Françoise Boivin

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, before we start voting on Motion No. 854, I was thinking it might be better to proceed differently. Since the legality of our country's withdrawal from Kyoto is currently before the courts, and in the interests of respecting the separation of legislative and judicial powers, I think it would make sense for us to wait before voting on this.

[Justice, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, there was a rare moment of unity last night on the Conservatives' side. With the support of one Liberal member, they voted to eliminate the sections on hate speech from the Canadian Human Rights Act, confusing the concept of freedom of expression with that of hateful expression.

By voting in favour of Bill C-304, the Conservatives are creating injustice for women and reducing the level of protection provided to women, visible minorities and LGBT groups.

Now that Bill C-304 has passed, will the minister commit to immediately filling the legal gap that exists in the Criminal Code regarding gender?

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 30th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise again to speak about Bill C-304, which Kathleen Mahoney, a professor in the Faculty of Law of the University of Calgary and a member of the Royal Society of Canada, called a bill on the freedom of hateful expression.

We need clarification, because to associate this bill solely with freedom of expression is to forget what is protected by section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. It is sometimes good to remind ourselves of this, and I like to do so.

It must be the lawyer in me that likes to refer specifically to acts and bills. When I examine and analyze legislation, I always go over it with a fine tooth comb, and with an open mind, which is what my colleague from Westlock—St. Paul asked members of this House to do as they consider his bill.

At first glance, everyone who reads the bill tends to agree with it because it amends the Canadian Human Rights Act in order to protect certain freedoms, including the freedom of expression.

However, once again, the devil is in the details and in the drafting of the bill. We came across several problems during our in-depth consideration of the bill in committee. The witnesses drew attention to a number of problems. I think my colleagues from Mont-Royal and Toronto—Danforth did a good job of highlighting the problems. Nobody said they disagreed with the protection against hate speech because that is what section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is trying to prevent. I do not think that anyone in this House is against this, even on the government side. Ultimately, their responses to our concerns always brought us back to the Criminal Code, specifically to section 319, which already provides for criminal charges against anyone engaged in this kind of behaviour.

Section 13 was not a major problem in the opinion of the witnesses, which really struck me, and, to use the words of the previous member, the section was not too vague. No witness said that it was. One only need read the jurisprudence developed by both the Supreme Court and the Human Rights Tribunal. Nobody came and told us that the decisions were inadequate or that people who had not engaged in hate speech had been found guilty under Canadian law.

What people invariably told us, which made them feel like giving up when it came to solving the section 13 problem, is that it required time and was very costly. They added that if somebody were to file an obviously futile, frivolous or completely ridiculous complaint, that there would be no tools in the legislation to enable the commission to dispose of the case swiftly.

According to those who specialize in defending people charged with uttering hate speech or encouraging this kind of speech as defined in section 13, the process can take five or six years and huge amounts of money.

I explained to the committee that I thought we were throwing out the baby with the bath water. That often happens with bills, whether they are government or private members' bills. To avoid one type of problem, the section is deleted in its entirety. That creates an enormous hole. I asked the member about that and the Green Party member asked the very same question. To date we have not had a response. This bill would repeal section 13, which states:

13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Section 3 reads as follows:

For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

I repeat: it clearly mentions sex.

Let us now look at the Criminal Code, since the defence of the government and the Conservative Party at every stage has been based on the Criminal Code. Section 319 of the Criminal Code pertains to public incitement of hatred. I will not get into all of its shortcomings. It is not clear how crimes are prosecuted under section 319. What is worse, the identifiable groups are only those distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. What about cases involving hate speech based on sex, on gender? They are not mentioned at all.

One element of protection for women has just been taken away—one that was essential because of how difficult it is to enforce a section of the Canadian Human Rights Act. I find that totally unacceptable. In committee, we made some progress with the Conservatives, but not enough for them to listen to reason, to decide to wait before passing this bill or to decide to address the bill's shortcomings before continuing the debate.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 30th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the member from Westlock—St. Paul.

The protection that existed under section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which also provided protection against hate messages and discrimination against women does not exist within the Criminal Code, despite the supposed protection of section 319. What does the member think of that argument?

There is a huge hole that his bill will only make worse.

[Canada–Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, May 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, if I read my own blues, I am pretty sure that conforms to what I said.

I strongly support the agreement with the United States and Mexico. I do not see a major problem there. This could lead to a lengthy discussion. I would like to have the time to say what I think about certain aspects of many of these agreements, because sometimes they need to be revisited. The reason the three countries hold so many summit meetings is to try to improve or alter the agreement. Just because a treaty is signed, does not mean that it immediately becomes immutable and untouchable.

