House of Commons Hansard #267 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was munitions.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
I have the honour to lay upon the table the annual reports on the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act from the Information Commissioner of Canada for the year 2012-13.
These reports are deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Colin Carrie ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions.
Lois Brown ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34.1, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian parliamentary delegation of the Canada-France Interparliamentary Association respecting its participation at the association's 39th annual meeting held in Bordeaux and Paris from April 7 to 11, 2013.
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in relation to Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian Museum of History and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendments.
Barry Devolin Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-530, An Act to establish the Trent-Severn Water Authority.
Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise this morning to say something of substance for the first time in more than five years.
The Trent-Severn Waterway is a vast network of water management and recreational boating infrastructure in central Ontario that stretches from Lake Ontario to Georgian Bay. The TSW region is home to more than a million people, including more than 120,000 properties, homes and cottages that front directly on the system.
The Trent-Severn Waterway is many things to many people, but, in my view, one thing it is not is a park. That is why I am introducing this private member's bill that would create an independent entity called the Trent-Severn water authority. It would help to realize the unbelievable potential that many of us believe the Trent-Severn has. Over the years the Trent-Severn Waterway has reported to Transport Canada as well as Canadian Heritage, and currently to the minister responsible for Parks Canada. This independent entity ought to report directly to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.
I look forward to ongoing discussions with my colleagues about this idea of realizing the potential of the Trent-Severn Waterway.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition regarding access to healthy food, which is critically important for a child's development. Child and youth nutrition programs are a cost-effective way to encourage the development of lifelong healthy eating habits, support Canadian farmers and food producers in the development of local markets, and reduce future health care costs.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to provide national leadership and support for child and youth nutrition programs through the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, develop a national child and youth nutrition strategy in consultation with stakeholders across the country and develop partnerships with farmers, food producers, et cetera, to stimulate economic development.
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, there is strong opposition to EI reform in my region, in eastern Quebec.
Accordingly, I would like to present to the House a petition signed by nearly 400 people who oppose not only Bill C-38 and the provisions that changed the EI program in a particularly devastating way for the economy of eastern Quebec, but also all the measures implemented by the government since the introduction of Bill C-38.
I am pleased to present this petition signed by nearly 400 people opposed to employment insurance reform who are calling on the government to go back to the drawing board and consult with the entire population to study the impact of this reform.
Ray Boughen Conservative Palliser, SK
Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions in support of Bill S-10 signed by residents of Regina and the surrounding area.
The petitioners note that cluster munitions cause a great deal of harm to civilians and that Canada is among the 110 nations of the world which have signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions.
The petitioners call for an amendment to Bill S-10 to close the loopholes and make it clear that no Canadian should ever be involved in using cluster munitions, for any reason. They also ask that Bill S-10 mention the positive obligations that Canada has assumed by signing the Convention on Cluster Munitions.
Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present three petitions calling on the Canadian government to reverse the devastating changes to employment insurance introduced through omnibus Bill C-38 in spring 2012.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to present two petitions.
The first is from residents of the Ottawa and Perth areas, who are calling on the government to bring about a full public inquiry into the misleading phone calls that were made during the last federal election.
This petition deals with both the live calls and what is called robocalling. Interestingly, the Federal Court decision recently found that thousands of such fraudulent efforts to defraud voters were made as live calls. Live calls were the subject of that court action.
We still do not know who was responsible. The petitioners are calling on the House to call for an inquiry.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, the second set of petitions is from residents of the Toronto area relating to the tragedy of human rights abuses in the People's Republic of China.
The petitioners call for the Parliament of Canada to stand up for the rights of people who are practitioners of Falun Gong or Falun Dafa.
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition that highlights the sad fact that last year 22-year-old Kassandra Kaulius was killed by a drunk driver.
A group of people who have also lost loved ones to impaired drivers, called Families for Justice, want to see tougher laws and the implementation of new mandatory minimum sentencing for those persons convicted of impaired driving causing death.
Kennedy Stewart NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by hundreds of my constituents regarding the death of Helen Sonja Francis, a registered nurse, who was tragically killed by an impaired driver.
The people who caused this crime were not brought to justice due to administrative errors.
The petitioners are calling on Parliament to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to change the current four-hour limit dealing with warrants to a six-hour limit.
