Sylvie Boucher

[Business of Supply, October 19th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, it took us three months. The Liberals have been in power for two years now, and so far they have not done much. Maybe today, they should stand up for our industry.

[Business of Supply, October 19th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

Unfortunately, I may have to correct him. It was the Conservative government that negotiated an extension to the agreement in 2012 to ensure market stability until 2016. Those are the facts.

From 2016 to 2017, we heard nothing. We know negotiations are ongoing, but we hear nothing about them. What I am asking the party opposite to do is to give us the numbers that they are negotiating. We cannot abandon softwood lumber because it is vital to our regions. Every rural region has forests and the industry currently operates in most rural regions. For the sake of the forestry industry, I am calling on the Liberal Party to vote unanimously with us and stand behind the people who work in the industry.

[Business of Supply, October 19th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. He wants an answer. Well, I will give him one:

Let them stand up for the softwood lumber industry. Let them stand up for supply management. Let them stand up for the average Canadian who puts food on the table. Let them stop quoting numbers at us and start talking about people, instead.

[Business of Supply, October 19th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate, which I think is critically important. Although I used to be a city girl, I am now a proud ruralist, so I really understand how much the government across the way has given in to the Americans.

Whether we are talking about supply management for our municipalities or softwood lumber, we need to be strong and stand up to the Americans. We need to have frank negotiations, as a matter of pride, to save our small towns in places like Charlevoix and Lac-Saint-Jean. Some of these small communities depend entirely on this industry. Softwood lumber is very important to our small towns. Everyone here, across party lines, knows how much those communities need us to fight for them so that the Americans understand that what we are talking about today is negotiable, but also non-negotiable.

We simply cannot jeopardize the softwood lumber trade over a few trivial details. I hope the Prime Minister, who is on the ground there right now, understands this and will send the right message to the right people, specifically, that softwood lumber is a priority. When it is a priority, it must be included in the mandate letter to the minister who is negotiating with the United States. We need to remember that 96% of U.S. softwood lumber imports come from Canada and that 69% of Canadian softwood lumber exports go to the U.S. When you have such conclusive numbers, it is important to negotiate fairly, but more importantly, in a way that is equitable for Canadians. Our citizens, Canadians, Quebeckers, and the people of Lac-Saint-Jean, must not be the ones who lose because this government is sitting on its hands. To negotiate means to speak frankly, but without kowtowing to the U.S.

Our Conservative government negotiated an agreement in late 2006, three months after we took power, in order to settle the softwood lumber dispute. It was also the Conservative Party that negotiated an extension of the agreement in 2012 to ensure market stability until October 2016. It is now 2017. What has been done? What are we debating? What figures can the Liberal Party provide? What has it negotiated? I hope that it has not been at the expense of forestry workers.

Sawmills are closing everywhere. We are not talking just one or two; many sawmills have closed. I am referring to Quebec because that is where I come from. Many of our sawmills have closed and it is unacceptable today to listen to the Liberal Party proclaim that it is the champion of the middle class. Standing up for the softwood lumber industry is a good way to defend the middle class because forestry workers are part of the middle class. They are the ones who work hard for us.

Today, we have no figures and we have no idea where negotiations stand.

There is no mention of the new softwood lumber agreement in any of the mandate letters of the ministers involved in the negotiations. That leaves us with the impression that they could not care less. I hope that we, on this side of the House, are wrong. I hope that we can drop the partisanship and that all members will work together to save supply management and our sawmills.

Today, my comments are directed especially to the people of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. They must stand up to the Prime Minister. They must be passionate, and even cry if they must, so that their message is heard: today, we want the government to stand tall and be frank in the negotiations in order to save the softwood lumber industry.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that, on issues as important to our small communities as softwood lumber and supply management, the Liberals are happy just to get some good photo ops. People need to eat and they want some reassurance about their future. We do not know what is being negotiated by the other side of the House. We are in the dark. The Liberals are not telling us anything. We do not even know what has been done on this file since 2016, and we probably never will because the Liberals themselves do not even know what direction they are taking with the American administration. That is rather frightening for ordinary Canadians who struggle every day to put food on the table.

We on this side of the House have always stood behind the softwood lumber industry. A number of our ministers have defended the industry, including the hon. Denis Lebel, who fought for his community of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. He is still fighting for the forestry industry today. I hope that the motion that we moved today will send the clear message that we all stand behind the people who make a living from working in sawmills and the lumber industry. We must not play politics at the expense of workers in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, Charlevoix, and across Quebec and Canada who make a living from this industry. I hope that the government party will understand that this is a heartfelt plea and that we must work together to strengthen our future. We must all stand behind forestry workers.