I would like to repeat that the government has never obtained the guarantees that Canadians are entitled to receive before signing this type of agreement. I am convinced that I would have no trouble rising to vote in favour of any agreement proposed by the New Democratic Party government that I hope will be in power within three years.

[Canada–Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, May 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, if possible, I would prefer to begin by answering the third question.

In theory, I have no problem doing business with any democratic country. But then that is not what we are talking about.

Had the member listened carefully to what I said, he would have understood that the problem does not lie with the signing of agreements; rather, it lies in the content of these agreements.

That being said, he is asking whether I can name one agreement that we are happy with. An agreement that I will definitely be happy with will be the first agreement that will be proposed by the NDP when it forms the government in 2015. I am convinced that we will not stop conducting free trade with other countries under an NDP government. People should get that idea out of their heads.

The difference is that the NDP will make sure that these agreements are respectful. Even President Obama, during his last the election campaign, mentioned re-opening some parts of the free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico. Sometimes we realize along the way—and there is nothing the matter with this—that some aspects of the agreement are not working or not working very well.

I believe that the priority of every government is the people who live within its boundaries. I personally do not represent the people of Panama, but rather the people of Gatineau. I want to ensure that, when we make agreements, we do so in accordance with the values of the people who elected me to represent them.

[Canada–Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, May 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from St. John's East, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-24 at second reading. This bill deals with the implementation of the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the agreement on the environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the agreement on labour cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama.

It is certainly clear that we feel proud every time we see agreements. We feel that other countries want to trade and do business with us. All this seems really nice on paper. On the other hand, sometimes there are little surprises in the fine print. While I cannot claim that I am a specialist in international trade, there are some basic things that we, as a free and democratic country, should insist on when we do business with other countries. This is one of the reasons why our party is opposed to this bill. It is not because we are against international agreements, free trade agreements or attempts to try to remove trade barriers between countries. In fact, if we believe in certain values, I think we must make sure that the countries with whom we do business are not rogue countries or countries that mistreat their people in order to acquire, create, build, produce or manufacture articles that will be freely traded with our country.

I think that when we have principles, we must express them all the way. If not, we should stop going around the world saying that we defend rights and freedoms, and we should just go ahead and do whatever we want.

For those who do not know much about Bill C-24, it is a bill that was previously introduced, if memory serves, on August 11, 2009. The Conservative government had entered into negotiations on a comprehensive agreement with the Republic of Panama. The same day it signed that agreement, the Conservative government presented the agreements in the House of Commons as part of Bill C-46. This was back in 2010. The bill was passed at second reading and referred to the Standing Committee on International Trade for clause-by-clause consideration.

If you followed the speech by my colleague from St. John's East, you know that international trade is one of his passions. I would like to take this opportunity to commend him. The member for Burnaby—New Westminster also worked extremely hard on this issue and his advice was always very wise. He showed us the importance of conducting what is called reasonable and fair trade when these kinds of agreements are negotiated with other countries. Responsibility for this file was passed on to the member for Windsor West, who has also done excellent work.

I think it is important to listen, instead of simply playing cheap politics, as is frequently the case in this House. On the government side, they reduce the speeches made on this side of the House to one-liners, as if the NDP were anti-international trade or anti-free trade just because we ask questions and we ask that the countries with whom we do business do not, for instance, use child labour or exploit children as cheap labour, because we ask questions about specific environmental rules or because we ask that these countries not be obvious tax havens.

I was absolutely shocked when I read about the circumstances surrounding Bill C-24 in a little more depth and when I noted that Panama—which is, by the way, a very beautiful country—is what some people call a tax haven. On both sides of the House, there are people who rise frequently to say that we must try to put an end to anything that is called a tax haven. The problems with tax havens do not just occur away down there; their impact reaches into our country. Considerable amounts of money are taken and sent somewhere else to be hidden because certain countries have rules that are a little too lax. They allow any kinds of company throughout the world to go to their country and hide money from the government in the company's own home country.

Even the OECD has called Panama a tax haven. The United States considers Panama to be a tax haven. The OECD even specified that Panama was on the grey list. I learned there is a white list, a fray list and a black list. I have learned about a great number of things in this House. I also like it when we have the time to express our views on all these bills that often have, unbeknownst to us, an impact on all our constituents, in every one of our ridings.

