House of Commons Hansard #232 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was victims.

Topics

Citizenship and ImmigrationOral Questions

2:50 p.m.

NDP

Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

Mr. Speaker, cuts to the health care of refugee claimants are just one of the minister’s many ways to reduce the number of vulnerable people seeking assistance here in Canada. The numbers do not lie. While our international partners are facing unprecedented migration crises, here in Canada we have gone from 40,000 refugee claims per year to about 10,000 claims per year. That is shameful.

How can the minister justify these figures that are so inconsistent with the values of openness that Canadians are so proud of?

Citizenship and ImmigrationOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Ajax—Pickering Ontario

Conservative

Chris Alexander ConservativeMinister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, the NDP’s position is already known. If we listened to the NDP, we would have given health care to failed refugee claimants, to fraudulent claimants. We would be providing asylum to people from safe countries, such as those in the European Union.

We are not going to do that. We are going to focus on genuine refugees and the truly vulnerable, such as those coming from Iraq, Syria and war-torn countries. That is exactly what we are doing, without any support from the NDP.

Committees of the HouseOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON

Mr. Speaker, now that the Conservatives have reduced parliamentary committees to a mere rubber stamp for government bills, committees are no longer honouring what they heard from witnesses, as parliamentary secretaries impose the will of the PMO on committee business. What was once the best of Parliament has become a meaningless farce under the Conservatives.

Will the government free parliamentary committees from PMO intimidation by removing parliamentary secretaries and by electing strengthened chairs by secret ballot?

Committees of the HouseOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

York—Simcoe Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of a Parliament where we have delivered results for Canadians on the things that matter to them: job creation and economic growth. We are ensuring that the security of Canadians remains first and foremost in what we are doing. We are proud of the work that has come from our parliamentary committees in doing this.

As a result, this Parliament will go down in history as one of the most productive in terms of delivering results on new justice bills that are making Canadians more safe and secure. We thank the justice committee and so many other committees that have helped make our legislative track record a success.

Science and TechnologyOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Liberal

Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, this government has no respect at all for science. It has muzzled our scientists, especially those who dare speak out about climate change. Our leader made a firm commitment today to allow scientists to speak freely. Canadians pay for federal research and they have a right to know the truth.

Why does this government not understand that our decisions must be guided by science and not ideology? Why does this government not allow our scientists to tell us the truth?

Science and TechnologyOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

London West Ontario

Conservative

Ed Holder ConservativeMinister of State (Science and Technology)

Mr. Speaker, the premise of that question is ridiculous. Our government has made unprecedented investments in science, technology and innovation to create jobs and improve Canadians' quality of life.

We also announced a new open access policy for science that will provide online access to all federally funded research, including research carried out by federal scientists. Canadian federal departments and agencies publish more than 4,000 scientific articles a year, and we are proud of the work that they do.

Aboriginal AffairsOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

NDP

Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON

Mr. Speaker, the First Nations Social Development Society provides vital support to B.C. first nations, especially to persons living with disabilities on reserve, but last month, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs made the unilateral decision to eliminate its funding at the end of June. This reckless decision will kill these essential services, and the department has no plan to replace them.

This is a shameful abandonment of some of the most vulnerable people in this country. Will the minister reverse these reckless cuts?

Aboriginal AffairsOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Madawaska—Restigouche New Brunswick

Conservative

Bernard Valcourt ConservativeMinister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

Mr. Speaker, we will continue to work with first nations in B.C. and throughout Canada and continue working with willing partners to achieve better results and better outcomes for first nations throughout the country.

Aboriginal AffairsOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

NDP

Niki Ashton NDP Churchill, MB

Mr. Speaker, they are willing partners, and they want to work with the government to help people with disabilities.

Now let us move to the Privacy Commissioner, who found that officials in two government departments wilfully broke privacy laws when they spied on Cindy Blackstock, an indigenous human rights champion. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs told the House, “We shall fully implement the recommendations of the commissioner”, but when Blackstock's lawyers went to the government officials and asked them to sign a commitment that included that they stop spying on her, they refused.

Why is the minister telling the House and the media one thing but directing his officials to continue, essentially, to spy on Cindy Blackstock?

Aboriginal AffairsOral Questions

3 p.m.

Madawaska—Restigouche New Brunswick

Conservative

Bernard Valcourt ConservativeMinister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

Mr. Speaker, this is totally ridiculous. No such instructions are given by the minister to bureaucrats or to anybody. This is just fabrication on the part of the hon. member. I would believe and would hope that she could be better than that.

Veterans AffairsOral Questions

3 p.m.

