Mathieu Ravignat

[Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, November 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, no offence taken that it is not Gatineau, but Pontiac. However, it is the general area of the country and I actually do have constituents in the city of Gatineau.

This is a fundamental question in the sense that what is important is ensuring that these types of heinous crimes do not continue to happen. To do that, we have to do something about the source of the problem and ensure resources are present to ensure the people involved are truly reformed or under control.

There is not a lot of evidence from the past with regard to bringing bills to committee and improving on them, at least from an opposition standpoint. However, I truly think there is good faith around the table that the government, as well as the various opposition parties, want to strike the correct balance in the bill. Hope springs eternal.

[Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, November 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot really say that it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House today to debate this bill. It is never a pleasure to talk about subjects as sad and serious as this one. Still, there are times when, as parliamentarians, we have to talk about difficult subjects. As a father, I definitely find this to be a very difficult subject. I cannot imagine the psychological impact that such acts have on children. They are scarred for life. In aboriginal communities in particular, the after-effects are related to abuse that occurred in residential schools. Studies have clearly shown that our ability to live in the world as adults is directly related to the way we were treated as children and to the presence or absence of various types of abuse.

Today is Universal Children's Day. When we look at the statistics, it is clear that all around the world, children are not doing so well. The other day I was watching a program about slavery and forced labour among children. Unfortunately, this phenomenon still exists in many parts of the world, particularly in countries like India and China where children are the victims of physical abuse, chained to their work sites and used as sex slaves. It is a scourge. The United Nations has identified this as a major challenge. This tough challenge must be addressed.

When I was a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, I tried to have the issue of protecting children around the world taken into consideration in the context of trade agreements. I tried to stress the importance of reciprocity when it comes to defending children's rights in that context. For instance, it is important not to use products made by children in these forced labour situations.

As a society, we need to ask ourselves some questions about how we treat the weakest among us. I think, and no doubt most of my colleagues would agree with me, that we can judge a society on how it treats its most vulnerable members. I cannot think of a more vulnerable group than children. We often focus on the fact that parents are the ones who raise children, and that is true. I am doing it myself. However, we need to recognize that society in general has a responsibility to each child. The socio-economic context must promote the growth and development of every soul that comes into this world.

I commend the government for wanting to talk about the issue of sexual abuse of children and wanting to legislate in that regard. Obviously, I do not at all disagree that we need to examine and assess our laws. We also need to change them when we see that they are not protecting our children. However, we may disagree on how and when to do so and what sort of resources are needed to do so.

I want to let the interpreters know that I will be switching languages, so that they can continue to do the job they do so well.

I note that in 2012 the Conservatives, as part of the federal victims strategy, announced $251,000 in funding over two years for programs to protect children. Budget 2012 includes $7 million over five years to fund new or enhanced existing child advocacy centres, as well as limited funding for victim services organizations. The government should earmark resources for the RCMP registry and budgets to support victims, however.

We have noticed that evidence indicates that circles of support and accountabilities are impressive with regard to diminishing recidivism. For example, one study found a 70% reduction in sexual recidivism for those who participated in circles of support and accountability compared to those who did not. Another study found an 83% reduction. These are high numbers, so obviously this is a tool that should be privileged by the government and there should be resources put into that tool.

The real, serious issue is that we want to reduce cases of abuse and, unfortunately, over the past two years there has been an increase. We would have to look at the research as to why there has been an increase of 6%. Is it because the cases are better documented or are there cases that are occurring in greater frequency? Is it mostly on the Internet? However, it does not seem that the Conservative government's approach is having a fundamental impact on those numbers.

Therefore, like any good legislators, we have to ask ourselves why. That means we need to do research and we need to rely on our researchers and scientists who understand this issue from all sorts of angles to come forward to share approaches and ensure we take the correct strategies.

The Minister of Justice is not introducing new minimum and maximum mandatory sentences, but is rather increasing the minimums and maximums. I am not too sure why and how that makes sense, and what kind of impact that would have on these terrible crimes.

I also wonder why the government waited eight years before introducing provisions to force courts to impose, in certain cases, consecutive sentences on offenders who committed sexual offences against children. That is in spite of the fact that the cases referred to, for example, at government press conferences on the issue, go back to before the Conservatives took power in 2006. Why the hesitation there? It would be interesting to hear why that took so long. That is a relevant issue as well.

Since the RCMP already has trouble updating the registry of previous convictions due to a lack of resources, why does the government think the RCMP will be able to do additional work without additional resources? Of any of the issues and any of the types of crimes I can think of, certainly additional work on these types of crimes should come with additional resources. There does not seem to be a commitment on behalf of the government to do that.

It is clear that our communities need greater resources to counter the sexual abuse of children, so I wonder whether the government will come forward with new money to support concrete measures.

