Françoise Boivin

[Public Safety, October 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Correctional Investigator tabled his annual report. Less than 5% of Correctional Services' total budget is allocated to correctional reintegration programs, and that despite clear evidence that offenders who participate in rehabilitation are less likely to reoffend.

Offenders are being sent back into communities without proper rehabilitation. Why does the minister continue to ignore, year after year, recommendations from the Correctional Investigator that would improve community safety? Why is he putting communities at risk?

[Service Canada, October 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday we learned about the closure of the Service Canada office in the Gatineau sector. Once again, the government is making service cuts in secret.

Imagine seniors, veterans and unemployed workers—often people in crisis—having to sit on a bus for over an hour to get to the Service Canada office on Saint-Joseph Boulevard in the Hull sector. That makes no sense.

Why are the Conservatives creating obstacles for people who simply want to access the services they are entitled to?

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, thank goodness I have seen the light. That is what I am tempted to say to the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.

That said, I know that this issue is extremely important to the people of my riding of Gatineau. I receive emails and telephone calls every day from people who do not necessarily agree with the government's position. This is an extremely important debate. This is probably one of the most important decisions a country has to make.

In light of that, I understand the argument put forward by the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster to the effect that we already agreed to a vote at 8 p.m. I want to repeat his question, since I did not hear the response. Why take away an hour of debate on something this important? At the very least, we could have heard from four or five more members of the House and tried to foster the broadest possible consensus or heard as many opinions as possible.

[Petitions, October 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition to the House signed by Canadians from across the country. The petition is about the devastating cuts to postal services. These people are against these measures, and so am I.

[Justice, October 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice seems to be forgetting is that the government promised to be transparent and more open and to allow parliamentarians to have a say.

I will repeat the question. We know that Justice LeBel will be leaving at the end of November. Can we expect the government to consult parliamentarians and tell us how that will happen? I realize that the Conservatives consult the entire legal world, but my question referred to parliamentarians. Furthermore, can we in Quebec expect the appointment to be made as soon as Justice LeBel leaves?

[Justice, October 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is reneging on one promise after another, and it seems incapable of learning from its past mistakes. Justice Gascon will finally fill Quebec's seat on the Supreme Court of Canada this week, and we congratulate him.

However, it is deplorable that Justice Gascon was appointed without any debate and without consulting parliamentarians. This is very worrisome, given that Justice LeBel announced a few months ago that he will be retiring.

How will the government involve Parliament in selecting the next Supreme Court justice?

[Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, October 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, we were deeply moved by the testimony we heard in committee, especially that of Bridget Perrier.

I was at least happy to know that the Criminal Code still has very strict provisions regarding human trafficking and sexual exploitation. I would like to repeat that, because the Conservatives would have people believe that without Bill C-36, Canada would have no such protections, when in fact those provisions provide an excellent framework.

Since this will probably be my only opportunity to do so, I would like to ask the same question.

If at first we do not succeed, try, try again.

I will ask this again to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. Can somebody please define for me what Bill C-36 means when it talks about sexual services? It is not an idle question. It is important. Does it cover sexual acts that are done that are pretty close to—whatever, I will not qualify it—but that happen in some clubs? Does it touch escort agencies? That is a very important question.

On the review and report, why did the government push back to five years our motion to get a review and report in two years?

[Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, October 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this excellent question is worthy of a full dissertation. Clearly, no one has an simple answer.

Indeed, there are a few problems related to my colleague's question. First of all, I still do not know how this bill defines the concept of sexual services. How does that affect the things my colleague mentioned? This is not yet clear. The minister has not provided a clear answer to these questions.

The example of Montreal is typical of the promises that the current mayor made during the election campaign. This just goes to show that words can sometimes be a far cry from reality. When our intentions are sincere we provide the necessary means to back them up, in other words, in this case, more police officers and a lot more than $20 million over five years. This requires a firm commitment. It is not enough to announce an investment of $20 million at the end of a press conference.

The government needs to walk the talk, which it does not always do.

[Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, October 3rd, 2014]

That is probably the best question ever, especially for me.

I wanted to speak more about the amendments that we presented.

We often feel that the government opposite rejects outright the amendments that we put forward and believes we propose amendments just for fun. That is not at all the case. We take our role as legislators seriously.

I am still wondering why the government rejected these amendments given its philosophy and its basic principles with respect to Bill C-36. In one of our first amendments, I made suggestions about the application of the Criminal Records Act and the criminal records of individuals—the same people the government called victims—convicted of offences for which they will no longer be prosecuted but exempted. Why would the government not suspend their criminal records?

I also do not understand why the government refused an amendment to make an addition to the preamble. Although we often say that the preambles are not the law, they convey the spirit of the law. Our suggestion seemed to be in keeping with the government's comments.

We suggested that the following be added to the preamble:

Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada decided in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford that certain provisions of the Criminal Code have a grossly disproportionate effect on persons who engage in prostitution by putting their health and safety at risk and making them more vulnerable to violence;

That was the whole point of the Bedford decision. We thought it was important to highlight that and once again underscore how important it is to look at issues such as poverty, housing, health care needs and other socio-economic problems affecting women who are in the sex trade because they lack other options.

These amendments were not dangerous. They reflected exactly what we heard from witnesses, who testified because the government asked them to.

That is where it becomes clear that Bill C-36 is, sadly, part of the Conservatives' ideology. It does not address human trafficking. Frankly, it brings a proverbial sledgehammer down on those who are already vulnerable.

[Conservative and Liberal Parties of Canada, October 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, seeing what the Conservatives are doing to the environment, the economy, employment insurance, justice and foreign policy only reinforces our belief that we need to replace this tired old government in 2015 and change course.

However, we cannot just switch lanes, we need to make a U-turn. When we take a closer look at the issues championed by the Conservatives, it is clear that there is no real difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals: for the Keystone pipeline, the Conservatives got Liberal support; for the 30-day mission in Iraq, the Conservatives got Liberal support; for invading Canadians' privacy with Bill C-13, the Conservatives got Liberal support; and for destroying the belugas' breeding grounds at Cacouna, the Conservatives got Liberal support.

If the Liberals believe that hope and hard work mean giving the Conservatives a blank cheque and making off-colour jokes about a potential war, they are sadly mistaken.

The NDP will continue to demand accountability. We will provide a real alternative in 2015, and we will put an end to the status quo.