Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe

[Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, June 12th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech and I agree with a number of things she said.

Firstly, I agree on the intention of the bill. It is important to act swiftly and forcefully to address inexcusable and cruel crimes like the ones she mentioned. Secondly, I agree with the hon. member when she says that this type of violence against women and children is completely unacceptable, even barbaric, if that is truly the word they want to use. We all agree on that.

The thing we disagree on is the most effective way of fighting this type of crime. The debate we are having is not unreasonable, considering that so many experts who work with victims and who have expertise in the Criminal Code and immigration law raised some legitimate concerns. It is disappointing to see that despite all these interventions by experts in committee, the government did not accept any amendments and did not even question what it is proposing.

Can my colleague tell me whether she knew about the warnings issued by people who are saying, for example, that the victims will shy away from asking for help—

[Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, June 12th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. We are faced with two typical attitudes.

On the one hand, the Conservatives are saying they want to tackle crime, but they are not providing the means to have a positive impact on victims. On top of that, they allow for a committee study, but then they ignore the recommendations made by experts who work with victims and people who are very familiar with our Criminal Code and immigration act.

On the other hand, we have the Liberals' typical attitude, which is to speak out against a bill, but then turn around and vote for it anyway.

I wonder if these kinds of attitudes surprise my colleague. Personally, I am disappointed, but not all that surprised, unfortunately.

[Foreign Affairs, June 12th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the completely inhumane treatment of blogger Raif Badawi seems to be mobilizing everyone but the government. Today, the Government of Quebec will announce that it will immediately issue a selection certificate to Mr. Badawi on humanitarian grounds. The minister in Ottawa has not said a word. It is the eleventh hour for Mr. Badawi, as his cruel punishment could even resume today.

Will the minister follow his Quebec colleague's lead and take action to reunite Mr. Badawi with his family?

[Citizenship and Immigration, June 12th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is all talk and no action: in 2012, he was extremely proud to announce that his government was going to revoke the citizenship of 3,000 people who allegedly obtained it under false pretenses. Three years later, 81 people saw their citizenship revoked. Again, the Conservatives chose to play politics on the backs of new arrivals by accusing them of fraud and by inflating the figures. What is more, the processing of these cases has dragged on. Some files have not moved in three years.

Will the minister apologize to the Canadians he unjustly accused of fraud and will he fast-track these files?

[Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, June 12th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure who is not listening to whom here.

The NDP has been clear that we will be opposing this bill, as we did at second reading. Our reasons for doing so are very simple and have been clearly explained. If my colleague would like to know what they are, everything is in the committee minutes.

When so many experts agree that some measures in the bill, never mind the title, will discourage victims from reporting forced marriages and polygamy for fear of being deported, and so many experts who are familiar with the Criminal Code and the immigration act tell us that this bill is dangerous, it is impossible for the NDP to support it. If we take the committee study seriously, it is obvious that this bill must be stopped and we must adopt better measures.

However, the Liberals are displaying their typical reaction, which is to say they disagree with a bill and then turn around and vote for it anyway.

[Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, June 12th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He talked about a very wide range of things and addressed some aspects of the bill. His position on the bill at the final stage still is not entirely clear, so perhaps he could clarify whether he supports it or not.

Perhaps he could also talk about the fact that in committee, many experts who work on the ground shared their concerns regarding the fact that the bill could victimize people and make the victims even more vulnerable.

Yes, criminalization is needed; yes, we must intervene to provide assistance to victims, because it is definitely a problem. I agree with my colleague that we need to do something for the victims. However, is Bill S-7 really the right approach, when the experts told us in committee that it could make the victims even more vulnerable?

Would a responsible government not remove this bill and do more studies to ensure that the measures in it do not defeat the very purpose of the bill?

[Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, June 12th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. We are both members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, so we participated in the same study. I am surprised that he did not talk about the many expert witnesses who expressed concerns about Bill S-7. Maybe he remembers that everyone, including all of the witnesses who appeared before the committee, agreed with the intent of the bill, which is to protect women. However, the debate actually centred on aspects of the bill that could put some victims at risk and make them even more vulnerable.

Experts on the ground who work with these victims every day told the committee to be careful because this could discourage victims from seeking help or result in women being deported or fearing deportation if they report their husband. It is unbelievable that this is not reflected in the amendments to this bill or in the speeches by my colleagues who heard what these experts had to say.

Lawyers and people who are experts on the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Criminal Code agreed. They said that some terms are poorly defined and will be open to interpretation. They also said that many of the provisions could do more harm than good because the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act already contain provisions that cover these practices.

Does my colleague remember hearing from the experts who expressed their concerns to us? Why did he not say more about that in his speech?

[Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, June 9th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, this is now the government's 99th time allocation motion. This one is for a Senate bill. How shameful. The government could not even be bothered to introduce the bill itself, so it must not be a big priority.

Worse still, this bill is very controversial. According to many experts who appeared before the Senate and a House of Commons committee, this bill will make the very victims the sponsors say they want to help even more vulnerable.

I have a little advice for the government. Instead of limiting debate and undermining the democratic process in this House, the government could take a bit of time, while we debate the matter, to sit down and consult with the people who spoke to us. It could sit down with the president of the Council on the Status of Women, who says that the very title of the bill could alienate the communities that we need to work with.

It could also speak with the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario or the Southall Black Sisters, who are saying that the provisions related to the criminalization of forced marriage will only make the victims more vulnerable and could make people less likely to report these crimes.

The Conservatives could also speak to lawyers and university professors, who are telling us that the measures on polygamy will actually put women and children at risk, because they could be deported for being victims of polygamy.

Perhaps the Conservatives could take all of that into consideration and allow us the time to debate while they take some time to do their homework.

[Citizenship and Immigration, June 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, on another disturbing subject, we have learned that the Canada Border Services Agency is still deporting Burundians who do not have residency permits. The political situation in Burundi is getting worse. To date, nearly 100,000 people have fled the violence. The Canadian Council for Refugees is calling the situation catastrophic. The Minister of Foreign Affairs said that he is deeply concerned and advised Canadians to leave Burundi immediately.

That being the case, how can the minister justify deporting Burundians to a country in crisis?

[Tourism Industry, June 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, Tourism Week ends tomorrow, as Montreal welcomes thousands of tourists for the Grand Prix. However, it is disturbing to note that, since 2002, Canada has fallen from 7th to 16th when it comes to the number of international visitors we get each year. The Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism was proud of the fact that he cut $22 million from the funding allocated to Destination Canada, the organization that promotes Canada abroad.

Why are the Conservatives abandoning our tourism industry and businesses?