Will the minister finally admit that she has made a mistake and immediately announce that she is suspending these unwarranted reforms?

[Business of Supply, January 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in my earlier remarks, I said that for hundreds of years, people have sought to annihilate aboriginals. Everyone knows the residential school story.

I would like to thank the member for her passionate speech, but I would like to know why, during all the years, all the decades the Liberals were in power, they did not close aboriginal residential schools. Surely people were asking them questions, were telling them about what was going on.

[Business of Supply, January 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague who said that the Liberal Party will be supporting our motion.

It is about time we recognized that aboriginal peoples have lived here for millennia. We packed them off to reserves and we told them to fend for themselves. It was a way to destroy them physically and spiritually. We know what happened at the residential schools.

[Business of Supply, January 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan for moving a motion that expresses the sense of urgency that we, the NDP, feel with respect to Canada's aboriginals.

Before I begin my remarks, I would ask the House to take a few moments to honour the January 19 passing of Gilles Ottawa, an Atikamekw historian from Manawan. His contribution to the Atikamekw collective memory was unique and continues to enrich the entire community. The man is no more, but his wisdom and knowledge will endure.

I would like to explain how important this motion is to the future of aboriginals. I believe that it highlights the failings of generations of Canadian governments and their unclear policies on aboriginals. I would like to talk about the three main points of this motion: the economy, treaties and the law.

Clearly, resolving all of these issues will require considerable effort. But anyone listening to what is going on in reserves across Canada and paying attention to the youth activists and social movements would be naive to believe that the status quo can remain in place. We do not want a naive government, do we?

As a society, we have reached the threshold of a new relationship with this country's aboriginals. We need a complete paradigm shift to face future challenges together. The Conservatives' penchant for throwing the word “economy” around has become a joke. Often used with the word “growth”, this concept is as hackneyed as can be. Once a social science, economics was rebranded as a pure science through pressure from a certain school of thought, and now it is used to justify savage attacks on the environment, our democracy and ultimately, our collective identity.

And so, it is not surprising that the Conservatives are saying quite seriously that the ecocide development projects generated by the mammoth bills will benefit aboriginal people despite the fact that their game plan does not include any consultation. They seriously believe that. However, the idea that the creation of wealth will naturally benefit the public, and aboriginal people in particular, is completely false. By way of evidence, we need only look at the tax credits given to large corporations that are not being reinvested in the economy. In aboriginal communities, things are often much worse. Given the unemployment rate of 27% on the reserves, clearly aboriginal people are not the first to be asked to work on the project sites. What is more, 70% of students who live on reserve do not finish high school.

This is true across Canada and in my riding. I have seen it first-hand in Manawan. There, the elementary school is dilapidated and substandard. At the high school level, the failure rate is 86% and the drop-out rate is almost 50%. Of all the reserves in Quebec, Manawan receives the lowest amount of funding for education, getting only about a third of the amount allocated per student in the rest of the province. Is this normal? Is this how we are going to train good workers and good citizens? Of course not, since that is not Canada's objective right now. For hundreds of years of colonialism, the efforts made to keep aboriginal people down and assimilate them has surpassed those made toward their development. That is clear.

Since 1996, the government has capped the increase in annual funding for basic programs on reserves at 2%, which is lower than the inflation rate and the demographic growth on reserves. Without any help from the government, aboriginal people will have a great deal of difficulty getting out of poverty. That is what is happening right now, whether we like it or not. The status quo cannot continue and we must immediately take real action to improve the economic prospects of aboriginal people in Canada.

It is surprising to see how a government that travels across the globe to sign treaties can be so unwilling to honour the ones it has signed in its own country.

The NDP believes in a nation-to-nation approach to negotiations with aboriginals. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the government, which does not honour the commitments made in treaties between 1701 and 1923.

This hypocrisy was shared equally between the Conservatives and the Liberals. There are currently between 700 and 800 cases of broken treaties that are still unresolved. At the current rate, it will take 100 years to settle all of these cases. That kind of neglect is the epitome of bad faith.

What is worse, again in 2012 and 2013, the Conservative government reiterated its commitment to “respect and honour its treaty relationships and advance approaches to find common ground on treaty implementation”. Big talk.

It would be far more appropriate to talk about “uncommon ground”. Consulting aboriginals is not a choice, it is an obligation of the federal government under the Constitution Act, 1867. Period. So do not try to tell me that the government is doing aboriginals a favour by promising consultations that will never end up happening.

Many independent observers have condemned the Canadian government's actions: the Auditor General in 2003, the Auditor General in 2007, the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, and the UN Special Rapporteur. They all agreed that Canada was not honouring its commitments. What they are saying is common sense: do your homework.

After years of negligence, aboriginal people realized that they had no choice but to protest in the street, block bridges or starve themselves in order to have a dialogue. That is not normal. In a country ranked sixth in the world on the UN's human development index, it is inconceivable that we have allowed our aboriginal population to rank 63rd. Yet that is what is happening, what this government is allowing to happen with complete and utter contempt. This is terrible.

Lastly, I would like to say a few words about legislation. In 2012, when Canada finally agreed to sign the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, one might have hoped to see a shift in the government's perspective. Yet nothing happened; nothing has changed, apart from a few empty promises that the government cannot keep. It is easy to sign legal treaties that cannot be enforced and then not respect them. After all, who is going to come and force the government to respect them? Meanwhile, Canada's honour and credibility have taken a beating. As the saying goes, the government needs to walk the talk. Aboriginal people expect nothing less.

The government also has obligations under other international human rights conventions: the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the Convention on the Rights of the Child; and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. All of these agreements are invaluable, because they identify the kind of world we want to live in. They encompass the values that are important to all Canadians. So why exclude aboriginal people?

I encourage hon. members to vote in favour of this motion, which is meant simply to make up for lost time. A dramatic change in the government's relationship with aboriginal people is needed, because the current situation cannot and will not endure. Those who do not believe me can just sit back and watch, for it will happen, with or without them.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the severity of the punishment must be in proportion to the offence, but we must not punish people exceptionally, causing them to lose their visa, for example, and not be able to travel internationally or have a hard time finding a job, housing or friends, perhaps.

These people could be marked for life because of a minor offence. I know soldiers who went to Afghanistan or elsewhere and had a very hard time readjusting when they came back. So if they make a mistake because they are suffering as a result of a trauma, for example, are we going to punish them even more?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the source is important, but what is vital is that the soldiers be judged according to the severity of their actions, and that they not have a criminal record because they argued or drank too much.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. It is important for the people who judge soldiers to be independent; they should not be former soldiers. Some of the members could be from the Canadian armed forces, but at least 60% of the committee members should be civilians who have never served in the military.

In my opinion, this would make the military justice system fairer. It goes without saying that military personnel are familiar with military law and all the regulations. They know all about military life. Therefore, it is very important that the military grievances external review committee include many civilians.