Françoise Boivin

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, November 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, first allow me to congratulate the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan for her work on first nations issues.

Bill C-27 concerns an issue that is not very familiar to many members of this House. I must admit that there is no reserve in my riding. In matters relating to first nations, I rely on my colleagues who have experience with this issue and on my own experience gained through discussions.

Just by chance, last Friday I was on the wonderful Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg reserve in the beautiful Gatineau valley in the Pontiac, home to an Algonquin First Nation. The hon. member for Pontiac is doing excellent work there as well. As our justice critic, I discussed various justice-related issues with a number of people from that reserve.

I was able to meet some really extraordinary people, including Chief Gilbert Whiteduck who acted as both our tour guide and our spiritual guide, so that we could get a better understanding, even in that short time, of a number of things that are happening on that reserve. We also met councillors Caitlin Tolley and Bill Ottawa. I applaud Caitlin Tolley, a young woman of 22, who has become involved in governance on the reserve. I was very pleased to meet her and councillor Bill Ottawa.

We were also able to visit Waseya House and meet the front-line workers there, Lynn Buckshot and Sue Thran.

Meeting the chief of police was also very interesting. The police force is located on the reserve and controlled by band members. The chief, Gordon McGregor, and the officers are doing extraordinary work under rather difficult circumstances. We also met the director of health and social services, Robin Decontie.

Another extremely important meeting was with Bridget Tolley and Laurie Odjick, who are heavily involved in the issue of missing and murdered aboriginal women. They work tirelessly. One of them lost her mother in an accident that the police have still not finished investigating, perhaps because lions that escape reserves get more attention than any people there, especially first nations women. Laurie Odjick’s daughter disappeared six or seven years ago. These women will never give up until all the necessary investigations are complete. Where there is life, there is hope.

I am telling you about all this because all these meetings were held in complete transparency. These people are not afraid to show who they are. However, as a proud nation, they would certainly like to be consulted when we make decisions from on high, here in these hallowed halls but far from their lands. Here we appear to say that the first nations are as important as the anglophones and francophones across this country, but when it comes time to give them full self-determination, we constantly put obstacles in their way.

Everything I have heard in the speeches since this morning has made me shudder—it is as if I am watching the Twilight Zone, a program people from my generation might be familiar with.

The government members—in their speeches and questions—have spent the whole morning talking about transparency and accountability. This is ridiculous and surely cannot be coming out of the mouths of the members opposite—because day after day we struggle to get the Conservatives to be even the slightest bit transparent and accountable. It is as if these words are not even part of their vocabulary, except when they chose to foist them on others. It is always easier to point the finger at others.

It is not a negligible problem, nor a cop-out, as some members opposite have claimed—it is a major problem.

Everybody is in favour of the principle of transparency. Everybody is in favour of the principle of accountability. However, there is one thing that we are not in favour of—and it is not just a matter of style or appearance, it is about substance. If the first nation's right to self-determination is to be recognized, it must be respected and abided by. This also means consulting those who are affected.

Engaging and consulting are quite different concepts in the eyes of the law. We must not be taken for fools, as is this government's wont.

What frustrates me the most is that introducing this kind of bill on the financial transparency of the first nations suggests that the first nations are not being transparent. This perpetuates negative stereotypes that are bandied about on our radio stations, or among people who, like me—at least before this Friday—have never visited a reserve, have no idea what they are talking about and cannot stop mouthing off. They think that all the chiefs are lining their pockets, that people are getting the wool pulled over their eyes, that billions of dollars are being handed over, and that we have no idea what is being done with the money. They are perpetuating this kind of prejudice, these kinds of bogus and extremely negative rumours that remain etched in people's psyches.

Indeed, I would wager anyone in this House that if I ventured out into the street, I would easily stumble upon nine people out of ten who would respond negatively if asked whether they thought that the first nations on reserve are transparent. Ninety percent of those I asked would probably say that no, there is no transparency whatsoever. Why is that? It is because we are allowing this kind of stereotype to be perpetuated. It is extremely condescending.

