Ève Péclet

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I just have one question. Did the government consult the provinces before changing the age to 67? We all know that the provinces will have to cope with the two years that seniors are not going to receive money.

For now, the economic burden will be downloaded onto the provinces and they will have to deal with it. The money that this government refuses to invest for seniors will have to be invested by the provinces.

Why is this government not assuming its responsibilities, instead of chucking them onto the provinces?

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, the government keeps saying that we cannot afford this pension plan right now and that is why it is raising the age of accessibility to 67. If we would have tax fairness in this country, a tax system that is according to the revenues of everybody, would we be able to afford social programs like the OAS?

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, April 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as I said to my colleague, with regard to the way of determining what reasonable force is, it is very important that the legislator provide the courts with the clearest possible guidance. I was speaking of the subjective element in the bill in relation to domestic violence but also in relation to people with a history of violence. Force that may be considered an unreasonable response in one situation might well be considered reasonable if there is a history of violence. It is therefore the role of the government, as my colleague said, to inform the people but also to provide guidance to the courts with clear and stable guidelines that will make it possible for everyone to be judged on an equal footing. It is important that there be no inequality in one situation or another.

With regard to self-defence and citizen’s arrests in corner stores, in the case of young people, I must mention that the Criminal Code does not necessarily apply the same way to children as it does to adults. For instance, a minor may commit a crime. I will not get into a debate about the imposition of adult sentences on children. I have already said my piece about that. I believe that young people are considered under domestic and international law as people who should not be judged as adults. It would therefore be up to the legislator to decide what must be done.

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, April 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the section that was in the Criminal Code before—I do not have it with me—was quite complicated because there were a number of quite similar situations that followed one another. It was often difficult to apply the section to a specific situation because it was quite unclear, and that is why the section was amended. I can say that there are a number of situations. The bill includes a number of criteria that the court can take into consideration. For instance, it talks about the nature of the force. If someone is attacked with a knife, what is the nature of the force? Would a person who responds with a gunshot be acting in self-defence?

As a person who will soon be receiving a law degree, I must say that it is left to the discretion of the court to judge according to the guidelines provided by the legislator. There are a number of criteria such as size, age, gender, history and subjectivity. Once again, determining whether or not someone was acting in self-defence is up to the court.

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, April 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Compton—Stanstead.

This bill would amend the Criminal Code, in particular subsection 494(2) on citizen's arrest, self-defence and the protection of property. My speech will mainly focus on citizen's arrest and self-defence.

The amendments would make the legislation more flexible. For example, they would allow a person to arrest someone without a warrant within a reasonable time. Often, as In the case of a number of the examples provided today, a person is attacked, may not necessarily fight back immediately, but may do so subsequently. It will be up to the courts to decide what is a reasonable time based on the circumstances. The legislation provides the courts with a framework for making decisions.

The second part concerns self-defence. In committee, the NDP proposed nine amendments to the bill; only two were accepted and seven were rejected. Even though the NDP would have preferred that all nine amendments be accepted, it recognizes that the law needs to be amended and that the bill addresses certain shortcomings and updates the legislation. For that reason, the NDP members support Bill C-26.

It is important to mention—in case the government is listening—that the NDP had proposed an amendment in order to add a subjective aspect to self-defence and to include situations of spousal abuse. This amendment not only included spousal abuse, but also cases of 18-year-olds who still live with their parents and who are abused by one of their parents or a member of the family and have been for many years. This might include any situation where a person has a history of violence.

Battered woman syndrome often comes up in the courts. However, this syndrome is not necessarily recognized. A person who has been a victim of repeated acts of violence might perceive matters incorrectly when in a violent situation. Their reaction to their attacker might be unpredictable.

It is important to know, when we are talking about spousal abuse, that the attacker—the spouse, the husband, or whoever—will not necessarily expect that reaction. I am also thinking about the situation where an 18-year-old might want to protect his mother from being attacked by his father. Someone who is raised in a violent setting might have an unexpected reaction to a relative or loved one who commits an act of violence.

The proposed amendment asked that the court assess whether, in the person's eyes, the person's actions were reasonable in the circumstances. In some situations, the court might take into account this type of history. Including this in the legislation provides a framework for this type of situation. This principle was created through jurisprudence and might differ from one province to another or one judge to another.

Hence, the interpretation is really based instead on evidence and testimony. In certain cases, the fact that it is not included in the legislation may, perhaps, be damaging to certain victims. In fact, I am talking about victims. On several occasions, women who have simply sought to defend themselves against their spouses have themselves been accused of assault. As the member for Gatineau mentioned, we have even seen cases where people no longer wish to intervene. I remember a case in Quebec, for example, where a person dove into the river to save somebody. However, the person who was rescued got injured in the process of being removed from the river and sued the rescuer for assault and battery.

