Françoise Boivin

[Petitions, May 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is in support of Bill C-452, which seeks to combat trafficking in persons and sexual exploitation.

[Petitions, May 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to table. The first, which is signed by hundreds of Gatineau residents, pertains to the potential closure of the post office located at 139 Racine Street in Gatineau. These people are opposed to the closure of their post office, which is the only post office in the riding of Gatineau.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: “That this House call on the government to announce without delay what measures it plans to implement to respond to the motion adopted unanimously by the National Assembly of Quebec on April 16, 2013.”

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, April 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, if the RCMP could speak freely to parliamentarians, we would hear a lot about the failure of the government's law and order agenda.

The provinces are starting to feel the pinch of all those downloaded costs. For example, in Alberta, overcrowding in prisons and employee safety issues have led to unprecedented job action. The government's job is to listen so that it can implement the best public policy decisions, not keep the minister happy. Is the minister aware that muzzling the RCMP is bad for public safety?

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, April 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, well, if censoring meetings with parliamentarians is the only way the minister can keep tabs on this file, then we have a serious problem.

The RCMP must be able to operate without the shadow of political interference. Instead of encouraging transparency and open communication with parliamentarians, the minister has made negative consequences for the government, which is something they need to worry about.

When will the minister stop muzzling the RCMP to protect himself from accountability?

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, April 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives seem much more interested in controlling the RCMP than they are in controlling pollution.

On Friday, the Conservatives categorically denied that meetings between the RCMP and members of Parliament had to be approved by the minister's office. Now we know that the Conservatives told the opposite of the truth and that, furthermore, the minister is counting on this form of censorship to prevent the RCMP from contradicting him.

Is the minister aware that the RCMP's mandate is not to protect his political agenda?

[Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act, April 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will not keep members in suspense. I will therefore say from the outset that the NDP cannot support Bill C-478 for a number of reasons.

I agree with the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake that this bill deals with horrific, unspeakable crimes. I could add a number of others to the list that are just as horrific and unspeakable. I am thinking about the parents of a murder victim. Under the terms of the act, I should say someone who was “only” murdered, because all three offences were not committed. Kidnapping and murder would not be enough for this type of thing, nor would rape and murder. The three offences are required.

From the get-go, my colleague's bill is problematic. However, there are even more fundamental problems than this.

I just heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North express his support for the bill and congratulate its author for allowing the courts to retain their discretionary authority. The problem is that I am not convinced that this is a matter of discretion under section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Rome statute. It is a matter of the period of time someone is required to wait before they have the right to appear before the parole board. That is the problem.

Technically, according to the Rome statute, which Canada signed, all the countries agree that people are freed even after being given a life sentence in cases of genocide, war crimes, mutilation, rape and murder. Their eligibility for parole is reviewed after 25 years.

I am concerned about ensuring that, when we introduce and pass legislation, we are not passing something that inherently goes against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or about which there are serious doubts. Sometimes, I give the benefit of the doubt to the government or to bills that come in through the back door, meaning bills that are introduced by government backbenchers. That is the strategy that is often used. The government hopes to make serious changes to the Criminal Code with this type of provision. That is still quite a leap.

Take for example a jury that makes recommendations to a judge in an absolutely appalling case similar to that of Paul Bernardo. I have no doubt that a jury of peers would sentence the accused to life in prison with the maximum number of years before he was able to appear before the parole board, because the case was so appalling to anyone who followed it.

That person is going to die in prison and will never be released. However, being able to review the person's case is part of our system. At some point, there may be an exceptional case where the individual will not be seen as a dangerous offender. It is important to understand that the Clifford Olsons and Bernardos—especially Bernardo—will not have to appear before the board every two years.

It is absolutely horrible for victims to have to relive the events. I have spoken to a lot of victims when the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has studied various bills. Neither this bill nor any of the bills introduced by the government gives victims the slightest comfort, except for maybe a brief moment when the bill is passed and they tell themselves that someone has thought about them. The next day, they go back to thinking about their child who was mutilated, raped and murdered.

People tell us that if the justice system was designed to be more respectful of victims' rights and if crown attorneys were to speak with victims when they are in court—and with the parents, in those cases—to explain what is happening, that would already be more respectful.

Using this bill to suggest to victims that they will not have to go before the parole board every two years is just misleading and makes them believe something that is not true. It is like telling people that, with Bill S-7, we are all safer now. That creates a false sense of security, a false sense of something that does not exist. We do not play those games in the NDP. We think these issues are much too serious to spread falsehoods.

As I started to say, imagine a situation where a jury suggests to a judge to have an offender serve 40 years before he is eligible to go before the parole board. Then, imagine that the judge decides to support that recommendation, regardless of the jury's reasons. Obviously, that would be challenged. It would probably go straight to the Supreme Court of Canada, because there may be completely different sentences for a crime that is probably similar, even with the wording in question.

