David Sweet

[Respect for Communities Act, November 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the member referenced the bill. I have the bill in my hand and I am on page 8. I am trying to figure out what criteria the member feels is too onerous.

Here is how the bill begins, as far as the criteria is concerned. Scientific evidence is one of them. I wonder if the opposition is okay with our obtaining scientific evidence. The provincial minister is one of them. Is the opposition okay with the provincial minister weighing in on a safe injection site? Local government, municipal governments and, I am certain, my councillors would want to have a say in what goes on as far as supervised injection sites. The police force is one. I am certain my police chief wants to have a say.

The list goes on. I am reading directly from the bill. What criteria do the opposition members want to remove? Frankly, there was virtually no framework at all for these sites before. If we were to go to average people, certainly my neighbours in the community, and say that there was no framework for this, no legislative criteria to be met, they would be appalled.

Finally, we are getting the job done, as the Supreme Court asked us to do.

[Respect for Communities Act, November 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand here today and address Bill C-2. Canadian families expect safe and healthy communities in which to raise their children. That is why our Conservative government is moving forward with the respect for communities act to ensure that parents have a say before any drug injection sites open in their communities and the most rigorous criteria apply.

Why is this necessary? It stems from the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in 2011, which rendered that any application for a supervised injection site must, among other factors, be considered with an understanding of the circumstances in the community that had led to the need for a site, as well as the opinions of the community in which it would operate.

However, the court was also clear in its ruling that it was not “an invitation for anyone who so chooses to open a facility for drug use under the banner of a “safe injection facility”. That is why the government is acting on this Supreme Court ruling. Given the inherent risks in using dangerous and addictive drugs obtained on the street, exemptions to use them at a supervised injection site should be granted only in exceptional circumstances, once rigorous criteria have been addressed by an applicant.

Specifically, the bill would amend the existing Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the federal statute that restricts the usage of dangerous and addictive drugs. Under this act, activities involving controlled substances, including possession, import, export, production and distribution, are prohibited, except as authorized through an exemption obtained through section 56.

As I just said, we believe that exemptions should be granted only in exceptional circumstances and subject to rigorous criteria. That is why this bill, the respect for communities act, would divide section 56 into two distinct categories. Street drugs, or illicit substances, would have a section specific to supervised injection sites. Applications to use illicit substances at such a site would need to address rigorous criteria before such an application would even be considered by the Minister of Health.

One of the criteria an applicant would have to address would relate to the treatments for the proposed site's users. The applicants would have to provide letters from their provincial minister responsible for health, describing their opinion on the proposed activities, how the activities would be integrated in the provincial health care system and any treatment services that would be available in the province for individuals who would use the site. An application would not be considered by the Minister of Health without this information. In addition, an applicant would have to provide a description of the drug treatment services available at the site, if any, for persons who would use this site and the information that would be made available to them in relation to drug treatment services available elsewhere.

These criteria demonstrate that our Conservative government takes the harm caused by dangerous and addictive drugs very seriously. We need to support those in need with treatment and recovery programs. Drug treatment and recovery programs must be focused on ending drug use.

That said, I would like to take this opportunity to inform the House of other actions the Government of Canada is taking to address dangerous and addictive drug use.

In 2007, we launched the national anti-drug strategy. The strategy's goal is to contribute to safer and healthier communities by reducing and eliminating illicit drug use in Canada. Like the bill before us today, the national anti-drug strategy is designed to protect public health and maintain public safety. That is why its three pillars are prevention, treatment and enforcement.

Today, I would like to focus specifically on the treatment aspect of the national anti-drug strategy and outline some of the services that are part of it. The strategy supports innovative approaches to treating and rehabilitating those with illicit drug addiction who pose a risk to themselves and the community. Health Canada also works to increase access to and improve the quality and effectiveness of addiction services for first nations and Inuit youth and their families. Specifically, it aims to enhance treatment and support for first nations and Inuit people, support treatment programs for young offenders with drug-related problem, enable the RCMP to refer youth with drug-related problems to treatment programs and support research on new treatment models.

While responsibility for the delivery of most treatment and rehabilitation services remains with provincial and territorial governments, the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of continued investments in drug treatment programming and works closely with the provincial and territorial governments and other key stakeholders. Our end goal is always to help treat and end the scourge of drug addiction that plagues communities and families. The drug treatment funding program is one such example of this multilateral approach. This program supports provincial and territorial governments, as well as other stakeholders, in making strategic investments in three key areas.