When a government claims that a people form a nation, and in the same breath imposes its own methods, that certainly does not show a willingness to deal nation to nation with people to whom we owe a lot. In fact, as Chief Whiteduck told me, even Parliament is on their territory. People may not agree on ancestral lands, on what belongs to whom, but that said, up until now, discussions among the parties has always been Canada's method of choice.

One particular aspect of this issue is especially frightening. During our meeting last Friday, when we met to talk about human trafficking—kidnapping and prostitution—and about criminal justice on reserves, no one spoke about the lack of transparency of their band council. What they spoke about were the pressing needs, those that the Auditor General herself found a few years ago and made recommendations about. There are huge needs. Poverty rates are through the roof. There are economic problems.

On the one hand, we want transparency, yet on the other hand, we are leaving them in the poorest regions, in absolutely terrible conditions. Sometimes, these are conditions we would not even subject an animal to.

I look at the problems that the police chief raised during our visit, such as the drug problem. It worries me that the Minister of Health is authorizing certain prescription medications that will cause problems on our streets and even more problems on our reserves. However, there are other problems, such as the disappearance of aboriginal women.

I will conclude by reading something that was given to me by Ms. Tolley and Ms. Odjick.

I am writing today to express my concern over the lack of government response to the plight of missing aboriginal women in Canada. The statistics are shocking, 580 women have been lost since 1970, more than half of that number since 2000.

It goes on to say that while the Government of Canada announced $10 million worth of funds to address this issue in the March 2010 budget, families and communities are still waiting for justice. It goes on to say that it is time for the Government of Canada to respond to the needs of families of missing and murdered aboriginal women by ensuring access to healing and justice services, and that it is time for a national plan of action to end violence against aboriginal women.

I would add that it is time for the government to be transparent with first nations.

[Employment, November 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, he is not answering the question on the issue of 75:25.

To be proud of eliminating those jobs is not only outrageous, but it is extremely stupid. We are talking about high-quality jobs that have major repercussions on the economy of an entire region. The people who were laid off by the Conservatives are those who provide essential services to Canadians. Cutting those jobs is the same as cutting services. And yet, people are still paying just as much in taxes for those services.

The federal government committed to meeting the 25% quota for jobs on the Quebec side. This is another broken promise. What are they waiting for to correct the situation?

[Employment, November 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, that one would be too easy. I will not go there.

Not only are the Conservatives proud to announce with great fanfare the elimination of more than 10,000 jobs in the country, but they are also unable to enforce the target when it comes to federal jobs on the Quebec side of the national capital region. Gatineau has seen its share of federal department and agency jobs decrease significantly between 2011 and 2012.

Instead of patting itself on the back for laying off thousands of workers, will the Conservatives agree to meet the government target of having 25% of federal jobs on Quebec soil?

[Justice, November 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, they say they are against bullying, but when it comes to justice issues they respond with bully tactics.

Last week, at the meeting of ministers of justice, the provinces and territories voiced their concerns about cuts to youth justice programs, underfunding of legal aid and the shortage of police officers, especially in first nations communities.

They also discussed the lack of consultation about federal crime bills. The federal government does not consult them at all.

Will the Minister of Justice address the problems identified by the provinces and territories?

[Justice, November 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is not just Ashley Smith who has not had justice. Let us look at what is happening in Alberta where judicial resources are stretched to the breaking point.

The case of an accused child molester was thrown out of court for unreasonable delays after more than three years in the court system. The Conservatives' failure to provide adequate judicial resources has real consequences.

Will the minister step up and fulfill Alberta's request for additional judges?

[Protecting Canada's Seniors Act, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague, who has also done wonderful work to promote a senior's right to a decent standard of living in our great country.

I agree with everything she said in her speech. She is concerned that this bill might lead to harsher sentences. I would be tempted to tell her about my own concern, which is that Bill C-36 will be a total waste of time and will not achieve its goal. I would like her to comment on that.