We have a tendency to believe that when we talk about international trade, we are talking primarily about major trading centres within a country. However, when we do business with certain countries and give them certain privileges with regard to our goods and our services, it has an impact on all our population. Sometimes we have to look at the ramifications of this type of bill.

It is really worrying that a country like Panama still refuses to send information about its tax measures and about various issues and fields, and I am surprised. Although sometimes I am not surprised when we know that we are dealing with a government that is so lacking in transparency. The government may be happy to deal with a country that also has little fiscal transparency, but on this side of the House, we are not.

We definitely do not want to see that country become a place where some of our companies doing business there shelter money from taxation. All MPs should be concerned about that. We are debating a back-to-work bill because the government wants to force people to accept a collective agreement or poorer working conditions, but at the same time, it wants to carry on international trade with a country that allows big companies that make millions or billions in profits to diversify some of their income in order to avoid paying taxes, taxes that enable the government to provide services to Canadians.

I think it is inappropriate and simplistic for MPs on the other side of the House to ask whether the NDP has ever supported a free trade agreement. Bilateral agreements have taken the place of broad territorial agreements. Still, talks are under way between my province, Quebec, and the European Union. Every nation is trying to open its borders to ensure that its goods and services can circulate and be purchased. Once again though, we have to remember how that money is made, and I am proud to be a member of a party that is concerned about making money without having a negative effect on trade. There are ways to do that.

If these people are truly interested in doing business with us, then it is up to them to follow the rules of human decency. For example, I am extremely concerned about the whole section of the agreement concerning labour. When certain people see the number of times this government has resorted to back-to-work legislation, they could simply say that we are in no position to preach. What bothers me is that we are doing business with countries who do not pay much attention to the rights of workers and of those who, by the sweat of their brow, make things that we all take a great deal of pleasure in using.

To conclude, I am happy to have had the opportunity to comment on this bill. I am in favour of international trade, but not at any price.

[Outaouais Paramedic Co-operative, May 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, last week, I had the honour of taking part in a recognition ceremony held by the Coopérative des paramédics de l'Outaouais. This co-operative, which is a fixture in Gatineau, paid tribute to the service, the sense of duty and the heroism of nearly 80 of its employees who have helped women give birth, resuscitated people and responded to countless other emergencies. The co-operative, which answered 30,000 calls last year, also honoured a number of employees who had completed 12 and even 22 years of service in the Outaouais.

Today I wish to acknowledge Bruno Pétrin and Mathieu Danis in particular, two paramedics who were involved in a serious traffic accident in March. Mathieu is still fighting for his life. Bruno and Mathieu, their families and their co-workers are in my thoughts.

Paramedics provide a reassuring presence for everyone in our region. They are everyday heroes, and their work deserves greater recognition.

On behalf of the people of Gatineau, I invite all hon. members to pay tribute to the outstanding work done by the Coopérative des paramédics de l'Outaouais and to keep Mathieu in their thoughts.

[Criminal Code, May 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague who, by introducing this bill, has made it possible for me to address such an important matter in this chamber.

However, I would first like to say that this bill is a little like many other government bills, even though it is being introduced through the back door as a private member's bill. Bill C-217 seems to be inspired by media headlines. The danger with this type of bill is that it meddles with the Criminal Code. We are supposed to be good managers of this country, good legal experts and supposedly good lawmakers. Lawmakers do not talk for the sake of talking. The danger is that by making piecemeal changes to sections of the Criminal Code, which is something that the Conservative government does on a regular basis, we are creating a monster and those who manage criminal matters every day will have a great deal of trouble working with it.

When we studied the bill in the Standing Committee on Justice, the critic at the time, my colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador, specified that we had no problem with the substance of the bill. We all recognize the importance of war memorials. We have no problem with that. Our problem was, and still is—because the amendments have not been passed yet—with the fact that the government introduces in Bill C-217 changes immediately following section 430 of the Criminal Code on mischief involving religious worship.

The section stipulates:

Every one who commits mischief in relation to property that is a building, structure or part thereof that is primarily used for religious worship, including a church, mosque, synagogue or temple, or an object associated with religious worship located in or on the grounds of such a building or structure, or a cemetery, if the commission of the mischief is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on religion, race, colour or national or ethnic origin,

a. is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

b. is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

It is because we raised these points that the government presented its amendment, because the maximum sentence did not make sense. The government recognized that. If we considered that the purpose of the bill was essentially to introduce minimum sentences, then the official opposition could not support this type of amendment given that, in the same section, this did not exist for the other things. Never, during the entire hearing in committee of the various witnesses, was anyone able to tell us in an intelligent or consistent manner why war memorials are more important than places of religious worship or cultural property.