The first area is through the implementation of evidence-informed practice. Health Canada supports the uptake of best practices such as continuous knowledge development and information sharing to improve service delivery.

The second is in strengthening the evaluation and performance measurement capacity and activities. While all jurisdictions collect performance information pertaining to their treatment, services and programs, the type and nature of the data collected as well as the approach to data collection and analysis vary considerably. With the funding in this area, projects are in place to identify and standardize best practices, evaluation and performance measurements.

Third, the program supports linkages and exchange among the funded projects. This is an essential element of the work undertaken in the first two investment areas and includes enhancing knowledge sharing and disseminating lessons learned. For example, in some of these projects, work is under way to implement knowledge-exchange mechanisms for concurrent mental health and substance use best practices. Other tools are also being developed to improve linkages between the specialized addiction sector and other health and community service providers.

Since 2007, this program has provided over $100 million in funding to provinces, territories and key stakeholders.

To highlight one particular project in Alberta, community agencies that serve youth were supported by providing a manual and curriculum to improve staff skills around basic addiction, counselling and screening practices as well as mental health knowledge. The result of this project demonstrated that community service providers improved their skills and confidence in evidence-based addiction practices. In addition, at-risk youth had greater access to addiction information and basic services through the community agencies that they frequented.

Another approach has been taken by Saskatchewan, a project enabled services directed at youth by building upon a strong pre-existing framework. Through these services, individual assessment plans are developed followed by brief interventions and referral to more formal services. Through community partnerships, the project is tracking the impact of its services and moving youth into recovery programs. The program provides between 30 to 50 brief interventions every month with between 200 to 335 participants.

Additionally, as part of the national anti-drug strategy, our government provides almost $10 million annually to improve access to quality addiction treatment services for aboriginals. These investments are targeted in four key areas: improving the quality of services by increasing access to certified training and supporting treatment centres to become accredited; increasing the effectiveness and relevancy of services by supporting these centres to re-profile or strengthen services in response to recognized service gaps; improving access to services by piloting community-based multidisciplinary teams to provide comprehensive additions and mental health services to aboriginal communities; and a comprehensive review renewal process for first nation addiction services carried out in partnership with first nation communities and leadership.

Our government remains committed to addressing dangerous and addictive drug use through the national anti-drug strategy and will continue to invest in prevention and treatment. The respect for communities act is consistent with this strategy and, once more, it takes action in the wake of the Supreme Court decision ensuring that parents have a say before drug injection sites open in their communities.

To me, this is an important point in the bill. It gives local law enforcement, municipal leaders and local residents a voice before a permit is granted for supervised drug consumption sites. Communities must have a say.

All told, the bill would provide the Minister of Health with the information necessary to balance public health and public safety considerations, including how the proposed site would fit within a province's overall approach to treatment services.

Why the NDP, through the motion of the member for Vancouver East, is seeking to kill this bill is beyond me. What NDP members are saying through their motion is that they are against giving parents a say before drug injection sites open in their communities, that they are against the Supreme Court's ruling on this matter and that they are against ensuring that addicts are provided the treatment and support they need at these sites.

I urge all members of the House to vote in favour of the respect for communities act and give the Minister of Health the tools she needs to do her job.

[An Act to Bring Fairness for the Victims of Violent Offenders, October 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the member would certainly have access as freely as I do to the results of the printed material that I mentioned from the federal victims ombudsman.

I would like to reiterate the fact that this is not obligating the Parole Board of Canada to any kind of extended process of hearing. What it does is give it the tools to monitor the behaviour of the particular inmate when looking at the case.

The experiences I have had with the Parole Board of Canada officials on the hearings that I have attended have been extraordinarily professional. I am impressed with the work they do. I have tabled this bill to give them more tools to do their job even better and to have more discretion with it as well.

[An Act to Bring Fairness for the Victims of Violent Offenders, October 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly be glad to share those very specific numbers from those other jurisdictions when we move to committee and we get into more of the details of the bill. I have no problem with that.

It is important to note that the measures in the bill would simply give the tools to the Parole Board of Canada so that it has the option to delay a review. In no way, shape or form would it give it any obligation to do that. It could still act in the timeframes that it acts within right now.