Tyrone Benskin NDP Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of a number of my constituents, practitioners of Falun Gong, who are calling on the Canadian government to intercede on their behalf with regard to the persecution of their people and their practice.
Colin Carrie ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I rise briefly to respond to yesterday's intervention by the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth. I can assure the House that I will not take 50 minutes for my intervention.
In his submissions yesterday, the member canvassed the 1966 case of Mr. Berger. I want to briefly distinguish between that case and the present circumstances, both of which are very different.
In that case, Mr. Berger had failed to file any expense return. There was no doubt about that fact, nor was there any doubt about the legal requirement to file a return, a condition precedent for triggering the 1966 equivalent of today's subsection 463(2). Mr. Berger had sought an order from the superior court permitting him time to file a return after the deadline.
The present case is entirely different. It represents an accounting dispute. The Chief Electoral Officer had requested that each of the hon. members for Selkirk—Interlake and Saint Boniface make amendments to the returns they had already filed, and that those amendments reflect an interpretation by the Chief Electoral Officer as to evaluation of materials used in the election.
They each dispute that interpretation. As a result, they are seeking rulings from the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba in that regard.
There is a very clear distinction. They have filed their returns. They are in the process of attempting to resolve interpretation questions. It is entirely different from the case of Mr. Berger who had filed no return.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
I thank the hon. government House leader for his further contribution to the question, and of course I will get to the House in due course with a ruling.
The House resumed from June 10, consideration of the motion that Bill S-2, An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.
Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights ActGovernment Orders
Conservative
Wai Young Conservative Vancouver South, BC
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill S-2, family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act.
Currently men, women and children living on the majority of on-reserve communities have no legal rights or protections in relation to the family home. In situations of family violence, for decades women have been victimized and kicked out of their homes with nowhere to go.
Statistics show that aboriginal women are almost three times more likely than other Canadian women to experience violent crime, including spousal violence. According to the 2009 general social survey, approximately 15% of aboriginal women in a marriage or with a common-law partner reported that they had experienced spousal violence in the previous five years. Of those who had been victimized, 58% reported that they had sustained an injury, compared to 41% of non-aboriginal women. Further, 48% reported that they had been sexually assaulted, beaten, choked or threatened with a knife or a gun, and 52% reported that they feared for their lives.
This is why Bill S-2 is so important. It will help to mitigate occasions of domestic violence on reserve by providing for emergency protection orders and exclusive occupation orders.
Currently, individuals living on reserve cannot go to court to seek exclusive occupation of the family home or apply for emergency protection orders while living in a family home on reserve in the event of a relationship breakdown or the death of a spouse or common-law partner.
Bill S-2 extends this basic protection to individuals living on reserve. In situations of family violence, a spouse can now apply for an emergency order to stay in the family home, at the exclusion of the other spouse, for a period of up to 90 days with the possibility for extension. These orders may be granted upon a hearing or an application to vary the original order at the judge's discretion.
An emergency protection order is quick, follows a simple process and is recognized by child and family justice advocates as being one of the most significant means of preventing family violence. Violations of these orders can result in fines or jail time. We know that emergency protection orders are invaluable tools in efforts to end family abuse and violence. Each year, hundreds of Canadians, most of them women who are victims of spousal abuse, petition courts to acquire these orders and access the legal protection that they can afford.
Police who are authorized by the courts to enforce the orders typically represent an effective line of defence for victims of family violence. As it stands today, residents of most first nation communities cannot access these tools. I say “most”, because a handful of first nations have established and enforce laws in this area through authorities acquired in self-government agreements or through the First Nations Land Management Act. Nevertheless, the vast majority of on-reserve couples cannot access these orders because no court has the legal authority to issue them.
Bill S-2 would change this. For every other region in Canada, other than on reserve, family law is the domain of the provinces and territories. Legislation exists in most provinces and territories that deal specifically with violence and intimate relationships. Although the names of these laws, along with the specific legal instruments that they include vary from one jurisdiction to another, they all provide powerful forms of protection to victims of spousal abuse and violence.
In general, the laws authorize two types of protection orders: short-term and long-term. These orders, sometimes known as an intervention, prevention or victim assistance orders, can be obtained 24 hours a day, by telephone or appointment, from a trained justice of the peace. In many cases a police officer or a victim services worker can apply for the orders on behalf of the victim.