Finally, it is clear that we will support this bill so it goes to committee. This is a difficult conversation to have for our nation, but it is a crucial conversation to have. I hope the whole process will be done with rigour so we can hear from witnesses who know the issue, who know what can reduce cases of abuse and who know what resources we truly need to tackle this crucial problem.

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

The French are far ahead of us when it comes to protecting intellectual property. Laws in Europe are not consistent with ours. That is why we must ensure that Quebec's pharmaceutical industry remains competitive in the context of an international free trade agreement.

This simply shows that the government did not do enough industrial research during the negotiations.

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the fundamental point here about this amendment is to ensure that due process is in place, that we actually follow some kind of logical progression with regard to introducing bills and legislation in the House.

That would not be too difficult to ask the government to do, for once. It could actually look at things, put things in a logical order, start where we should start, and that is to figure out how this will be implemented and what the compensation package is, and then come to the House for a full debate.

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, first, that is an interesting theory, as if I could tell my farmers what to think. Obviously, the member does not know his own farmers if he thinks that is the case.

Second, he should listen to Mr. Wally Smith to get a sense of what they think officially about what the Conservatives are doing to supply management.

I need to congratulate the member for Welland as well as the member of Parliament for Berthier—Maskinongé for the incredible work they have done on the file, particularly wrestling out of the government a commitment to compensate farmers who are under supply management.

To add to my answer to the member's question, where is the compensation package?

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is a distinct pleasure to rise in the House to talk about this report and the amendment put to it. It is truly an honour to represent a riding of farmers. It will come as no surprise to the majority of people in the House that Pontiac is mainly an agricultural riding. All along the Gatineau River and the Ottawa River are farms. Settlers, whether they were Irish, Scottish, or French, picked this part of the country to settle because of the quality of its farmland.

They are worried. We cannot hide that, and they are right to be worried. It is not only the dairy farmers in my riding who are worried, but also the beef producers. It is mainly because of the lack of information. It is also because there are certain assumptions made, due to messaging from the government at the very beginning of the negotiations of CETA, about supply management that have, frankly, proven to be false.

In fact, supply management is being undermined by the measures of the Conservative government. It is called importation of a certain amount of product, which actually affects the supply management chain. One would think that before launching something of this magnitude, we would do the fundamental market research necessary to determine where our strengths and weaknesses are. When we go to the negotiating table, we would have that information with us to ensure that we negotiate a good deal for Canadians. That is just fundamental work.

I happened to have the privilege of being part of the original committee that went to Europe to study the free trade agreement. There were a couple of issues brought up by the Europeans. For example, back then they were worried about having their geographic indicators respected. We met with some of the agricultural industry in France. It spoke with particular concern about this. It also talked about the possibility of having Canadian beef flooding its market. It talked about GMO products. All of my colleagues on that committee across the way who joined me will recall those words.

That was the picture then. This is now. What seems obvious to me is that we have caved in on every single one of those worries that our European counterparts had. I do not call that negotiating. I call that lying down and allowing them to step all over us, and for what reason? All of us have to ask that question. What agricultural industry is pushing the Conservative government hard enough to put into question some pretty fundamental measures in place in our economic structures to protect our family farms and, particularly in Quebec, supply management?

There is another elephant in the room with regard to CETA, and many of the European colleagues brought this up. I remember asking this very pointed question of the negotiators that we met in Europe. I asked what guarantees there were that this agreement would go through all of the different legislatures that make up the European Union. There was not a single person we met during that trip who could answer how and if that were going to happen.

Does it surprise me that we do not have a bill dealing with CETA in front of us? No, because one thing that the Conservative government fundamentally did not take into consideration was the reaction of the national state members of the EU. We saw how that reaction blew up for the government when Germany suddenly decided that maybe it was not such a good deal. That is Germany, a major player in the European Union, but we have not dealt with the vast majority of the countries that are part of the European Union.

How can the government guarantee us today that all the member states are going to approve this agreement and it will go forward? That is the elephant in the room. That is probably why we have not seen anything come forward. Conservatives expect us to agree to this agreement without actually seeing the bill come to Parliament.

I will give a bit of context to this. I do not recall, but it has to be a couple of years since the Conservatives began this negotiation. Did we ever see a single text? We actually had to get the Europeans to leak a draft text to us so we could see it. What kind of transparency is that? They are touting it as the most fundamental, greatest, most magnificent trade deal ever in the history of Canada, well beyond NAFTA. When did we get the draft of NAFTA? If we go back and check the history, we will see that the process of NAFTA was 90% more transparent than this one. Therefore, I do not understand why, fundamentally, they did not make this information available to Canadians sooner.