Simply including this in the legislation will give victims of crimes and people seeking to defend themselves the assurance that they themselves will not be prosecuted for battery or assault.

In fact, an historical context is really important here because in several sections of the Criminal Code, there is an objective component that deals not only with assault and battery, but also the intention to hurt somebody. In the case of assault causing bodily harm, the person must have had the intention of causing bodily harm. Bodily harm is identified, but so too is the intention behind it. In self-defence, the issue of intention is not relevant. For example, a victim of domestic violence who takes a pot and hits her attacker on the head with it did not intend to inflict a wound, but rather to defend herself.

I think that this is really important. There are several organizations that share this opinion, one being the Canadian Bar Association. I read in its recommendations, which were based on its review of the bill, that it proposes that the clause be amended to read “the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances as perceived by the accused”. Perception therefore plays a very important role.

The government’s amendment is slightly different to ours. The NDP nevertheless succeeded in having an amendment passed that requires the court to consider the personal situation of the person who used self-defence. The wording is, however, not as precise as what the NDP proposed.

For example, in a situation where two men fight, self-defence is often more difficult to prove. However, let us consider someone who is 18—I often use this example—and has grown up in a violent household. Every day, he sees his father beat his mother and one day he decides to stand up to him, because his mother refuses to defend herself.

In my opinion—and I hope that the government hears this—it is important to be precise about this kind of amendment. Often, the courts need legislators to guide them in the decision-making process. Legislator must take their role seriously and provide a legal framework for these kinds of situations.

I am not criticizing the bill. I am simply proposing some potential improvements. It is a step in the right direction. We proposed nine amendments. We will amend the Criminal Code in the hope that we might continue to improve it in the years to come.

[Ethics, April 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing too good for the working class. The Minister of International Cooperation refused to stay at a five-star hotel in London and chose instead to stay at the luxurious Savoy hotel. The price of her hotel room could have covered the cost of vaccinating 140 children living in poor countries. Instead, the minister treated herself to a marble bathroom.

Is she going to use the same sleeping bag defence as the minister responsible for conflicts of interest?

As long as she is wasting public funds, did the minister at least take the shampoo samples from the room?

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, one hon. member will certainly appreciate and identify with what I am going to say.

I want to remind the minister that immigration is more than just a photo of the minister and the Prime Minister with representatives of certain cultural communities in a restaurant or a cultural organization. Immigration is much deeper than a little certificate that is sent to representatives of cultural communities with a photo taken with the Prime Minister and him.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the European Union, I am fully aware of the situation. I travelled to Europe myself and heard from many countries about this. Canada is having problems with claims from only two countries, and yes, most of those claims are not legitimate.

However, Mr. Minister, you know very well that Bill C-11 solved all of those problems and that negotiations were held with the opposition. Now that you have a majority, you are pointing the finger at the NDP.

Will you negotiate with us? No. Will you include the amendments that were proposed in this bill? No. So, we will not take any lessons from you, simply because you claim we do not know this bill. We know very well that you will do whatever you want, but this is a mistake.

You have problems, but this bill does not solve them. Stop generalizing the situation by saying that we are going to be overrun with refugees from all over the world. We are having problems with only two European Union countries. This does not mean we should penalize refugees from everywhere else.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-31. My colleagues across the floor will be happy to hear that I have almost lost my voice. So, this will be different than some of my speeches in the past. However, it is for a good cause.

We are talking about Bill C-31. First of all, what is dangerous about this bill is the concentration of power that it puts in the hands of the minister. We know very well that a minister should not have any say in processes that have been democratically created. For instance, in the past, to determine whether a country was safe or not, a panel of experts, including human rights specialists, had to be created. This bill gives that power to the minister. Why create a system that is much more arbitrary and less democratic to replace an existing process, an institution that has proven successful for Canada?

The government will agree with me that our immigration system was very well structured, despite certain delays. It does need some changes, but does that mean the government has to destroy our democratic institutions? Is that what the government is talking about when it talks about modernizing our Immigration and Refugee Protection Act?

I do not believe that the changes proposed by the minister will modernize the system. I believe they represent a step backwards. The government wants to control everything. I could give a number of examples. My colleague told me about a young Mexican he tried to save and help. Mexico would not be considered an unsafe country, and most refugees from Mexico would be sent back there. Yet all international organizations agree that Mexico is not a safe country. I sit on the House Subcommittee on International Human Rights. The subcommittee heard testimony from a Mexican delegation about how dire the situation was for people in Mexico. Human rights are constantly being violated by the government, which is corrupt and has been infiltrated by criminal organizations. It is very difficult for homosexuals in Mexico to live openly, even though the country is not considered to be unsafe.