In my riding, representatives of Greenpeace came to see me to lecture me about the forestry industry, which is unfortunate. I have nothing against the environment. On the contrary, I do everything I can to protect the environment in my riding, but when groups like this attempt to destroy an industry, it is because they do not know enough about it. They do not have all the facts.

It is up to us, the members of Parliament, to listen to industry representatives. Today I am asking the members of the party opposite to join us and vote unanimously in favour of this important motion for workers in the forestry industry, so that we may negotiate honestly and with head held high.

Let us not bend to the United States.

[International Trade, October 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, there are reports that the parliamentary secretary announced the government's true position at an event in Washington when he mentioned there would be “room to negotiate” on supply management. This government keeps selling out the farmers in my riding, Lac Saint-Jean, and Quebec as a whole to accommodate Washington. It is plain to see that this government is all too willing to bow and scrape to the United States.

Will the Prime Minister confirm for our farmers that he plans to use them as a bargaining chip, despite claims that supply management is not on the table?

[Taxation, October 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, senior officials at the Department of Finance have said that they are having trouble finding a solution with regard to the transfer of family farms from one generation to the next.

The Prime Minister is willing to do whatever it takes to fatten government coffers, even if it makes life incredibly difficult for the families who help our country prosper. If the Minister of Agriculture does not want to ensure the survival of family farms, we will.

When will the Liberal government back down on its tax reform and stand up for our farmers?

[Act respecting the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Criminal Acts, October 4th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, the ombudsman position already exists. We just want it to be independent. This will not cost anything since the office already exists. We want the ombudsman to be able to work independently, like every other ombudsman.

Every ombudsman position that has been created has become independent. They are accountable to Parliament, not just to departments. This bill is very important for victims of crime.

I was fortunate, or perhaps unfortunate, to come from a family of police officers and prison wardens, so I have seen a lot of victims of crime. They are the ones who are asking us to make the ombudsman position independent.

This is not a partisan issue. It concerns every party. Whatever government is in office, this ombudsman would be independent and would be free to stand up for—

[Act respecting the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Criminal Acts, October 4th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, let me be clear: no aspersion is intended.

My bill calls for the position of federal ombudsman for victims of crime to be equal to the position of correctional investigator, which operates at arm's length from the Department of Justice. I am only asking that the ombudsman for victims of crime be granted the same independence.

Let us put ourselves in the shoes of a victim of violent crime. How can we defend both the widow and the orphan? I want the ombudsman for victims of crime to report to Parliament, not just to the department. When a complaint is made, the ombudsman needs to be able to tell us about it.

All the other ombudsmen, such as the ombudsmen for national defence and for offenders, operate at arm's length from the relevant departments. They report to the House, not to the departments. That is exactly what my bill seeks to achieve. I am not putting down the work of the ombudsman in any way. I only want the position to be independent. Being at arm's length from the system enables an ombudsman to—

[Act respecting the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Criminal Acts, October 4th, 2017]

moved that Bill C-343, An Act to establish the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Criminal Acts and to amend certain Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise in the House today for the second reading of my first private member's bill, Bill C-343, an act to establish the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Criminal Acts and to amend certain acts.

The position of ombudsman for victims of crime was created in 2007. Like the ombudsman for the Department of National Defence and the ombudsman for offenders, or correctional investigator, the ombudsman for victims of crime exists for a reason: to defend the rights and interests of those in need of such advocacy.

Unlike the other federal ombudsmen, the ombudsman for victims of crime currently operates under a Justice Canada program and therefore is not independent from that department.

The main goal of Bill C-343 is to make the position of ombudsman for victims of crime equal to the position of correctional investigator. Commonly referred to as the ombudsman for offenders, the correctional investigator is federally appointed and operates at arm's length from the Department of Justice, unlike the ombudsman for victims of crime.

The ombudsman for victims of crime is currently not independent from the Department of Justice and is required to submit all her annual reports to the department instead of Parliament. Accordingly, if the ombudsman for victims of crime makes a recommendation or criticism in her report that is unfavourable to the Department of Justice, the department can remove it from the report at any time and thereby directly circumvent one of the chief purposes of the ombudsman for victims of crime, which is to be a voice for the victims and represent their rights and interests.

For victims of crime, having a voice and fair and equitable representation before the Department of Justice is critical to their healing process, which is all too often a difficult one. After experiencing a terrible trauma that is incredibly hard to survive, victims far too often have to fight to get their rights recognized at every stage of their journey.