The bill talks about a significant impact on the victim. Crown prosecutors will rarely use that section; they will not demonstrate that the offence had a significant impact on the elderly victim. The seriousness of the offence and the fact that it targeted an elderly person will be totally pushed aside, because prosecutors will be unable to prove there was a significant impact on the victim.

It is not worrisome to see another fine effort that will accomplish absolutely nothing, yet again, despite all the work the committees have done on seniors issues?

[Protecting Canada's Seniors Act, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I think we were concerned, because a number of seniors groups told us we should not see age and vulnerability as equivalent concepts. I totally agree with that. People are not more vulnerable just because they are 60, 65, 70 or even 80 years old.

Last weekend, I met some people, one of whom was a 94-year-old woman who could probably outrun me. She was extremely alert and extremely bright. Opinions should not always be based on a person's age alone.

I think there was a kind of awkward fear: they do not understand that it is a crime. Someone who decides to commit a crime against somebody because of his age does not know whether the person is vulnerable or not, he is just trying to take advantage of the other person because of his age. In a similar way, there can be a crime against someone who is under 18. What is the problem?

I could see the situation being resolved this way. It would involve not being afraid of words and to say specifically that an aggravating factor is attacking an elderly person, period. In this context, it would be up to the accused to show that the attack was not related to the age of the elderly person, but that the accused had simply decided to commit fraud.

We could come back to the issue of fraud against the elderly. Just think about Internet fraud, which we hear about all the time; we have to explain to seniors that they must not answer somebody from the Royal Bank who—

[Protecting Canada's Seniors Act, November 5th, 2012]

That is indeed an excellent question, Mr. Speaker. That is my greatest fear about this bill.

We were not born yesterday. We are starting to get used to government bills, with their fancy, overblown titles meant to create the impression that we are solving all of society's ills when, in fact, we are solving nothing.

I can see a problem here. Judges already consider the age of the victim as an aggravating factor. That has the effect of making the crime in question even more heinous. They will now have to interpret section 718 during sentencing. Will that have the effect of weakening previous interpretations of the law? I cannot guarantee that. I have asked that question of the member for Mount Royal, who is a lawyer.

We are not in a position to indicate with any degree of certainty that we are not in fact limiting the judiciary's ability to deal with these situations. It is unbelievably sad, but at least we are taking a small step in the right direction. We are at least stating that age is a kind of aggravating factor.

[Protecting Canada's Seniors Act, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi.

I am pleased to rise in the House to address a question that worries me a lot, the condition of seniors, whom I meet regularly in my riding of Gatineau. I am particularly concerned about this issue because I am the critic for social justice. We have heard the speeches by my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard and the hon. member for Mount Royal. They have explained the social aspects of the situation and the problems faced by our seniors in every riding, in Quebec, and across Canada.

Canada has an aging population, in the extreme. Very soon, there will be more seniors than people in any other age group, and we will have to face some difficult problems.

Like the hon. members who spoke earlier, I feel the most disturbing aspect of Bill C-36, and of all the government’s bills, is that it is nothing but a big balloon. When we try to get into it, we find it is just as empty as the others.

We are supporting Bill C-36, but I cannot honestly say to the people of Canada, Quebec and Gatineau that we have accomplished something extraordinary that will have a major impact on their daily lives.

I am very disappointed. For once, we had a golden opportunity to improve a worsening situation. We have all heard about or seen some cases of elder abuse, which can take various forms. Some seniors are abandoned in horrible conditions, worse than anything we would inflict on an animal.

When I read Bill C-36, which was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and came to the first clause, stating that it would protect seniors, I applauded because I knew it was overdue. I tried to turn the pages, but there were none, because there was only one clause. People may say that one clause is often enough to achieve the goal, in this case, to protect seniors, but I am not convinced.

After listening to all the witnesses who came before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we realized that there is a serious problem. Besides the fact that the bill will not correct the problem, the minister has drafted it incompletely and it is full of holes. It speaks of an offence that “had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation”.

