Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Committees of the House, May 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates on the supplementary estimates (A) 2014-15.

[Victims Bill of Rights, May 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a very important question about one of the criticisms directed at this bill.

The government says that it wants to give victims more information and let them know about the parole hearings held for people who have committed crimes. The criticism was that this will not change anything about the fact that victims who want the information will be required to register and state explicitly that they want the information. The government could have chosen to make the process automatic, thereby dispensing with the need for victims to register in order to receive information.

Does my colleague think that this is something we could discuss further in order to ensure that victims can get the information without having to go through a process to request it?

[Victims Bill of Rights, May 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the excellent question.

I did not have the chance to elaborate on that in my speech. Indeed, the government promised a bill for years and it was highly anticipated. Finally, the experts who analyzed the bill after it was introduced a few months ago said that it would not change much and it was not what was promised.

The bill is positive, but it does nothing to keep the promises that were made. Will it really help certain victims in their daily lives? There are experts who are not so sure. They think this is the government's way of being able to say that it kept its promise. However, this is not at all what people were expecting. The experts were disappointed. We have notes and comments indicating their disappointment.

The government likes to talk, but when the time comes for it to take meaningful action, its bills do not do enough. That is too bad. I hope this will change in committee. That is what the official opposition hopes. We do our job well. We hope that we will be able to propose amendments and improve the bill. We always know our stuff, and we work very hard to improve bills in committee. I will vote in favour of this bill at second reading.

[Victims Bill of Rights, May 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer my colleague's very specific question. She just reaffirmed a point we have been making since I was elected in 2011. The government introduces omnibus bills, including budget implementation bills, and puts all sorts of things in the same basket.

Then we vote against one specific thing in the budget, when the government is asking us to vote on a group of legislative measures that affect many different things. If I were to vote on specific things that were not part of the omnibus bills, my vote might be quite different.

I think this is rather consistent with what I have been saying today.

[Victims Bill of Rights, May 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their warm welcome.

I must first point out that I will be sharing my time on Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts, with the member representing the good citizens of Hull—Aylmer.

I would like to mention that we will be supporting the bill at second reading stage because, as we have said a number of times and as we repeat every day, the NDP is a strong advocate for victims' rights. We will continue to support them and defend them in the House. I am certain that the government is also showing good faith in all of this with this long-overdue bill of rights.

I had heard about the bill of rights in the past. A number of groups in Sherbrooke had talked to me about it even before the bill was introduced. The Conservative government had been promising this Canadian victims bill of rights since 2006. Stakeholders and experts had already expressed a number of concerns.

My colleague from Pontiac mentioned a little earlier that the provinces also have an important role to play in this discussion. In fact, they are responsible for the administration of justice. They must be consulted as much as possible and their views must be considered in the process leading up to the drafting of such a bill. Perhaps that is why it took eight years. I hope not, because if it really were a Conservative priority, the bill would have been brought forward well before 2014 because they have been promising this bill of rights since 2006.

We have to admit that this bill of rights is nonetheless a step in the right direction because it will give victims of crime certain rights. They really should have these rights because, no matter the crime, it will haunt them for the rest of their lives. Regardless of the sentence handed out to the wrongdoer, victims of crime will remember the event, which will stay with them and affect them perhaps for the rest of their lives.

This bill focuses specifically on victims' rights in relation to the legal system and legal proceedings. That is good. It talks about broadening the definition of the word “victim”. It also talks about amending the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to give victims the right to see a photograph of the offender. It would also give victims a lot more information once the offender is released, as well as more information during parole hearings. Victims are given a lot of rights, and that is a very good thing because they deserve to have that information. The bill is generally positive despite the flaws I will talk about shortly.

It is important to give victims these rights within the legal process, but it is also important to support them for the rest of their lives when they experience problems because of these crimes. It is so important for the government to support these people who did not choose to be victims.

The government needs to do more. This bill of rights is a good thing, but it is not the solution to all of the problems. The government has to work even harder to support victims of crime, who have to live with that crime for the rest of their lives.

I cannot give a speech about victims of crime without talking about preventing crime too. Crime prevention is the best possible solution. The government has to do much more to prevent people from committing crimes.

The best way to help victims is to prevent them from becoming victims. I think we can all agree that one of the best ways to help them is to prevent crime. The Conservatives are much more about punishment, so they introduce new punitive measures. Those are necessary, because we will never completely eradicate crime. It is practically impossible. Still, the government should introduce measures to prevent crime in the first place. That is an important solution. That was a digression.

