Mark Warawa

[Criminal Code, December 2nd, 2013]

moved that the bill be read a third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues in the House today, on this side and the other side. I was quite impressed with the way that the justice committee seriously considered the benefits of Bill C-489, the safe at home bill. I started from the beginning with a willingness to have amendments to strengthen the bill. The committee participated in that, and there were some important amendments that were installed into the bill. Therefore, I want to thank everyone.

Initially, this came to my attention, as I shared with the House, from the story of a mother who came to my office saying her daughter had been sexually assaulted by the neighbour across the street. After six months in jail, the neighbour was able to serve the rest of his sentence at home. It was horrific to hear from witnesses, particularly the family of the victim, of the horrific experience of having an offender live right across the street from them. They eventually had to move out of that neighbourhood. They just could not take it anymore.

The bill is an important step to deal with this issue of the needs of victims to be able to heal. The courts would retain the important discretion to decide on an appropriate distance. The bill asks for two kilometres, or what the courts would deem as an appropriate distance. The other big improvement with Bill C-489 in our Criminal Code would be with the administrative bodies, Corrections Canada and the National Parole Board. They would then have to carry through with making sure that if the courts deemed a distance was needed, then the distance would need to be maintained throughout the sentence, including after sentencing, through section 810 of the Criminal Code if necessary.

We need to protect the victims and give them a chance to heal. That is what Bill C-489 does. The witnesses we heard at committee unanimously said it is a very good step.

Again, I want to thank the House. I would like to keep my comments short so that debate can collapse in this hour and we can move on to a vote as soon as possible.

[Respect for Communities Act, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the member listened to some of my comments, but I am not pleased that she has prejudged motives. I do not think she is elevated to the position where she can determine the motives of members of Parliament.

The motives are to represent Canadians. In the House, each of us has the responsibility to represent our constituents. Part of that representation comes through consultation. We consult with our colleagues, we consult with one another, and we consult with our constituents.

Why would the member be opposed to a consultation that the Supreme Court has suggested that we have, and not prejudge whether a supervised injection site can be put at a specific location? It suggested that we consult before any decisions are made.

Why would she be so opposed to consultation or prejudge the motives of others?

[Respect for Communities Act, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hard-working member across the way for her interventions.

I do have a question for her. The purpose of this bill is to highlight the importance of consultation. In fact that is what the Supreme Court has said, that we have to have proper consultation. That is what the bill is asking for. Those are the changes, that we have adequate consultation before we have a new supervised injection site in Canada.

We have one in Vancouver, but if there were to be others, they would require consultation. Would the member oppose having consultation? If she does, what does she suggest replaces consultation?

[Petitions, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is representing thousands of people from British Columbia. The petition highlights that 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, believe that the current impaired driving laws are too lenient. They are calling for new mandatory minimum sentencing for people who have been convicted of impaired driving causing death.

[Petitions, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present two petitions today, the first noting that we are in 16 days of international condemnation against all forms of violence against women and girls right now.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to condemn discrimination against girls occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.

[Respect for Communities Act, November 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague across the way. As he brought out, it was the criteria from the Supreme Court decision that highlighted the importance of scientific evidence and proper consultation.

I have a question for him relating to that. Why would the NDP be opposed to scientific evidence and consultation? It seems as though New Democrats believe that the decisions have all been made and they do not want to hear any more scientific evidence, other than what their ideology is. They have heard it all and they do not want to hear anything more.

However, the courts clearly said that we need to have clear and scientific evidence. Why would New Democrats be opposed to that? Why are their ideologies getting in the way of current scientific evidence, and why would they be opposed to hearing from neighbourhoods?

We are talking about future supervised injection site considerations. Why would New Democrats not want to hear from the neighbourhoods where such sites are being considered? Why do they not want to hear from families and from health professionals and hear current scientific evidence? Why is ideology getting in their way of supporting the bill?

This is what the courts have said. These are the criteria. We have listened to the courts and put this into the bill. Why would they oppose even what the courts are asking for?

[155th Anniversary of British Columbia, November 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today is Douglas Day, an important anniversary day for the province of British Columbia because 155 years ago, at the Fort Langley trading post, Governor James Douglas read the royal proclamation and British Columbia was born.

Last Saturday, people gathered at the Fort Langley National Historic Site to commemorate this important historic event. The family-fun celebration featured the Guyanese heritage of Sir James Douglas with the sights and sounds of the Caribbean. It also showcased a re-enactment of the royal proclamation, an exciting parade, flag raising and much more.

I want to thank Bays Blackhall, Parks Canada, the Guyanese Canadian Cultural Association and the Fort Langley Legacy Foundation for their work in helping us put on this incredible celebration.

I hope the House will join me in wishing British Columbia a happy 155th birthday.

[Petitions, November 19th, 2013]

The second petition is signed by thousands of Canadians. The petition highlights the fact that women are being discriminated against through gender selection and that 92% of Canadians believe that this is wrong and should be made illegal. The Conservative Party of Canada condemns this act. The petitioners call on all members of Parliament to condemn this act of discrimination against women and girls.

[Petitions, November 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present two petitions. The first petition represents thousands of people from British Columbia. The petition highlights that 22-year-old Kassandra Kaulius was killed by a drunk driver. A group called Families For Justice, made up of people who have also lost loved ones to impaired drivers, states that the current impaired driving laws are much too lenient. They are calling for new mandatory minimum sentencing for people who have been convicted of impaired driving causing death.

[Petitions, November 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition representing thousands of people from beautiful British Columbia. The petition highlights that last year, 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, says that the current impaired driving laws are too lenient.

The petitioners are calling for new mandatory minimum sentencing for people who have been convicted of impaired driving causing death. They also want the Criminal Code changed to redefine the offence of impaired driving to vehicular manslaughter.