We in opposition tried to submit an amendment to remove the word “significant” to describe the offence’s impact on the victim. We did so because we knew in advance that determining whether an offence, particularly some form of abuse, was significant would be subject to much debate.

While we were examining this bill, there was a case of abuse in my riding. Perhaps other members have heard about it, because Gatineau is not far from here, just across the river. A 99-year-old woman was sexually exploited by a volunteer caregiver. The woman was a patient in a hospital setting where she expected to receive services, but instead she was the victim of sexual abuse. News of this case spread quite rapidly. Thank God, because of cameras and the co-operation of the accused, the case was quickly solved and the offender was sentenced to 20 months.

With Bill C-36, would it be possible to prove a “significant impact” on a 99-year-old victim who is not fully aware of her surroundings or what is happening?

We can just imagine the kind of arguments back and forth. Would the section amended by this bill, concerning the way judges should pass sentence, have an impact? The bill amends paragraph 718.2(a) of the Criminal Code, which states that a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender. There is a list of possible aggravating circumstances, including evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused the offender’s spouse or common-law partner, or evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of 18 years.

Bill C-36 simply adds one aggravating circumstance to that list:

(iii.1) evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation,

I am astonished to hear the government, when asked about this, say that it is a question of the weight of evidence, or the relationship between this and that, or other word games. And yet, when the subparagraphs on spousal violence or abuse of persons under 18 were added to this section, no such distinctions were made. There was no stipulation of a “significant impact”. In my speech, I want to draw a parallel between elder abuse, as dealt with in Bill C-36, and conjugal violence, which was hidden for so long.

You can no doubt remember how taboo it was to talk about it, and how difficult it was for our police departments to deal with these situations. They did not know what to do. I was a lawyer when people were just beginning to talk out about domestic violence and how it was a blight on society, which it still is. It became apparent—perhaps because of a lack of training at the time, and things have changed a great deal since then—that when the police came to arrest someone, people cleared out because they said it was a family dispute. With seniors, the problem is that it still often remains hidden. It is important to remember that these people are often alone and helpless, and very few people will see what is happening. It is therefore difficult to know what is really going on in their lives and whether or not they are victims.

That, moreover, is what we were told by the CARP organization, which does a great deal of advocacy work for seniors. I will quote them in English:

It is important that elder abuse be recognized as a public crime and not just a personal matter. Systemically, Canada’s rapidly aging population, poorly coordinated home care services, historically low support for caregivers, and inadequate long-term care options may also add a layer to the causes of elder abuse and subsequent under reporting. Over crowded hospitals, inadequate long-term care beds, poorly coordinated at home services, and lack of uniform training for professional and informal caregivers are a recipe for both intentional and unintentional elder abuse.

Will this bill eliminate the problem when, according to the Library of Parliament study, it was already being used? In passing, the Library of Parliament does an extraordinary job of supporting committee work.

The courts already consider the fact that a person against whom a crime has been committed is elderly as an aggravating factor, and this has been enforced in a number of cases. The problem is that even if we were all to agree that being elderly should be added to the list of aggravating factors in the Criminal Code, the fact that Bill C-36 mentions "significant impact" means that we will once again end up with unnecessary legal subsidiary debates.

I do not know whether the amendments are being rejected because they come from the opposition. They do not want to give us any credit, even though they say they allowed us the amendment pertaining to the title. However, we are not so stupid that we are about to consider this a magnanimous gift.

The real gift to seniors would have been to include a section in the act that has a little more punch, a little more crunch, because there ought to be zero tolerance of violence against the elderly and crimes against the elderly.

[Protecting Canada's Seniors Act, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking more about penalties than about offences. Since the member is a great lawyer, I would like to know how he interprets the expression often used by the government in Bill C-36:

....evidence that the offence had a significant impact.....

How does the member interpret “significant impact”? Does the member foresee that it might create a bit of difficulty in interpretation by the different courts that would have to apply the new section?