As well, the bill would allow the victims to have confidence that their right to give a victim impact statement and to be considered is enshrined in law. It is not simply policy, and it is not going to change. It would give victims the opportunity to engage in modern technology, as I have, as I mentioned in my speech about attending in Gravenhurst, Ontario. In that particular case, the family members wanted to do that, but in cases where they are not able or they do not desire to travel across the country to whatever institution is holding the Parole Board hearing, they would have the option of using technology.

[An Act to Bring Fairness for the Victims of Violent Offenders, October 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I do not see any conflict at all with the victims' bill of rights that will be coming up. I believe that these changes are ones that are not only for victims' families, but as I mentioned before, the federal victims' ombudsman has been very clear that these changes are necessary. I think it will only enhance what I believe will be the outcome of the victims' bill of rights.

[An Act to Bring Fairness for the Victims of Violent Offenders, October 18th, 2013]

moved that Bill C-479, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (fairness for victims), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be standing here to speak once again to the important amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act proposed in Bill C-479.

First, I would like to acknowledge the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety for their ongoing leadership on victims' rights. The ministers held consultations in every province and territory with victims of crime and their advocates over the summer months. While these consultations were held to discuss the government's intention to introduce a victim's bill of rights, the input gathered is relevant today because one of the things that came across loud and clear is that victims of crime want increased participation in the criminal justice system. That is what Bill C-479 is all about and I am proud that this bill would build on the good work of the ministers and this government since 2006.

In a nutshell, there are two key components to the fairness for victims of violent crime act that I am proposing. The first is strengthening the voice of victims of violent crime and providing additional support to victims in the parole process. The second is to modify parole and detention review dates giving the Parole Board of Canada the option of increasing the time between parole hearings for violent offenders. Both of these purposes work to act on the change that victims, their families and advocates like the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime have urged for many years. It is about time to bring these to fruition.

I want to be clear from the outset, just as we were when we discussed this bill last spring, that we are talking about instances of violent crime. As I have said many times before, I do not think words can ever adequately describe the repulsiveness of these crimes. They are heinous, often calculated and always senseless.

I would like to point again to two statistics from the Sampson report of December 2007, which underscored the alarming trend on violent crime. This report, named after former Ontario minister of corrections, Rob Sampson, cited changing offender profiles. Nearly 60% are now serving sentences of less than three years and have a history of violence. One in six now have known gang and/or organized crime affiliations.

The reason that it is such an honour to be speaking to this bill today is because I do so on behalf of my constituents and, tragically, thousands of Canadians like them and the sacred memory of their loved ones. As I have noted previously in the House, Bill C-479 is the product of an unforgettable experience that constituents of mine allowed me to observe in the summer of 2010. That is when a well-respected couple in my community contacted me and explained what it had been going through for many years at the national Parole Board hearings. After listening to many troubling experiences, I wanted to see first hand what the process was like and, fortunately, the couple also felt it was a good idea for me to witness the hearing and the voice given to victims primarily through the victim impact statement.

When I agreed to attend, I had no doubt it would be a very emotional experience. I was hoping it would also be an educational experience, and it sure was. However, I do not think I could have ever begun to prepare myself for the raw emotion in the room that day, let alone put myself in the shoes of the victim, who had to go through this gut-wrenching experience every time the offender reapplied under the current process, not because the victim was compelled by law but rather by love and justice.

I am certain many of my colleagues have never experienced a national Parole Board hearing, so please allow me to recount the story for them and for the members who were not present at the last debate on Bill C-479.

On the day of the first hearing I attended in the summer of 2010, once in session and the formalities were over, the sister of the deceased victim, my constituent, was asked by the representatives of the Parole Board of Canada to give her prepared statement. She tried hard to be composed, but before even uttering a word my constituent started weeping. The memories of a crime committed over 30 years previous came flooding back and the tears did not stop, understandable due to what the family had endured and still lives with to this very day.

It was a grizzly triple murder. Her sister, niece and nephew had been violently murdered by her sister's husband. After killing his wife, this violent criminal suffocated his two young children, a six-year-old boy and a five-year-old girl. The murderer meticulously concealed the bodies in the waterways around Hamilton, Ontario. The son's body has never been found, nor has his father, the perpetrator, ever offered information on the whereabouts of his remains.