Members can understand why farmers in my riding, in that kind of context, would be extremely skeptical with regard to the impact this would have on their lives. We have to take into consideration that there are not all that many family farms left in Canada. There is nothing wrong with industrial farming, but it has fundamentally taken over our agricultural market. There are very few family farms.

A family farm is not just an economic unit. A family farm is a community. A family farm is truly the heart of communities like Shawville, Campbell's Bay, Fort-Coulonge, or Gracefield. What is allowing these family farms to survive is a very reasonable, cost-effective, and very efficient supply management system. The Europeans subsidize their farmers massively. They would not stop doing that under this trade agreement. Therefore, tit for tat, we have to make sure our farmers remain competitive.

Let us talk about beef, because the Conservatives are touting that this would have a fundamental impact on the amount of beef that would hit the European market. The beef producers would actually have to modify the way they produce beef, particularly with hormones. Hormones have an incidence on growth rates, so we have to keep that in mind with regard to the amount of production that can go forward. We have to check that with the amount of beef that can actually be exported. Also, if that transformation is going to occur, where would the transitional money come from to allow those producers to go forward, change the way they do their production, and export. Fundamentally, that is a change that matters to the farmers of the Pontiac.

Because the member of Parliament opposite suggested that perhaps this report should go back to the committee, I would like to move the following subamendment. I move:

That the amendment be amended by adding after the word “negotiated” the following:

“and the Committee only report back to the House following the introduction in the House of Commons of all implementing legislation and the announcement by the government of all transitional measures, including financial compensation.”

[Parliament of Canada Act, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member will get much argument from the NDP with respect to the importance of transparency. On June 18, 2013, we wanted to pass a motion to unanimously propose to entrench independent oversight of parliamentary expenditures.

I would like to ask the leader of the Liberal Party this. Even the best possible reform of access to information, basically changing the rules, will never be sufficient if the people in power conspire to thwart the system. With respect to the Board of Internal Economy, what is substantial in his bill to ensure that those in power would not manipulate the system?

[Government Advertising, November 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives can rattle off whatever excuses they want. The ads promoting their election gimmick, income splitting, are partisan ads paid for by taxpayers. What is more, the Conservatives do not even want to tell us how much the propaganda cost.

Come on, that makes no sense. Much like the Liberals with their sponsorship, the Conservatives are trying to buy Canadians with their own money. It is appalling.

Will the minister finally tell us how much these useless, partisan and misleading ads cost?

[Access to Information, November 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board recently launched Canada's action plan on open government 2.0. How hypocritical. Access to information complaints increased by 30% last year. The Information Commissioner of Canada is so overloaded, she no longer has the resources she needs to help users.

Will the minister honour his commitment to transparency and provide the commissioner with the means to do her job?

[An Act to amend the Statistics Act (appointment of Chief Statistician and long-form census), November 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is okay if I have only a few minutes. This is an important subject, and I am pleased to have the honour to rise in the House and support such a bill. I must congratulate my colleague who introduced this bill in the House.

Before becoming an MP, I was a researcher. I did research at a federal research council, and I know the importance of research. I also know how important it is to have research that is independent from the government. That is why I applaud this bill. We must provide all federal government researchers and statisticians with independence and the power to tell us the truth on various aspects of things.

By the way, I deeply regret the loss of the long form census.

This was a tool that researchers had that was very valuable. I saw, in my former career, several researchers use it to very good ends. It allowed us to track some major demographic trends in our country. It allowed us to track income inequality, what was going on with aboriginal populations, with aging, with the challenges of many Canadians.

Unfortunately, perhaps, it was a tool that was too useful in criticizing the government and perhaps that is one of the reasons why it disappeared.

I have no disagreement with my former colleague who spoke about making criminals out of people who do not want to fill out forms. There is no doubt that, on that point, I agree. However, what is more important here is really the issue of the independence of the chief statistician and the independence of researchers in this country to speak truth power, to do the research they do.

The long arm of the government should be shortened with regard to the control of what people can research. That control can be done tacitly and it can be done explicitly at different levels. One of the tools the government has is the conditions under which money comes to these research councils and to Statistics Canada. In that way, the government can force research to go in a certain direction. That is truly unfortunate because we do need curiosity-driven research in this country. We never know when researchers will find something that is of extreme use to our country, and they can only do that if they have the greatest amount of latitude to research what it is that they think is important.

There are several works written in the past that at the time they were written were ridiculed. We could say that Darwin was ridiculed at the beginning of his findings. Today, we realize the degree to which that particular book on the origin of the species has been fundamental in our understanding of the human being and of the evolution of life on this planet, but at the time it was ridiculed. That was curiosity-driven research. At the time, he had a patron and he had money, so he was allowed to research the way he wanted to.

Fundamentally, I fully support the bill. I think it would be a good addition and a breath of fresh air for the research community.