There are many worthwhile things as well as many flaws in this bill, as I mentioned earlier. Among those flaws is a lack of funding for this bill of rights. Promises and fine speeches abound. The minister sends out multiple press releases and gets a lot of political mileage, so to speak, from this bill. However, there still is no funding, despite promises from the Prime Minister himself, as my colleague from Alfred-Pellan pointed out. No one has seen that money yet. We hope it will be part of the next budget. There may even be supplementary estimates. Who knows? Only the government can say. We hope that the promised funding will show up eventually, so that the bill of rights can go beyond mere words and have some clout once it is passed by Parliament. This bill of rights must be more than well-meaning, empty promises. Victims want the rights set out in the bill of rights, and they must be able to exercise these rights.

Earlier, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness said that the provinces have many programs available. The entire problem cannot be shifted to the provinces, even though the Conservatives have a habit of doing just that. The government needs to shoulder its responsibilities as well and help victims directly.

Many people have commented on the Conservatives' bill. Not all of the comments were positive. Mr. Sullivan, the first federal ombudsman for victims of crime, had nothing but good things to say about the bill.

He thinks it is a good bill. However, he feels that the biggest problem is that the Minister of Justice promised the bill would put victims at the heart of the justice system, and it falls very short of that.

He is also unhappy about the fact that the government made promises about the charter but, in the end, nothing come of them.

He also stated that the charter is somewhat positive but that it basically just codifies what is already happening within the justice system. The practices are already in place, but now they will be codified. They are already being followed in different provinces. Mr. Sullivan added that all this really does is bring it in line with provincial laws.

The government promised something totally new but, ultimately, this looks a lot like what is already happening in the provinces. It is positive, but it is not what we were expecting. The government did not keep its promises. It has been talking about this since 2006.

Finally, it is here and let us just say that the more we learn about the bill, the more disappointed we get.

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, May 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my colleague, who seems to be deeply committed to Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts. I have a number of questions I would like to ask him about the bill, but I will keep it to one brief and specific question.

Could he give the House an explanation for the delay between the time the promise was made to draft a victims bill of rights and the time the bill was actually introduced? If memory serves, the promise was made in 2006 during the election when the Conservatives managed to take power. Why did they wait so long before introducing Bill C-32, which we are discussing today? What was the reason for that delay?

[Extension of Sitting Hours, May 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I waited five minutes before doing so. It seems to me that, during that five-minute period, the member was talking about Bill C-24 even though the debate is on Motion No. 10. I would like to know if he will get to the topic at hand, which is Motion No. 10, not Bill C-24.

[Support for Crown Corporations, May 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, last December, Canada Post, our crown corporation, announced an almost complete restructuring of its operations: higher stamp prices, the loss of 8,000 jobs and, of course, the gradual elimination of door-to-door delivery. Crown corporations belong to Canadians, and Canadians must have their say. The only consultations held on these very significant changes were bogus. That is why my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and I are organizing a real consultation. A public meeting will actually take place on Saturday, June 14, at noon, outside the Sherbrooke city hall. Everyone is welcome.

This is also high season for Conservative cuts. Just yesterday, they voted against the motion moved by my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, which called for the cancellation of the cuts to the CBC. Despite the Conservatives' refusal, there will be a huge rally in Sherbrooke. Organizations and artists from my region are organizing an event to support the CBC, on Wednesday, June 11, at the Granada Theatre. Artists such as Richard Séguin and Clémence DesRochers will be on stage at this event. I hope that all the members will follow their lead and support the CBC. Together, we must show our support to protect our crown corporation.

[Extension of Sitting Hours, May 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I think the Liberals are showing their true colours. They do not really care about the work of Parliament. No one from their party will be speaking to this motion and they do not seem to mind that no one will be speaking on their behalf. What is more, they complain that we spend too much time talking in the House.

In reality, they are just like the Conservatives and want nothing to happen in Parliament. They talk as though they were in a bubble, as though the work we do here serves no purpose and no one is listening. They think this work is meaningless. We are seeing the true colours of the Liberals, who see no point in parliamentary work. Actually, I should not be so surprised to hear this coming from the Liberals.

What does my colleague think about the specific aspect of the motion that gives ministers, and ministers only, the right to move a motion after 6:30 p.m.? What does he think of that specific aspect of the motion on the right reserved for ministers to move motions after 6:30 p.m.?

[Extension of Sitting Hours, May 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent speech on the government's motion, which is essentially a licence for laziness.

The government, which is being just as hypocritical as ever, has introduced a motion and is saying that it is going to work hard and that it is hard-working. However, as my colleague pointed out, the motion indicates that the government will allow votes to happen only right after question period. The government says that it is going to work hard in the evenings, but statistics show that it is usually only opposition members, particularly NDP members, who bother to speak about bills. One has to wonder whether the government really intends to work hard or whether it intends to show up for an hour or an hour and a half a day for question period and voting. We do not know what the Conservatives will do after that.

Can my colleague comment on how hypocritical it is of the Conservatives to say that they are hard-working when their motion proves exactly the opposite?