It is important to be consistent. Indeed, there will be a problem when and if this goes before the courts. We do not write just for the sake of it, to return to our ridings and go to the Royal Canadian Legion—that I joined a few months ago—and say that they will be proud of us because we voted in favour of Bill C-217 and we have agreed to make things much more serious. It is important to be consistent. As legislators, we have a responsibility. If this government does not understand its role as legislator, at some point, Canadian society as a whole will pay the price. We agree that there is a problem, but it is important to be realistic. It is not something that happens every day, but there is a problem. That it would happen once, is once too often.

I would have been a little uncomfortable had I not received a letter from the president of the Royal Canadian Legion, who wrote to us, during our committee hearings, on behalf of the Royal Canadian Legion. If anyone is proud of their history—of our land, air and sea forces—and of what has been done in Canada's name throughout the world, it is the Legion.

I participate in enough activities with these people to know that they are proud and that they want to educate young people about our history. They want young people to be more familiar with what is happening now and what has happened in our history. The youth of today are quite often unfamiliar with Canada’s history. My colleague who introduced Bill C-217 stressed this when he compared our situation to that of Europe, where young people are so proud of their history. I have travelled throughout Europe and I have been to Normandy. It was one of the most wonderful trips of my life, and the most emotional. I saw all the tombstones of our Canadian soldiers, which are maintained by people who go there every day. Of course, it is a proud moment to stand before these tombstones, and one that makes you want to return.

Will slapping people with a $1,000 fine solve the problem of ignorance of history? As the president of the Royal Canadian Legion put it so well:

The punishment should fit the crime and although no incident of this nature can be condoned, there should be provision for restorative justice measures with a mandated dialogue between veterans groups and the offenders. There should be provision where offenders are encouraged to take responsibility for their actions, to repair the harm they have done, by apologizing to a group of Veterans, or with community services. It provides help for the offender to avoid future offences and provides a greater understanding of the consequences of their actions.

That is the Royal Canadian Legion's vision, which I share. There is a reason why the Criminal Code section on mischief does not provide for a minimum fine for mischief in relation to cultural property or places used for religious worship.

We feel that war memorials belong in the section on mischief. While we do not necessarily object to mentioning war memorials specifically in that section, it is important to be consistent with the rest of the section, because there is a danger. The member for Dufferin—Caledon was asked about this when he testified in committee. Anyone who has done some criminal law and gone to court knows what will happen to avoid the minimum fine. Take the example of a stupid young person who gets a good slap on the wrist from the authorities so that he understands the seriousness of what he did and is properly punished. You would have to be pretty stupid to do this sort of thing, but who did not do something stupid when they were young? Do we have to slap people with a $1,000 minimum fine to make them understand that what they did was wrong?

The best proof that this is not necessary is that these individuals rarely reoffend, which goes to show that the punishments handed down under the current legislation are successful. Something is missing, though. Students in this country need to be made aware of our history.

I will repeat what I said the first time I took part in this debate, for anyone who did not hear. In my former life, I was a radio broadcaster. One of my best radio programs was one that I had to fight for to some degree, since my program director thought my idea was completely crazy. After travelling to Europe, I said I wanted to do a special program on November 11, which I wanted to begin by observing a minute of silence. For anyone who does not know, a minute of silence on the radio is very expensive. My director asked me if I had gone mad. I told her that I thought it was worth commemorating what happened in our past and giving our listeners a little history lesson. That was my best program. It was an open-line broadcast. People called in to talk about what had happened. That is what needs to be done, rather than adding a subsection that will only complicate section 430 and confuse people, because they will no longer know which section to invoke when laying charges, in order to prevent the minimum fine from being given.

This bill is thoughtful in the sense that it comes from good intentions, but once again, this Conservative government has failed to reach the right conclusion.

[Criminal Code, May 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Dufferin—Caledon because I truly understand why he has introduced this bill. This is not his first attempt.

I know that all members of the House are always appalled to hear about incidents such as those that occurred recently in Ottawa and in the hon. member's riding. However, one of the issues raised by the Standing Committee on Justice is that there is no mandatory minimum sentence for mischief in relation to objects of religious worship or cultural property. The fact that Bill C-217 establishes mandatory minimum sentences for committing mischief in relation to a war memorial seems to make this a much more serious offence. I would like the member to talk about this.