My constituent wrote her first victim impact statement on the eve of the funeral, yet, too often over the years, she and her parents had to attend a Parole Board hearing to ensure that the voices of victims were heard. As with other victims and their families, they felt an incredible burden, a duty as a family. It was the least they could do to honour their daughter, sister, grandchildren, niece, and nephew.

While the evidence for a conviction was very clear and the Parole Board has upheld that, the offender still denies the crime to this very day.

Unfortunately, our federal parole process makes the revictimization of my constituents a frequent occurrence. I watched the family endure the same process again in 2011. Again the triple murderer was denied parole. They were victimized once again this summer with another Parole Board hearing for their sister's killer in Gravenhurst, Ontario, on July 10. I attended with my constituents once again, and I can assure all members of the House that the emotion was no less raw, no less painful this summer than at previous hearings.

My constituent asked the same question of the violent offender in her statement. She asks this question at every hearing: “Why did you kill our family and what did you do with your son?”

She received no response. The offender sat stone-faced. He felt no remorse. This was something that the Parole Board noted carefully in its decision to deny full parole this past July.

However, he may reapply for parole again next year, and we will go through the same set of victim impact statements and the tears and emotion from the family that accompany them.

These circumstances underscore, better than any words could ever do, the intent of my bill when it comes to victim impact statements and the modification of the parole review process.

While these experiences inspired Bill C-479, in researching this bill I discovered in talking to victims' advocates, law enforcement officials, and legal experts that while the provisions in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act may have made sense in 1970s, they no longer reflect modern technology and the respect and dignity our system ought to afford victims today.

From the work my office and I have done in preparation for the introduction of this bill—and, by the way, I give staff thanks for all the hard work that they have done on—and from the experts we consulted, I know this bill has a sound legal and constitutional foundation. I believe it has broad support.

In tabling Bill C-479 last February, I proposed nine changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to better protect and support victims of violent offenders.

This bill would extend mandatory review periods for parole. This means that if an offender convicted of a more serious violent offence is denied parole, the Parole Board would have to review the case within five years rather than the current two years.

In cases of cancellation or termination of parole for an offender who is serving at least two years for an offence involving violence, it would increase the period in which the Parole Board must review parole to within four years.

It would require that the Parole Board take into consideration the need for the victims and the victim's family to attend a hearing and observe the proceedings. It would require that the Parole Board consider any victim impact statement presented by victims.

It would require the Parole Board, if requested, to provide victims with information about the offender's release on parole, statutory release, or temporary absence, as well as provide victims with information about the offender's correctional plan, including progress toward meeting its objectives.

As I have said previously in the House, this last point is one of the changes requested by Constable Michael Sweet's family after 30 years of silence. In essence it is the Constable Michael Sweet amendment.

I would like to remind members of Michael Sweet's story so they can understand the family's depth of feeling with regard to these changes.

In the early morning hours of March 14, 1980, brothers Craig and Jamie Munro entered into what was George's Bourbon St. Bistro in downtown Toronto for the purpose of committing a robbery. Both men were high on drugs and armed with guns. At the time, Craig Munro was on mandatory supervision from a penitentiary sentence for a previous gun-related offence.

The brothers gathered all the people inside in one place. However, one of the victims managed to successfully flee. Once out on the street, he flagged down a passing police cruiser. Constable Sweet, who is no relation to me, aged 30 at the time, entered the restaurant and was immediately shot twice. Then began a 90-minute stand-off between the Munro brothers with their hostages, and the police. The police later stormed the restaurant and both brothers were shot and captured.

During the stand-off, Sweet was conscious and slowly bleeding to death. He begged his captors to let him go to the hospital. He had three young daughters and he wanted to see them again at home. While Sweet pleaded for his life, they laughed and taunted him. All three men were transported to the hospital after the police broke in. Craig and Jamie made full recoveries. Constable Sweet died a few hours later of gunshot wounds.

Just like the case of my constituents, the story does not need to end there. Let us make the changes proposed in Bill C-479, changes that have been requested by families, because these two cases I have talked about today are just two of thousands of sad cases. Violent offenders have committed unspeakable crimes. Families have suffered losses that are forever. These victims, these families and our communities should be confident that these offenders are positively progressing toward rehabilitation, and if not, that the Parole Board of Canada has the tools to delay their release.

