Françoise Boivin

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the leader of the third party for his speech on an extremely important issue that obviously affects all Canadians.

Since the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice said as much yesterday, we know that the government does not plan to support this motion. Does the leader of the third party still believe that it is possible to study this matter in a non-partisan way?

Furthermore, given that health, and thus end-of-life care, is a provincial jurisdiction, what are his views on the division of powers under the Constitution and the role of the federal government with respect to the Criminal Code? The Supreme Court decision in Carter deals strictly with the Criminal Code.

[Justice, February 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians were promised that cuts would not impact services, but it turns out that the Conservatives so-called deficit reduction plan is having real consequences for critically important areas of law enforcement. The RCMP unit dedicated to stamping out child pornography underspent by $10 million over five years.

Why have the Conservatives allowed this critical investigative team to be underfunded? Does the minister think that is acceptable?

[Public Safety, February 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, as a former mayor of Gatineau always said, it is important to walk the talk. Unfortunately, that is not the case with the Conservatives.

The Conservatives are about to give CSIS and the RCMP sweeping new powers, but we learned last week that they diverted $1.7 billion that was supposed to go to the RCMP. That money could have been used right away in the fight against terrorism.

The government can introduce all the legislation it likes, but what is the point if we do not have police officers and inspectors on the ground to enforce it?

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, February 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I could talk about that for 25 minutes.

The provinces will have to deal with the administration of justice, which is their responsibility. The content—meaning crime and justice—is our responsibility. The provinces are responsible for the administration of justice. I would say that is a big responsibility. We draft the laws, and they have to take action based on what we draft and decide. This is often done without much consultation, with all due respect to my colleagues opposite, who say that they consult when they hold one or two meetings a year with federal, provincial and territorial justice ministers. Often, this process is very superficial.

The Conservatives say that they are working on something. Their idea of consultation is limited to informing people of what will be passed. They say that they have a majority so they will not accept any amendments, that they already know where they are going and that this is how things will be. Then they explain what that means.

We are running out of time. It would have been great to have more time to debate this issue and to talk about different aspects of the bill. I did not get a chance to talk about the part that deals with the complaints of victims who are not happy with how certain things work. Once again, it is a voluntary system that is not clear at the provincial level. It could create some problems and could get bogged down.

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, February 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

I realize that they are often the same groups. We are really getting to know one another. Justice committee meetings are practically convivial now. There is a common thread running through the Conservatives' bills, and as a result, they often invite the same witnesses to come and explain things to us. That is why we are really getting to know them.

I am also coming to the realization, and this was true particularly during our study of the victims bill of rights, that the victims' associations the Conservatives like to trot out for photo ops in support of their bills have their eyes and ears wide open.

I am saying that, but members of those associations are no fools. They know that the government likes to use them, but the cause is greater than their personal feelings. They have big hearts. They have been through absolutely horrible situations, so they will always step up when they see an opportunity to advance their cause even a little, but they are no fools.

I would like to take a moment to correct the member. Indeed, the Conservatives had no interest in what I would call quantitative amendments that would have made a huge difference to victims. I think that is unfortunate because they claim to stand up for victims.

They accepted just one opposition amendment, and it was one of mine. It does not make me terribly proud because they changed the amendment quite a bit. Nevertheless, I asked for this:

Two years after section 2 comes into force, a committee of the House of Commons, of the Senate or of both Houses of Parliament is to be designated or established for the purpose of reviewing the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights enacted by that section.

I thought two years was reasonable. It was my way of ensuring that a House committee would truly look at how much this bill of rights accomplished. Out of respect for the victims rights associations, this would allow them to come and tell us whether there had been any major changes.

True to form, the Conservatives proposed an amendment to the amendment to push back the study to five years. Moreover, it blew my mind, but they rejected this proposal: “The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada must prepare and cause to be laid before each House of Parliament an annual report for the previous year on the operation of this Act that contains the following information”.

It would have been interesting to see some statistics. This government is not a big fan of information. We could have had statistics. I asked for “(a) the number of restitution orders made under section 16;” since this was an important part of the bill of rights to them. I get the impression that it will not get used as much as we think.

I also asked for the following because that is what the victims are calling for: “(b) the number of requests for information made under sections 7 and 8; and (c) the number of complaints filed under sections 25 and 26”.

Unfortunately, the government rejected all this.

[Public Safety, February 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, one would think that the government would at least listen to its friends, and it does not have many.

As former Ottawa police chief and Conservative, Vernon White said:

What I am hearing from police agencies, (is that) the amount of resources having to be pushed into (counter-terrorism) work right now means there’s other work not getting done, in particular organized crime investigations. I’m not sure we can afford to do that.

I am not sure either. Could the minister explain to us why the Conservatives made cuts to public safety?

[Public Safety, February 20th, 2015]

Political games, Mr. Speaker, is another expression that those members have no idea what the definition means.

One would think that the government would at least listen to its own friends. As former Ottawa police chief and—

[Public Safety, February 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, we always support those bills when they are stand-alone bills, not when they are in omnibus bills.

The government is about to dramatically increase the powers wielded by CSIS and the RCMP, but both organizations are in financially tenuous positions.

The government can pass all the new laws it wants, but they are not worth the paper they are printed on without the staff and resources to enforce them.

Can the minister explain why $1.7 billion of the RCMP's budget went unspent over the past eight years?

[World Day of Social Justice, February 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, today, the UN invites us to commemorate the World Day of Social Justice. Oh, how social justice has suffered for decades in Canada at the hands of both Liberal and Conservative governments. The middle class ends up paying the price, as inflation erodes its purchasing power and the federal government keeps cutting services.

A lifetime ago, one prime minister even promised Canadians a just society. When he was unable to deliver on his promise, a journalist asked him what happened. The elder Trudeau replied, “Ask Jesus Christ. He promised it first.” How cynical.

Liberal and Conservative governments lower standards, violate the public's trust and then send them the bill. What they forget is that the erosion they cause will inevitably be their downfall. As the saying goes, “You reap what you sow.”

Social justice should be a priority for every government. It is one of the NDP's key principles, and we will never back away from our plan to create greater social justice for all.

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, February 20th, 2015]

Quite simply, Mr. Speaker, without the resources, the charter of victims rights is just paper. If it comes down to that, it would be sad. I am not talking about a few million dollars. The Conservatives like to depict us as big spenders, but that is not the case. They have to put their money where their mouth is if they want to help victims. The minister talked about close to $100 billion of which 80% of that would be borne by the government.

The Conservatives can laugh all they want, but victims associations have told us they have no funding so they cannot help people. They count on the generosity of the public, with little dollars here and there, to help people who live in hell because of crimes.

I will take no lessons from the laughing Conservatives. They are great at writing papers but do nothing afterward, and that is sad. This legislation will not succeed without the resources.