House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 56% of the vote.
Infrastructure February 27th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, gridlock in the 905 is not only a drag on the economy, it keeps families separated for longer every day. Instead of supporting our commuters, the Conservatives have cut the building Canada fund by nearly 90% for the next two years.
What is their real priority, ads costing more than $100,000 a pop during the Oscars last weekend?
Why is the government turning its back on York region and the 905 to fund its own self-promotion?
Business of Supply February 24th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, if I understood the member, I completely agree with what he said about the fact that all parties should be included. That is the challenge we are facing. Will the Conservative members who form the government support the motion? If not, we will not have a committee, because they form the government. However, as I said, I hope that most members will have the courage to take action and to do what is right for all Canadians.
Business of Supply February 24th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his remarks. As I said, I voted in favour of the Bloc's bill. The Leader of the Liberal Party said that he was open with respect to the composition of the proposed committee. It is not the composition of the committee that is the key point, but rather the decision to create such a committee. In my view, Quebec is a model for us. I would not propose changing the decisions made by Quebeckers. I would propose doing what Quebec did, but across Canada.
Business of Supply February 24th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with my colleague from Saint-Laurent—Cartierville.
I have the pleasure of speaking to this difficult subject because I think it is an extremely important one, not just for me, but for many Canadians.
I realize this is primarily a debate about process, but since my position is already on the record, I will start briefly with that point.
I was part of the minority who voted in favour of the Bloc Québécois bill a few years ago. Naturally, I am in favour of the Supreme Court decision.
I think I could say that perhaps I have a libertarian streak in me, because I always favour the right of individuals to make their own choices if it does not hurt other individuals.
I was in favour of the right of gay couples to make their free choice to marry because it certainly did not impact my marriage negatively by one iota. I am in favour of the right of a woman to wear a niqab at a citizenship ceremony if that is indeed her religious belief. I am in favour of a women's right to choose. I am in favour of this decision by the Supreme Court, although I would like to see in its implementation a great deal of attention paid to true consent and a great deal of attention paid as well to expanding our palliative care system, because the stronger that system, the fewer people will be obliged to take this decision.
I understand that while this is my view, Canada is a diverse country. My riding of Markham is particularly diverse, having been declared by Statistics Canada to be the most diverse city in the country. I understand that not all Canadians will agree with me, and I certainly respect their right to a different opinion for religious reasons or other reasons.
I was born in Quebec. Up to now, I spent most of my life in Quebec. I must say, as a former Quebecker, that I am extremely proud of the measure implemented by the National Assembly of Quebec. It truly took courage for the MNAs to act on this difficult issue; they put their partisanship and even their personal ideology aside. They formed a committee. They heard a number of witnesses and, at the end of the day, they reached not only a consensus, but a unanimous decision.
Therefore, what I am proposing to the chamber and my fellow federal parliamentarians is that we show similar courage that was shown by our provincial counterparts in Quebec. Indeed, it was more difficult for them because they acted before the Supreme Court decision. We will be acting after the Supreme Court decision, so in that sense the parameters or the guiding rules have already been laid down for us.
Federal parliamentarians have often been slow or weak in dealing with these difficult moral questions and they have been left to a legal void. We should do our jobs for Canadians to take part in the debate on these difficult issues for the sake of Canadians and we should not be obsessed with our own personal ideology or partisan issues. That is what was done in Quebec and we, in this Parliament, should be willing to do no less.
I also believe it is in all of our interests to engage in such a process as we in the Liberal Party have proposed, whatever our personal views on this matter. Let us, for example, suppose that a group is opposed to the Supreme Court decision. If there is a committee and witnesses are called, those groups will be allowed to make representations to make the interpretation of the law narrow, to ensure consent is real, to ensure everything is done to increase palliative care. On some of these issues, I have already indicated that I agree.
That side will have an opportunity to make representations, but absent such a committee, absent such a process, we will be in a legal void, in which anything can happen and the people on that side of the debate may not have any influence at all on what the outcome is. Similarly, those on the other side who favour the Supreme Court decision, they too will have an opportunity to make their cases known, to present evidence and will then have an impact on the ultimate decision.
Quebec, in some ways, is more homogeneous than Canada, so I would not anticipate a unanimous decision on this issue by the federal Parliament, certainly not before the next election. However, it is incumbent on us to do our job for Canadians, to do as our Quebec counterparts did, which is to put aside our partisan inclinations and personal beliefs and get down to the very difficult, arduous work of listening to Canadians, hearing witnesses, debating and debating until we come up with a position that will not necessarily satisfy everybody, but which, one would hope, will command a large consensus in this place.
To put it briefly, we federal parliamentarians should do what we were elected to do. We should work on behalf of Canadians on a very difficult issue and follow the spirit of our counterparts in the Quebec national assembly.
Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act February 17th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, my colleague just quoted some of the witnesses I mentioned, who oppose the notion of having to be married for two years before permanent residence is granted. Those quotations support our proposal concerning that provision.
I am not sure whether the bill's provisions make things any worse, but I do not think they improve things, either. The government could have taken other measures, but it chose not to.
Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act February 17th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank the member for thanking us for our support, so I will be pleasant in my comments. However, I think he is tying himself in knots in terms of the definition of the word “cultural” in the English language.
Of course, a culture of honour killings is something we oppose, but there is no need to use the word “culture”. As I said, the word “culture” adds nothing to the content of the bill and nothing to the message being sent. However, it sends a negative message to many individuals within this country. It is unnecessary. It adds nothing. It is offensive to some.