We can act to respect victims and their families with the changes I am proposing in Bill C-479, changes that have been enacted by other jurisdictions such as California, New Zealand and the U.K.

In closing, please allow me to read into the record once again this paragraph from a March 2, 2012 editorial from my hometown newspaper, The Hamilton Spectator. It states:

...the [Parole Board of Canada]...has a responsibility to victims of crime. For those victims, the parole board is virtually the only source of information about the status of the person who committed the crime against them. ...some local victims...don’t feel well-served by the board. That must change.

That is why I have brought Bill C-479, an act to bring fairness for the victims of violent offenders, to the House. I certainly look forward to discussion on the bill with all members. This would give the Parole Board of Canada the tools that it needs to serve victims better in this country.

[Safe Travel, June 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, people in the Hamilton area, and most certainly their families, were relieved to hear the news last evening that the charges against two Hamilton men in the Dominican Republic were dropped after they reached common ground with the other Canadian involved, and they have been released.

We give thanks to the efforts of the Canadian consular officials in the Dominican Republic, who were praised by officials from the Dominican justice system, and to the Minister of State of Foreign Affairs for Americas and Consular Affairs and her hard-working staff for their engagement on behalf of all Canadians involved.

Our citizens have been through an ordeal that we certainly hope no others have to suffer. I think this is a good reminder to all Canadians, as we head into the summer travel season, that when travelling abroad, one is subject to local laws and local justice systems, which are different from our own.

Travelling abroad is a wonderful opportunity, however, please be aware of the precautions and advisories that the Department of Foreign Affairs provides. The booklet that is available at all passport offices, MP constituency offices and the Foreign Affairs website is chock full of valuable travel information and tips.

Our government wishes that all Canadians have a great and refreshing holiday. So get informed, travel safe and bon voyage.

[Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak in support of the private member's bill proposed by the member for Selkirk—Interlake this evening.

Bill C-478, the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act, addresses a critical flaw in the current parole process, the revictimization of victims and their families, most particularly when it comes to the most heinous of crimes of murder, abduction, and sexual assault. These are the most heinous of crimes.

Four weeks ago when I stood to speak to my own private member's bill which deals with fairness for victims of violent offenders, I spoke about my experiences when I attended the Parole Board of Canada hearings with two constituents and their extended families in 2010 and 2011. To say it was an experience of raw emotion would be a vast understatement. I do not think words can accurately describe the range of emotions that existed in that room. There was the anger and frustration, the injustice and fatigue of having to go through the process once again. More than anything else, there was the overwhelming grief, sorrow, and pain of loss.

While I can only draw on what I saw on those two separate occasions, what I saw told me very clearly that a loss or losses which occurred three decades previous seems like only yesterday to a victim or a victim's family.

I met the week before last with the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Ms. Sue O'Sullivan. She agrees it is a revictimization inflicted by the parole process and is most disheartening according to the countless victims her office has interacted with to date.

In July, my constituents will be attending the next Parole Board of Canada hearing of the murderer of their sister, niece and nephew, and I will once again accompany them to observe the process. However, I have no doubt that the day will trigger all the emotions again, and my constituent will weep openly from the moment she begins to read her victim impact statement. I suspect she and her parents are already experiencing periods of great sadness and anxiety in anticipation of that day.

I talk about what I saw in those Parole Board hearings once again in this debate on Bill C-478 because I think it illustrates the issue of revictimization. Just as my colleague from Okanagan—Coquihalla had a very painful personal experience with a victim's family with respect to a murderous crime, so have I. Our stories are representative of thousands of victims and families, and this grows substantially every year.

The triple murder was the subject of the Parole Board hearings I attended with my constituents, fortunately not matters that included abduction and sexual assault. I can only imagine how much more emotionally taxing that would be on the families. I can only imagine it would be exponential no doubt.

In the specific types of cases that Bill C-478 addresses, those of abduction, sexual assault, and murder, the parole process is particularly cruel because it is unnecessary. The criminals who commit those types of crimes are never granted parole. They are so sadistic that the intent of the law is to lock them up for life to keep them off the streets.

Whether it is Paul Bernardo, Robert Pickton, or Clifford Olson, we as a society know that parole will never and must never happen. However, under the current law, the Parole Board of Canada must hold a parole hearing for these depraved murderers every two years after the 25-year parole ineligibility period has expired.