Certainly, some European countries are democratic and developed in a sense, but there is pressure on human rights advocates and the rights of homosexuals, women and young women are not respected. Even though there is no armed conflict or danger, these people are often mistreated, arbitrarily imprisoned or tortured.

I have done a lot of work for Amnesty International, and I have met many political prisoners from countries like Greece, which would certainly not be considered unsafe, people who had acid thrown in their faces because they campaigned for human rights and union rights.

The powers the bill gives the minister are not democratic. They are arbitrary. It is not modernizing when a bill destroys our democratic institutions and puts powers in the minister's hands. I am not saying that the minister is acting in bad faith, but I wonder why the government has to destroy our democratic institutions to give itself powers.

It is important to know that there was a great deal of opposition to Bill C-4 across Canada. Many credible organizations, lawyers' groups and international agencies spoke out against Bill C-4 saying that it violates international conventions, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the fundamental rights of refugees. It is important to say that, even though the government dropped Bill C-4 from the order paper, it has reappeared in Bill C-31.

It is the same thing. It is called an omnibus bill. The government introduced its omnibus bill on criminal justice. It is doing the same thing today in the House by including clauses that go against the fundamental rights of Canadians and refugees, and that violate a number of basic principles of justice and of our democratic society. This bill has hidden clauses in order to keep the public in the dark. It is a practice commonly used by right-wing governments. They keep the public in the dark by withholding information so that the public is unaware of what is going on.

This strategy is condemned in many countries. One might say we are living in a dictatorship here. We do not have access to information and information is being hidden from Canadians. For the government to then blame the NDP is completely intolerable. The Conservatives form the government. They need not lay blame on the opposition parties. This government has a majority. If the government's bills violate the rights of Canadians, then it is the government's fault. The government need not blame the NDP.

Bill C-31, like Bill C-4, once again concentrates power in the hands of the minister. For example, humanitarian considerations cannot be cited when a claim is pending or within one year of a failed claim.

It is important to know that, after filing a claim, claimants have a very short period of time—15 days—to prove that they are not safe in their country. These people are at a disadvantage and cannot speak neither French nor English. They are given a mere 15 days to prove that they are in danger in their country. The government talks about red tape and so forth.

The government has 15 days to examine the claim, or it is rejected. That does not make sense at all. Our life could be in danger even if we come from a developed and democratic country. The minister must know this.

I have also heard the minister talk about illegal immigrants. We know that there is a difference between refugees and immigrants. Refugees are people who arrive in Canada, but without going through the same process as immigrants. That is understandable. They left their country in a hurry. They did not have the time to obtain a visa, because they were in a very dangerous and unsafe situation. We are talking about countries such as Greece and others. These people were in such a dangerous situation that they had to leave the country quickly without going through the process. For that reason, generalizing the process will not solve the problems.

They talked about bogus refugees, of thousands of false claims. Only two of the 27 countries in the European Union have problems. Should all refugees throughout the world be penalized because applications from only two countries present a problem? I do not believe so.

I have a question for the minister: who is going to arrest the so-called human smugglers? Where will they be when the refugees go to jail? What about the human traffickers? Who will arrest them? The minister should know that the people smuggling refugees are not usually in Canada. They are back in the home countries. The minister should know that. Will putting children and refugees in jail help the RCMP and government officials arrest those people? I do not think so.

Individuals and their families will be put in even greater danger. Families will not be allowed to bring their children or grandparents until they have been here for five years. A person can obtain refugee status, but cannot bring family members over. That makes no sense. Worse still, if a refugee's claim is denied, family members will be barred from applying. If a family is truly in danger, a person trying to save his family will be penalized just because the minister has decided that the country is safe.

I will give other members a chance to ask questions now.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but the hon. member is smearing organizations that are known around the world for defending human rights. I think the hon. member should be careful about what he says and stop accusing the NDP of spreading fear and being anti-Canadian.

During the last Parliament, the government accepted our amendments, but we know full well that it did so only because it had a minority. It had no choice if it wanted the bill to pass.

Now that the Conservatives have a majority and have removed the NDP amendments knowing that the bill will pass, how can they accuse us of not wanting to negotiate with them?

Can the hon. member rise today and say that the Conservatives are going to reinstate the amendments and negotiate with us? If the government decides to accept our amendments, the NDP might pass the bill.

Are the Conservatives going to negotiate with us?