We must remember that the Conservatives have a goal, one that was set when they arrived in government, that they are pursuing today and that will ultimately result in a victims' charter, which I am anxious to see. I thought we had identified victims' needs. However, it seems that the minister needs to hold further consultations. The Conservatives consult instead of taking action. That is their style at present. That said, this is a major and complex problem.

Once again, section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that we cannot impose “cruel and unusual treatment or punishment”. I will be told that the crime itself is cruel. I completely agree. None of us would rise and say that kidnapping, raping and murdering a child is not horrible or despicable enough to warrant being punished. However, the perpetrator is already punished with a life sentence. The Bernardos of this world will never leave jail. The Conservatives should stop implying that we are not tough enough on this type of crime. We are.

In this case, we are talking about the right to appear before a board. I have spoken with a number of human rights experts such as legal scholars, criminologists, criminal lawyers, crown attorneys and defence attorneys. They have told me that there is a risk.

Take the case of Clifford Olson, which involved kidnapping, rape and murder. Did the crown attorney have to prove the rape and kidnapping? No. He put all his efforts into proving the murder and he sought the life sentence for the offence of murder.

What this means is that this bill will change what happens in courts of law. That is why I asked my colleague the question. He says that he has spoken to people at the justice department. I do not doubt him, but I would like to hear from them.

We will be voting against this bill, with the support of the Liberals, which surprises me. The Liberal Party justice critic is a human rights expert, so I was really surprised to hear that. That said, they are changing everything on this issue.

I cannot wait to hear from someone from the justice department tell us that he or she seriously doubts that this will pass the tests. Should we leave it up to the courts to decide whether these people should be incarcerated and whether there is any doubt? If, like the individual wrote on their website, the goal is to prevent victims and their families from having to go before the parole board, it would have been much better to find ways so that these people—in cases like Bernardo, Olsen and other such cases—do not have to do so, or have the choice, unless the offender is very close to being released, or unless it would be dangerous to release him. Much like my colleague, I am 95% or almost 100% sure that they will not be released. It is therefore quite possible that victims and their families would not have to attend.

I will listen to the rest of the debate, but I can say that this bill definitely does not meet the criteria. Indeed, a major change in how these cases are dealt with in court and—

[Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act, April 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Selkirk—Interlake for his bill. I think this gives us an opportunity to talk about victims, because each crime has not just one victim, but often many victims.

That being said, I think that there are problems with this bill. My colleague suggested that the bill would solve the problem for all of the people he mentioned, but his bill changes the period of parole ineligibility to between 25 and 40 years. This is a first step. This bill would not change the period for parole ineligibility from 25 to 40 years; it could be anywhere in that range. It could still be 25 years, but the decision is left to the discretion of the court and the judge. The jury can make a recommendation, but the judge can decide otherwise.

So how can he tell the House that this bill will protect the victims he talked about from having to go to court every two years, when there is absolutely no guarantee to that effect?

Did he consult with people from the Department of Justice to make sure that this bill complies with section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and with article 11 of the Rome statute?

[Business of Supply, April 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to take these last two minutes to conclude a debate that has been very interesting.

I have so many things to say to the member for Vancouver Quadra. As a former Liberal MP who lost in 2006, I know what people were saying when we were knocking on their doors. They said that people had lost all faith in the party. Unfortunately, even though they liked me, they decided not to vote me in for two elections, during which time I joined the NDP and then received 62% of the vote. That says it all.

I will take the minute I have left to congratulate my colleague from Halifax for the extraordinary work she does as environment critic. Fortunately, we have days like these to try to advance this issue.

I am extremely disappointed. As the member for Brossard—La Prairie said, I would encourage my Liberal colleagues to reread the motion.

Since a fault confessed is half redressed, there is no reason not to admit that, since 1998, we have been condemning the federal government's lack of meaningful measures to reduce emissions and honour our Kyoto commitments.

Considering what the environment commissioner said, it is clear that these political parties have not made any real effort, the Kyoto protocol notwithstanding. The Liberals need to stop kidding themselves and claiming to be champions of the environment when the fact is that greenhouse gas emissions increased by at least 20% up until 2005.

Imagine where the Conservatives would have landed us. This is no laughing matter. I cannot wait to hear what they will have to say when environmental disaster strikes, costing us a fortune, and people's lives are in danger. They will bring in emergency measures and emergency debates, and the NDP will say, “I told you so.” I do not want to have to say that. I would rather that they everyone wake up and do what needs to be done.

I am pleased to be able to have wrapped up this debate. I hope that the Liberals will wake up one day and stop claiming to advocate for the environment. Right now, things look about the same as they did before they were shown the door.

[Petitions, April 24th, 2013]

The other petition is extremely urgent. It was signed by a lot of people, and it is in addition to the other petitions already tabled with respect to the potential closure of the post office located at 139 Racine Street in Gatineau. I already have hundreds of signatures from people who are opposed to the closure of this post office—the only post office in the riding of Gatineau.