Sylvie Boucher

[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 this 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.

[Taxation, October 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am always very pleased to rise and speak in the House. On September 19, I talked about taxation and the new Liberal tax, as I was calling it. I must say that today, considering some of the meetings I have had since September 19 in my riding and elsewhere, I realized that the government is in a hurry. It is in a hurry and wants to pass legislation. We held a vote earlier to extend the consultations. They voted against the motion, although it made a lot of sense.

This morning we met with the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, and its representatives are very concerned, just like all chambers of commerce everywhere in Canada.

We were told this morning that the legislation that the Liberals want to bring in will make it harder to transfer businesses from one generation to the next and to keep head offices in Canada. The Minister of Finance said he was open, that he was listening and paying attention to the comments being made. However, that is not what we heard this morning, and I quote:

We have met with the minister several times, but the government seems to be in a hurry to pass this legislation. So far, it has been rather resistant to the suggestions and comments made by entrepreneurs.

It is worrisome. When people come to see us in our ridings or meet us on the street, they do not know what party we belong to and that is just fine.

That is just fine because we were elected to listen to the public. This is a bill that the Liberals want to pass and it is making people anxious not just in Quebec, where I am from, but across the country. On that score, I find that when we ask questions, and I have been in the government, they always answer with the same meaningless talking points.

Could the government, for once, realize that the consultations should have continued because people do not really understand everything that is in this legislative measure? Could the government explain it to the Canadians, SMEs, and entrepreneurs who are scared and give them time to digest and understand this bill?

That is not what the government is doing. It is too bad, but if this keeps up, businesses back home, and I met with about a dozen of them, will move to the United States.

Why? Because they will not be taxed as much there as they are in Canada. We will lose the very businesses that are our bread and butter, the ones that create jobs. That is what I am asking the government to consider.

When the government wants to pass legislation, it has to explain what it is and not just on July 18 at a barbeque when everyone is on vacation and farmers are in the fields. That is unacceptable.

[Taxation, October 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, we met with representatives from the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec this morning.

The consultations now at an end, the federation is sounding the alarm. It is asking the Minister of Finance to extend the consultations in order to carefully assess the impact of the proposed measures and submit an economic impact study. The minister is unable to tell us how his reform will affect SMEs across the country.

Is the minister going to wait until our SMEs pack up and leave the country or will he extend the consultation period?

[Business of Supply, October 3rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member just told us that he met with a tax expert, and I would like him to tell us the name of that expert because—

[Business of Supply, October 3rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, who comes from a farming community, for that fine speech.

I want to ask him exactly what I asked his colleague earlier. I will not talk about Liberals and Conservatives. I am speaking as a member from a rural region who listens to everyone and who receives letters from everyone.

I would like the hon. member to step back from the party line and answer me honestly. Has the hon. member, like me, received hundreds of letters from very concerned people? That has nothing to do with the party, the political stripe. When we represent a given region, we represent everyone in it, no matter the banner under which we ran.

We have met with many people, including representatives of the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec. Everyone is scared.

I will ask my question one more time. Does the hon. member have any sense of how much these new tax measures have put the farming community on high alert? Is he aware that people are scared of losing their family farm?

[Business of Supply, October 3rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I was very interested in what my colleague from Quebec City had to say.

I just cannot for the life of me figure out why the member, who is from the same part of the country as us, is not hearing the same cries for help we are. We have talked to everyone. We have met with tax experts, farmers, and small business owners from all around Quebec City, and I have to say that Quebec is standing up for our businesses.

What we just heard from that member bears no resemblance to what we have been hearing from people, and I hope he can be candid enough to tell us that he has been hearing the same things we have. We get hundreds of letters a day from small business owners who are scared. This crisis is bigger than Quebec; it is national. People are writing to us and coming to see us in droves. I stand before you today not as a Conservative MP, but simply as an MP speaking on behalf of the people in her riding who are scared about this reform.

We have met with a number of tax experts. What I want to hear from my Quebec City colleague is the truth, not party lines. Can he honestly tell me that he has not heard the same concerns we have?