Clifford Olson, though now dead, was never going to get out of jail, nor should he. Yet the families whose lives he changed forever had to face him every two years. They would be doing that today still, if not for his death. That is beyond cruel because it is completely unnecessary.

If we pass Bill C-478, the judge and the jury will have the discretion to extend the parole ineligibility period from 25 years to 40 years. That does not mean they will automatically choose the period of 40 years, but it will give the judge, as a professional determining the sentence for the crime, the tools to do so if she or he feels that should be the case in the best interests of society; if she or he feels it is warranted, given the inherent evil that would drive an offender to commit such a crime; if she or he feels this will spare the families of the victim, or in all too many types of cases, the victims from being victimized again and again.

As has been noted already in this debate, 40 years is what the maximum parole ineligibility period would be if each of the three crimes of abduction, sexual assault, and murder were treated consecutively; that is, 25 years for murder, 10 years maximum for abduction, and 4.6 years maximum for sexual assault.

The problem is clear and the solution proposed by the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake in Bill C-478 is straightforward. It prevents further pain and suffering and it is just. I applaud him for bringing this bill forward.

As I have said many times before, I believe one of the fundamental responsibilities of the state is to keep its citizens safe. Those who abduct innocent victims for sex and then murder them have committed an unspeakable crime. We cannot give the families back their son or daughter, husband or wife, cousin, niece or nephew, but we can prevent them from being revictimized by the process.

Before closing, please allow me to reiterate some of the comments from victims that I referred to a few weeks ago, because it is the voice of those victimized that has been missing from this debate in the past, and it is what we must listen to in consideration of Bill C-478.

This was stated in the Toronto Star on April 9, 2007:

“Families have already been victimized once. They shouldn't have to be victimized every two years. Having to face a loved one's killer and to read what he did to her and how her death has affected our lives is something nobody should ever have to do once, never mind twice.”

In reference to the Clifford Olson case, which I spoke about already this afternoon, a journalist in the Vancouver Province said:

Olson, 70, who seems to take pleasure in revictimizing the families of those he killed, is automatically eligible for parole every two years until the day he dies.

In that same newspaper, the mother of one of Olson's victims put it quite simply:

“To have to relive this [parole hearing] every two years, it's so inhumane. It really is.”

Let us not forget those words as we continue to consider Bill C-478 and its efforts to prevent those unnecessary hearings in cases that really are the worst of the worst.

I have appreciated the opportunity to speak to Bill C-478. I thank my colleague for putting the bill forward. I hope that all members of this House, after thinking it through and understanding clearly what this means, will vote for Bill C-478.

[Scleroderma, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to remind all hon. members that June is Scleroderma Awareness Month.

My family and I know, intimately, the terrible nature of this disease, having lost our mother to complications from scleroderma nearly 14 years ago. Scleroderma is a chronic, often progressive autoimmune disease, like rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis, where the body's immune system attacks its own tissues. Scleroderma can cause one's internal organs to turn as hard as stone and one's skin can tear easily, like parchment. Unfortunately, it afflicts women three times more often than men.

Our government has invested almost $1.5 million, through a CIHR grant, for the Scleroderma Patient-Centered Intervention Network and in doing so, has recognized the groundbreaking work of this team. However, more needs to be done. I ask all members to participate in the many fundraising events that will take place this month to raise funds for more research for scleroderma. I will be walking this Saturday, in memory of my mother, at McQuesten Park, in Hamilton.

I kindly ask all Canadians to join me and others to find a cure for scleroderma.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened intently all morning, and now into the afternoon, to members across the way regarding this bill. For years, there have been a number of iterations of the bill. It has been in the public domain and throughout the aboriginal community. There have been 103 consultation sessions in 76 different locations, but members across the way constantly say that we have not listened with regard the bill. I do not understand how they could sit through 15 hours of committee with witnesses clearly saying that the legislation would have saved them their home, from being out on the street with their kids. They continually rationalize why they will vote against it.

Those members keep trying to say that, yes, they are for aboriginal women's rights, but that there are all these technicalities, yet they offered no amendments at all at committee.

Those members need to come clean with the real reason or get onside. Do the right thing and support the legislation so women on reserve can have the same rights as the rest of the women in Canada.