The road to rehabilitation and healing is long and daunting. Victims have to provide a statement and testimony at trial, they have to be able to understand and digest all the legal jargon, and they might have to challenge a ruling. They also have to duly fill out a multitude of forms, even just to have the right to receive information.

Given that the ombudsman's responsibilities have significantly evolved since the position was created in 2007, particularly with the enactment of the victims bill of rights in 2015, it goes without saying that the rights of victims of crime must be respected and that, if they are not, the ombudsman for victims of crime must be able to properly represent those victims, independently of the Department of Justice. That is particularly true when a problem arises that is directly related to the department in question.

The rights of victims of crime are grouped under four categories in the bill of rights: the right to information, the right to protection, the right to participation, and the right to restitution.

It is important that the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights be updated to make the ombudsman for victims of crime an agent of Parliament who is independent from the minister and who is responsible for providing feedback and oversight.

For victims of crime, having an independent body to protect their rights is a matter of survival. All aspects of the Canadian justice system need to be fair and equitable.

Victims of crime and criminals must have equal rights, and ombudsman positions must also be equally independent.

Making the victims' ombudsman as independent as the criminals' ombudsman would be a big step in the right direction in proving to victims that they matter, and that all members of the House agree that it is unfair that in 2017, victims' rights are still not given the same importance as the rights of the criminals who destroyed their lives, that this must end, and that we need to give ourselves the legislative tools necessary to do just that.

For victims, passing Bill C-343 would ensure that the federal ombudsman for victims of criminal acts will operate at arm's length from the Department of Justice, and this is critically important to all victims. The ombudsman could do a better job of defending the rights and interests of those victims when they file a complaint against federal departments, particularly the federal Department of Justice.

I invite my colleagues to imagine themselves as someone who has suffered a terrible trauma after being victimized by a violent crime, someone whose basic rights enshrined in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights have been violated during the court proceedings and who now wants to file a complaint against the federal Department of Justice. After a quick search on the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime website, they will soon realize that that office is an agency of the Department of Justice, and therefore an extension of the same department that is responsible for the wrongdoing.

Let us put ourselves in the shoes of a victim who thought they could rely on solid representation before the courts, when in fact they cannot count on the independence of the ombudsman representing them to the same extent as our soldiers and even criminals can count on their ombudsman. Who can such a victim turn to?

A very important part of the ombudsman's work involves identifying issues that affect victims of crime and issuing recommendations to help the federal government make its laws, policies, and procedures more compassionate toward victims.

The ombudsman must also help criminal justice system personnel and decision-makers develop a better understanding of victims' needs and identify systemic issues, some of which are created by the Department of Justice itself, that can have negative repercussions on victims. I believe that this part of the ombudsman's job is crucial for victims, and I have to wonder whether it can be done properly without full independence.

Not being fully independent makes things difficult for both the victims ombudsman and victims themselves. Trying to defend clients' interests before the Department of Justice without the independence and power to conduct a formal investigation to determine whether a complaint is legitimate and make recommendations to right a wrong is frustrating for the ombudsman, and it is frustrating for victims too.

Victims of crime deserve strong and independent representation. It should be a fundamental right, a right that criminals have always had. By passing Bill C-343, the position of ombudsman for victims of crime will no longer be a program. The victims are calling for a meaningful recognition of the office to ensure its long-term existence.

The time has come to make the victims ombudsman an agent of Parliament. Passing Bill C-343 provides the current government with an ideal opportunity to strengthen its position on transparency in the selection process for this type of appointment. Passing Bill C-343 is an opportunity to send a strong message to victims of crime.

In other words, everyone here in the House believes that it is high time we gave victims of crime equal rights relative to the rights of criminals, and that their recognition is in no way partisan. Every party is concerned about the well-being of victims. This is not a one-party issue.

In closing, for victims of crime and their loved ones, I hope that every member will support Bill C-343.

[Taxation, October 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, when the government launches a consultation in the middle of July, while everyone is on vacation, it is because it has something to hide.

In order to be as transparent as this government claims to be, one would have to hold consultations for much longer than 75 days and make at least some attempt to listen to everyone. Our farmers were out in their fields. They did not have time to attend consultations.

Our constituents have come to us with concerns about this bizarre way of reforming the tax system. I live in the Quebec City area, and I know the Liberal members from my region have been approached on this subject. However, they did not listen to what people told them. I am not making this up. People came and told us this.

There is a problem here. If you want to have an open discussion, you need to be open to what people have to say, whether you agree with it or not. Now these people are scared. I am not talking about one or two people who voted Conservative. I am talking about Canadians across the country, not just in my area.

If the government members went out on the ground, I want a list of everyone they met with, because that is not what people are telling us.