To me, the absence of legal protection on reserve is simply unacceptable. We have tolerated a legally sanctioned form of discrimination in Canada, for women and children and other victims, for far too long. It is one that has claimed and continues to claim victims. Bill S-2 will change this.
In order to understand the value of these orders, it is crucial to appreciate the larger context. An act of domestic abuse, such as a husband beating his wife, may be an isolated incident, but it is also part of a relationship's larger dynamic.
Domestic abuse is often a gradual and incremental process, and the frequency and seriousness of the violence tends to escalate slowly over the years, even decades. In many cases, abusers express deep remorse and promise to change, and then go on to break these promises.
For the victims of violence, it can take years to recognize that the violence will never stop and that the relationship is poisonous, dangerous and unsalvageable. Until victims come to this conclusion, though, they often cannot conceive of acting decisively by leaving the family home or by securing a court order to banish the abusive spouse.
The victims' long-term experience leads to the erosion of self-confidence, making it even more difficult to believe that they deserve better treatment, that they can find the courage to leave and that they can manage on their own.
Exclusive occupation and emergency protection orders provide the separation victims often need to heal and to make a new start. It is regrettable that the need for these orders remains so strong in 2013. Part of the reason for this sad reality lies in the history of how our society and legal system address relationships between spouses. As my hon. colleagues recognize, the law has not always protected the rights of women as it does today.
Of course, we all recognize that our laws have evolved dramatically over the years to reflect the needs and aspirations of Canadians, but the legacy of the past shapes our current circumstance. There was a time when Canadian women had few options in life. Living as independent citizens was virtually impossible, employment options were extremely limited and few of the jobs that were open to women paid a living wage. The vast majority of women married, and most went on to have children and to enjoy happy, fulfilled lives.
Women were assigned a specific role in society, were expected to fulfill this particular role and were respected for it. The laws at the time reflected this social norm. As norms have changed in recent generations, we have done much to eliminate outdated laws and attitudes. Bill S-2 would take us one large step further along this road.
Part of the legislation now before us addresses the link between spousal violence and matrimonial rights and interests. Over time, the laws governing matrimonial rights and interests have evolved to reflect new social norms, yet this type of evolution typically occurs in fits and starts, and the law usually lags behind progress in societal attitudes. This is because the impetus to amend the law often comes only from incidents and trends that the public considers repugnant; such as husbands being able to beat their wives with impunity.
Today, of course, Canadian attitudes about violence against women have changed dramatically. Violence against women is no longer socially acceptable, and the law reflects these attitudes to a large extent. This is why family law includes instruments such as emergency protection and exclusive occupation orders. These orders are designed specifically to address spousal violence and to complement the protections provided by the Criminal Code.
However, the authority for these orders exists only under provincial or territorial law. The Supreme Court ruled that these laws do not apply on first nation reserves. Bill S-2 proposes to fill this unacceptable gap and to help prevent the harsh reality experienced by so many victims.
Under Bill S-2, a spouse or a common-law partner residing on reserve could apply to a judge or justice of the peace for an emergency protection order. The order, enforceable by police, would exclude the spouse or common-law partner from the family home for a period of up to 90 days. The order may be extended once, for a period of time determined by a judge. Orders issued by a justice of the peace or a provincial court judge must be reviewed by the superior court as soon as possible.
The federal regime would authorize applications submitted by telephone or email to ensure that people living in remote communities could access the orders. The regime would also authorize a police officer or another appropriate person to apply on behalf of a spouse or a common-law partner. This provision would enable people who face dangerously unpredictable spouses or common-law partners to secure orders without exposing themselves to undue risk.
The regime would also enable people to apply for exclusive occupation orders, which could provide longer-term protection.
Exclusive occupation and emergency protection orders are only one part of the protection that Bill S-2 would provide. It would provide stability for women and their children, through continued access to the family home; continued connection to the community and extended family; access to services, children's programs and education facilities within the community; and the equitable distribution of marital real property assets. In addition, it would improve the ability of first nations to meet the specific needs within their communities.
A little more than 30 years ago, the members of this House laughed when one of their hon. colleagues raised the issue of violence against women and suggested that new laws were needed. The laughter caused a public outcry and inspired a host of changes, including legislation. Today, violence against women is widely recognized as a scourge.