If the government had an element of consideration for Canadians across this land, it would remove that word.
Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act February 17th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, it means that members only have to listen to me for half the time. They might approve of that proposition.
I am pleased to say that the Liberals will support this legislation, but as I will indicate in a few minutes, we have problems with the title. We also, in particular, want to remove the word “cultural”.
We are, of course, opposed to these barbaric practices, including forced marriages, underage marriages, polygamy, honour killings, and domestic violence. We would argue that on the whole, this legislation would do little to advance the fact that these practices are already illegal. Maybe around the edges some improvement would be achieved, but my main point is that this legislation misses a golden opportunity to do something real on the subject of domestic violence and in particular on the abuse of women.
This issue came up very strongly in the hearings at the immigration committee over the past months on the subject of the treatment of women by the immigration system and measures to reduce violence against women.
One of the issues that got a lot of attention was the provision for a two-year conditional state for people who bring in spouses from overseas. In the old days, the spouse from overseas would immediately become a permanent resident, but now that person has to live with his or her spouse for a period of two years before achieving landed permanent resident status. Witness after witness testified that this system led to the potential for abuse and actual abuse, and it is not difficult to understand why. It is an extremely unequal relationship. If one is a woman who is married to a man, and the woman has just come from overseas, and if that woman is subject to abuse of any kind and moves away from the marriage, she has no status in Canada anymore and is liable to be deported back to her own country. That forces the woman to stay within the marriage, even if it is abusive.
I remember counting the expert witnesses who testified to this effect and argued that this provision should be terminated. I do not remember the exact number, but it was perhaps six out of eight witnesses or something to that effect. All of these expert witnesses, who ran organizations, who sought to help women who had been subject to abuse, believed that this provision was aiding and abetting the abuse of women.
If the government wanted to do something concrete in this area, it has missed a golden opportunity to simply repeal this two-year provision. I understand that marriages of convenience are a challenge that have to be dealt with in many ways, and I do not minimize the importance of the issue. However, my point would be that the fight against marriages of convenience should not be fought on the backs of women who are subject to abuse because of this two-year rule. More important than all of the other parts of the bill, which are largely covered by existing law in any case, would have been action on this front, which would have a real impact on the barbaric practices and domestic violence that we all decry.
In that respect, I agree with my colleague in the NDP that this legislation largely addresses issues that are already covered by existing law and leaves a big hole on issues it chooses not to cover. As a consequence, at the end of the day it would not do a great deal to advance the cause.
The other point I would like to focus on is the use of the word “cultural”. That word is both offensive and unnecessary. We on this side of the House agree that these practices are barbaric, so we do not object at all to the use of that word.
When one inserts the word “cultural”, it carries the implication that there are certain cultures, certain communities, that are being targeted. Whether that is in the minds of the Conservatives is something we can debate, but it certainly carries that implication across the country. There is no reason to force that implication to be carried, because as has been pointed out, in terms of polygamy and other barbaric practices, they are certainly not limited to any one community. We had the example of the Bountiful group, which is Christian. We had the Jewish group that was mentioned. Across all religions and all cultures we see, in some cases, the practice of these barbaric acts.
I do not think the word “cultural” adds anything. It certainly does not add anything to the content of this bill, and it is misleading in that it carries the implication in the minds of some Canadians that this bill is targeting their particular culture or community.
I know that the Conservatives are not always quick to accept suggested changes to their wonderful legislation, but I would say to them that this word adds nothing to the content of the bill and nothing to the agreement we have on all sides of the House that these practices are indeed barbaric. All it does is lead certain communities to believe that they are being targeted or insulted, and there is no reason whatsoever to carry that implication. I would once again urge the Conservatives to drop that word.
With regard to the elements in the bill, we certainly agree that underage marriage is and should be illegal. We agree with the age of 16 that is in the bill. We obviously are opposed to forced marriages, to polygamy, and to honour killings. It is almost unnecessary to make these statements, because the vast majority of Canadians are opposed to these practices. The existing law already makes these practices illegal. The bill would add a few details to make them even more illegal. Therefore, we will support it. However, I do not think that, at the end of the day, this bill would do very much more than is already in the existing law.
I also think that with the use of the word “cultural” the Conservatives are unnecessarily insulting segments of Canadian society.
Last but not least, by ignoring important practices and allowing them to continue, such as these two-year conditional marriages, they are wasting an opportunity to do something real to improve the situation for immigrants, and particularly for women, in this country.
Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act February 17th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to share my time with my colleague, the member for Charlottetown.
Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act February 17th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, my colleague may have answered the question I was going to ask. I would just like to be sure.
I believe that the NDP and the Liberals agree that we accept the term “barbaric”, but not the term “cultural”. It seems to me that if we use the term “cultural”, some communities will believe that they may be the problem, which is not the case. We believe that these practices are barbaric, but found in all cultures. It seems to me that the term “cultural” adds nothing to this bill.
I would just like to check whether my colleague agrees with that.
Citizenship and Immigration February 16th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have pursued yo-yo diplomacy with China, hating China when it boycotted the Beijing Olympics then loving China when the former foreign affairs minister referred to China as an ally. Is it not this incompetent, erratic policy that explains why the U.S. gets 10-year visas and Canada gets nothing? At this time of good will, as we usher in the Year of the Sheep, will the government approach China on 10-year visas today?