Conservative

Corneliu Chisu Conservative Pickering—Scarborough East, ON

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the budget implementation act passed its final vote, which included new benefits and tax cuts for veterans and their families.

Could the Minister of Veterans Affairs please give us an update on what our government is doing for veterans and their families?

Veterans AffairsOral Questions

3 p.m.

Erin O'Toole Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Pickering—Scarborough East for his support for Bill C-59, which passed this House yesterday.

That bill includes the new retirement income security benefit for veterans over 65, the critical injury benefit, the family caregiver relief benefit, all new benefits to help veterans and their families. This is on top of our expansion of the permanent impairment allowance, reserve force fairness, and the hiring of tactical teams of caseworkers to deploy across the country.

The sad reality is that even though the parliamentary committee fully recommended many of these new benefits, the New Democrats and the Liberals voted against them.

Social DevelopmentOral Questions

3 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, Tina Fontaine was a young teenager. She was murdered and found in the Red River. She was under the NDP foster care system at the time. In April of this year, yet another young girl, left under the Manitoba foster care program once again, was sexually assaulted and beaten almost to death. There is a foster—

Social DevelopmentOral Questions

3 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Order. I am not sure which federal government department is responsible for Manitoba's foster care system. I did not hear anything in the preamble there.

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

HealthOral Questions

3 p.m.

NDP

Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, the air pollution problem in Limoilou is far from being resolved. An access to information request has revealed that the Minister of the Environment did not see fit to verify whether Quebec Stevedoring had to submit a report to the National Pollutant Release Inventory. Nothing was done before 2014, even though this has been a problem since 1979 and has been in the media since 2012.

Can the minister finally tell us whether Quebec Stevedoring will have to report its dust emissions to the National Pollutant Release Inventory?

HealthOral Questions

3 p.m.

Halton Ontario

Conservative

Lisa Raitt ConservativeMinister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, I heard the question from the hon. member. I will find out from the Port of Quebec, which is an arm's-length entity from the Canadian government, whether or not it has some information from its tenant.

HealthOral Questions

3 p.m.

Conservative

Wai Young Conservative Vancouver South, BC

Mr. Speaker, there are now even more marijuana stores in Vancouver than ever before, many located near our schools and community centres and playgrounds. Some have even been caught selling marijuana to children.

Could the Minister of Health please give this House an update on the serious research-based health risks from smoking marijuana?

HealthOral Questions

3 p.m.

Edmonton—Spruce Grove Alberta

Conservative

Rona Ambrose ConservativeMinister of Health

Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government is going to continue to stop kids from smoking marijuana, because we know it has very serious and lasting health effects for youth. In fact, the former president of the Canadian Medical Association was clear when he said, “The health risks of smoking marijuana for youth are irrefutable”. He said that marijuana is dangerous for kids. It leads to increased risks of mental health issues, including psychosis and schizophrenia.

While the Liberal leader and the New Democrats support making marijuana use an everyday normal activity and having it available in storefronts like Starbucks, our government will continue to protect young people from marijuana.

Intergovernmental RelationsOral Questions

3 p.m.

Bloc

Louis Plamondon Bloc Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC

Mr. Speaker, the government introduced bills this week for the sole purpose of building its election platform. While it is at it, why does the government not introduce bills in response to Quebec's expectations, such as a bill to comply with environmental measures in relation to pipelines, a bill in line with Quebec's expectations as regards foreign workers, or a bill in line with Quebec's expectations as regards firearms?

As long as it is using public funds, it should be using them to further Quebec's interests as well.

Intergovernmental RelationsOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

York—Simcoe Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of our agenda that we have delivered on, and also of the agenda that we are laying out. The work of this government continues and includes important bills, including on gun crime.

We have a bill that has been introduced by my colleague, the Minister of Justice, that would deal with the question of mandatory sentences for possession of illegal handguns, a response to the court decision but a critical piece of legislation to respond to.

It is the right thing to do to tell Canadians how we are going to make them safe and how we are going to combat gun crime. That is important for the people of Quebec and the people of Canada.

JusticeOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Independent

André Bellavance Independent Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said so himself: the only reason they are introducing so many bills these days is to win votes.

Having touched on numerous subjects, the government is nevertheless avoiding the subject of medical aid in dying even though there has been consensus on this issue in Quebec since the end-of-life care act was passed a year ago.

The Minister of Justice promised that a consultation process would be launched by the end of the session, which we know is just a few days away.

Will he keep his promise?

JusticeOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Central Nova Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, we intended to launch a consultation process in Canada. We made that promise.

This is a very important issue, an issue that touches lives in communities across this great country. We intend to have a very inclusive consultation. We expect to say more about this in the very near future.

I thank the hon. member for his interest in this important issue.

Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB

Mr. Speaker, with the passage of Bill S-7, Canada would join the growing list of like-minded countries criminalizing forced marriage.

Moreover, the proposed maximum sentence of imprisonment of five years lies within the average range of penalties of the countries I outlined just prior to question period. Some have claimed that these offences have no impact because there have been few convictions. I completely disagree, and for several reasons.

First, as the RCMP pointed out in their written submission to the citizenship and immigration committee, criminal law is not only about punishing violations of agreed-upon social codes of conduct, but it also serves to clearly establish the limits of acceptable social conduct. The criminalization of forced marriage has a symbolic function. It sends out a public message that forced marriage is socially unacceptable.

Second, a specific criminal offence of forced marriage can empower victims by allowing them to clearly articulate that it is a crime to force them to marry against their will. In fact, this very point was raised in the testimony of Lee Marsh, one of the committee's witnesses and a victim of a forced marriage who indicated that if she had known forced marriage was against the law, she might have been able to refuse the marriage.

Third, enhancing victims' awareness of their rights can lead to an increase in reporting, both to the police and to victim service agencies. For example, a Copenhagen-based organization reported a surge in victims coming forward to seek help after Denmark criminalized forced marriage. The threat of criminal sanction coupled with awareness-raising and prevention measures, can help reduce these practices rather than drive them underground, as some would claim.

Fourth, forced marriage constitutes a distinct violation of the human rights of the victim that is of sufficient gravity that it should be considered as a crime separate from existing criminal offences. The proposed new offence in Bill S-7 focuses on the point where the harm of forcing someone into an unwanted marriage crystalizes, namely the marriage ceremony itself. It addresses the unique harm associated with community endorsement of the creation of an unwanted legal bond within which sexual assaults are expected to occur. This new offence is also required because forced marriage is not a subcategory of existing general offences.

Fifth, a specific criminal offence will permit victims and the authorities to prevent the forced marriage ceremony from taking place by using the preventive aspect of the criminal law. Bill S-7 is structured precisely so that victims can benefit from the specific forced and underage peace bonds to prevent the ceremony from taking place. Moreover, Bill S-7 provides law enforcement with the tools to stop the removal of a child from Canada for the purposes of a forced or underage marriage abroad.

Finally, the criminalization of forced marriage serves to dissuade and deter people from violating the fundamental rights of the victim. As many families who force their children into unwanted marriages may otherwise be law-abiding, the very existence of these specific offences may be sufficient to dissuade them from proceeding with the forced or underage marriage ceremony.

I would like to end my speech today by saying a few words about the proposed amendments to the defence of provocation in the Criminal Code. The defence of provocation applies only in cases where murder is actually proven. If successful, it results in a verdict of manslaughter, which has no mandatory minimum sentence, instead of murder, which carries a mandatory sentence of life in prison and strict parole ineligibility rules.

Currently, the defence will be successful where the murder was committed in response to a wrongful act or insult from the victim that would be sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-control, and where the accused acted suddenly before there was time for his passion to cool.

Provocation can be established even where the victim's conduct was perfectly legal or lawful. The defence is, in fact, raised in cases of spousal homicide against women where the alleged provocation was lawful conduct such as leaving a relationship or insulting the perpetrator's virility.

Historically, the provocation defence was the original honour defence in our common law tradition. It was limited to certain categories of conduct related to a man defending his honour, such as when finding another man committing adultery with his wife, which was viewed as the highest invasion of property. The defence was correctly criticized for decades for excusing male violence against women on the basis of outdated notions that have no place in contemporary Canadian society.

The proposed amendment in Bill S-7 would limit provocation so that it could only be raised where the alleged provoking conduct by the victim would amount to an offence punishable by five years in prison, or more.

In my view, it is entirely appropriate that Canada amend a defence that originates from a time when women were legal property of their husbands and when defence gave men latitude to kill in response to conduct that insulted their personal sense of honour.

Our Conservative government is taking steps to strengthen our laws to help ensure that no young girl or woman in Canada becomes a victim of early or forced marriage, polygamy, so-called honour-based violence, or any other form of harmful cultural practice.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill and align Canada with like-minded countries that are grappling with similar forms of violence against women and girls.

Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

As is now Conservative tradition, every NDP amendment, and there were only two in this case, were defeated during consideration of the bill by the committee in question. We have very serious concerns about the bill, including the fact that the unfortunate victims of forced or polygamous marriages could be deported from Canada and be victimized yet again. That is one of the unintended consequences of this bill.

I would like to know whether my colleague is open to considering amendments to prevent the deportation of women who unfortunately were victimized by their particular situation.