Statistics Canada research indicates that aboriginal women are more likely than non-aboriginal women to suffer severe injuries, such as broken bones, inflicted by a violent spouse. Today, we have an opportunity to help eliminate a factor that contributes to this violence.
Canada has made substantial progress in the issue of violence against women, but much more remains to be done. While the factors that contribute to the issue are manifold and complex, there can be no doubt that emergency protection and exclusive occupation orders are effective, both as deterrents and as defensive mechanisms.
Today, we are seeking to eliminate a human rights issue. Through Bill S-2, we would finally be extending the same basic rights and protections to aboriginal women as all other Canadians currently enjoy.
I urge the opposition to stop denying aboriginal women equal rights and to vote in favour of this legislation.
Hélène LeBlanc NDP LaSalle—Émard, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member a question about her speech.
This is the fourth version of this bill. Were first nations involved so that their needs were made known, their concerns were heard and those needs and concerns were incorporated into this bill?
Can the Conservative member explain how this bill fulfills the needs that were expressed during meaningful consultations with first nations?
Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights ActGovernment Orders
Conservative
Wai Young Conservative Vancouver South, BC
Mr. Speaker, one of the witnesses, Rolanda Manitowabi, said at committee that if this bill were in place, there would have been an option. In a situation where there is domestic violence or abusive behaviour, there are no choices. When she was thrown out of her home, she had no place to go; that was her home. To this day, she continues to pay for that home. If this bill had been in place, it would have given her an option for some place to go with her children.
This victim came to our standing committee and told us a horrible story of how, for years, not only was she thrown out of her home with her children but she was also thrown out of her community. Due to family violence and the breakdown of her marital situation, she and her children had no place to go. Bill S-2 would address this.
As the member opposite knows, this bill has been debated a fair amount. There were 172 consultations across this country. This government spent some $4 million on consultations with groups. The Manitoba Legislative Assembly sent us a resolution, and it completely supports the bill. This has certainly been discussed, and consultations have occurred; we have heard of real-life situations in which this bill could help these women.
Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights ActGovernment Orders
Kenora Ontario
Conservative
Greg Rickford ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's speech and the work she has been doing on the standing committee to work through this piece of legislation.
What is interesting is that, last Thursday at the special committee for missing and murdered aboriginal women, we had a chance to hear first-hand about an aboriginal woman's experience. What I have been most consumed with or have grappled with at great lengths in this piece of legislation in particular is the emergency protection order and the priority occupation, which the member just referred to in her response to the question by the member opposite.
I wonder if the member could expound a bit more on how that could definitely make a difference in a situation where there has been an unfortunate situation in the home that has resulted in domestic violence, so that the courts, the judge or the police officers would have the opportunity to ensure that the woman and her children stay in the house, as opposed to their having to move out, which is very problematic if not troubling, as I have seen first-hand in first nations communities.
Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights ActGovernment Orders
Conservative
Wai Young Conservative Vancouver South, BC
Mr. Speaker, I worked in the downtown east side of Vancouver some 20-odd years ago. It was heartbreaking to see women arrive with garbage bags of clothing, their children in tow, not having had a meal and with nowhere to go. That is because for 25 years there has been a gap in legislation, as has been pointed out by the Human Rights Commission. For 25 years this bill did not exist, which has impacted hundreds, thousands, of women across this country. Previous speakers have spoken about the statistics and the horrifying impact this has had on women and their children across Canada.
I would like to quote from Jennifer Courchene, who is also a member of the first nations in Manitoba. She came to the standing committee as well and told her heartbreaking story. She said that she and her children became homeless after her abusive partner forced them out of their home.
She stated:
I'm sure I'm not the only one who has gone through this in a first nation community. There are probably many, many other women who have gone through what I've gone through, and the story is pretty much the same: the woman loses the home. I'm not sure how other first nations communities are run, but if there had been something to help us, we would have taken it, rather than be homeless, that's for sure.
The acting chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission came to committee as well. He said the situation was urgent. I asked him what exactly he meant by “urgent”.
It has been 25 years. The opposition has been vehemently opposing this legislation to grant these rights and protection for these women and children for more than 25 years. I ask the opposition members how much longer they will oppose this for these hundreds and thousands of women who have been in the streets. I not only ask but beg them to vote with us on this legislation.