Mylène Freeman

[Justice, June 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, instead of trying his best to make the courts more representative of our communities, the Minister of Justice has abdicated his responsibilities. He should have admitted his government's failure to appoint judges in a manner that reflects Canada's diversity and promotes gender equality. It is his responsibility to appoint judges. Will he make an effort to ensure our courts are more representative?

[Justice, June 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Justice was forced to explain why so few women and minorities sat on the bench, he claimed judicial advisory committees were improving things. The problem is that those committees themselves are examples of gender imbalance, with 75% men. In the last round of appointments, the government named 10 more men. That is not progress.

Here is an idea. When an NDP justice minister wanted greater diversity, he wrote to lawyers inviting them to apply. Has the minister at least done that?

[Respect for Communities Act, June 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a government that is trying to appoint judges who are not qualified to the Supreme Court. I forgot to mention that throughout my speech.

It has been proven that InSite has brought down the risk of contracting and spreading blood-borne diseases, like HIV/AIDS, like Hep C. These are all facts. It does not seem like the Conservatives care about facts. It does not mean anything to them.

The Conservatives are not governing for every Canadian; they are governing by ideology. The Conservatives are trying to score political points. While they are doing that, they are putting lives of people in danger. That is why I cannot support the bill.

[Respect for Communities Act, June 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this bill puts far too much onus on the communities to prove the benefits of these sites when the court ruling was clear that the onus is on the government to prove that they are dangerous to the community. What is unfortunate is the government's ideological way of seeing the world. The number of overdose deaths has dropped by 35% in Vancouver since InSite opened. That is such a significant statistic. It goes against the ideology of the government, so clearly it will go to great lengths to subvert the courts on this.

[Respect for Communities Act, June 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am not from British Columbia so I will not engage in that. However, I want to point out that over and over again the government has not been consulting the constituencies it should be consulting when it has bills that affect those communities significantly.

I will bring up UNDRIP to be specific. We are signed on to the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which calls for us to meaningfully consult with first nations communities on anything that has to do with their territory, sovereignty, language, culture, et cetera. Yet every single time we have seen a bill come forward that amends the Indian Act or affects these communities in some other way, we have seen the Conservative government go to extreme lengths to avoid any kind of meaningful consultation, other than to receive an email stating that it supports them. We have seen this over and over again. It is truly sad to see the member stand up on cell towers. It is an issue that is important to my constituents as well but it is just such hypocrisy.

[Respect for Communities Act, June 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and speak to Bill C-2. It is an example of a trend in the government. I will explain myself throughout my speech.

I am concerned about the way in which we go about making laws in this country. This legislation is an example of the Conservative government's leadership when it comes to drafting legislation and bringing it to the House. How the government acts in public really flies in the face of the Canada that I grew up in and the Canada I am proud to be a part of. Now when I stand in the House I feel very sad for our legislative process.

To begin, I want to talk a bit about what the bill is really about. It is not really about respecting communities, again a trend in some of the bills that we see, for example, safe communities and so on. This legislation is not at all about communities. It is about marginalizing those who are already marginalized. It is about putting further violence in the lives of those who already live with so much violence. It is about putting in danger those who are already in danger.

Essentially, this entire legislation is about InSite. For those who may not be familiar with InSite, it is a place in the Vancouver area where those who are addicted to drugs can go for safe injection. We all understand what addiction is, at least those of us on this side of the House, and that there are ways to make it safer for individuals to break a habit so they can escape the cycle of drug abuse. If they cannot break the cycle, and that can be the case for some, at least they would not be put in a more vulnerable position.

Following an increase in the number of overdose deaths in Vancouver between 1987 and 1993, Vancouver Coastal Health and community partners set up InSite. Since then there has been a huge decrease in diseases such as Hep A, B, C, and HIV/AIDS.

InSite was originally exempt under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. In 2008, the exemption under Section 56 in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act expired. That has caused us to be in the situation we are in now. The minister of health at that time denied its renewal and that resulted in subsequent court cases. It was brought up to the Supreme Court of Canada.

In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that the minister's decision to close InSite, to not renew the exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, was a violation of the charter rights of those who were part of the program. The minister's decision was “...arbitrary, undermining the very purposes of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which include public health and safety”.

That is an overview of why we are here. We are here now because the Conservatives are not in agreement ideologically with the Supreme Court's ruling. This legislation would impose extremely stringent conditions on places like InSite and would really dissuade any other communities that have the need for such programs from participating in them.

In a sense this legislation is only about InSite. In a sense the bill exemplifies a trend in the Conservative government.

The Conservatives have such profound disrespect for any Supreme Court ruling that comes forward and that goes against their ideology. They have a complete disrespect for the judicial branch in this country and the fact that when a decision is made by the Supreme Court, if they do not like it, then too bad. They are not the defenders of rights and freedoms in this country, the courts are. That is why we have a separate judicial process. Unfortunately, the Conservatives keep finding ways of going around any of those decisions that are made by bringing forward legislation that flies in the face of it, sort of goes around it so that it fits their ideology.

For instance, the court in this case based its decision on section 7 of the charter, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of a person and the right not be deprived thereof, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice”.

This is extremely common. We are seeing the Conservatives disagree with fundamentally, ideologically, in Supreme Court rulings things that have to do with people's security, people's health, people's right to life. That is what is so scary about this trend. The Supreme Court did rule that InSite and other supervised injection sites must be granted a section 56 exemption when they decrease the risk of death and disease and there is little or no evidence that they have a negative impact on the community. InSite does not have a negative impact on the community, quite the opposite, it has a very positive impact on the community. The Conservatives now have to go through this bill to try to create stringent conditions for InSite.

This is blatant disrespect and disregard for the InSite ruling. it completely flies in the face of it. This is in the context of a government that has challenged the Supreme Court over and over again through these backward ways of bringing in legislation to the House that flies in the face of a ruling.

For instance, we are thinking of a very close case in my opinion, the same type of situation. Bill C-36 was recently put down. It really flies in the face of the Bedford decision, which was very clear that given the dangerous conditions of sex work, those who are engaged in it need to be able to take the steps to protect themselves. Now we have a bill that is so disempowering. It is not an exaggeration to say that lives would be put at risk due to this legislation.

We also have Bill C-24, which is the immigration bill that creates dual citizenship. Dual citizens are treated as second-class citizens who potentially would be deported and put in danger in countries they may never have even known.

This is also in the context of several crime bills that have been returned due to their unconstitutionality. We see over and over that the Conservatives are marginalizing at-risk Canadians and further marginalizing already marginalized groups.

The many justice bills of the Conservatives, as I mentioned, follow the same model. They ostracize, isolate, and divide people. Instead of trying to address the root issue, the Conservatives tackle symptoms without even looking for the source of the problem. They throw people in jail without helping them reintegrate into society, and that does not solve the problem.

Let us not forget the unelected and unaccountable Senate blocking my colleague's bill on gender identity, creating rights for trans Canadians who are so marginalized and are put in situations of violence. I do not think I have time to get into the difference between an unelected, unaccountable Senate going against the elected thoughts of the House, and the judicial process, which is to protect the rights of Canadians despite the democratic processes that happen in this House.

The Senate works against that process, but over and over, the government is choosing ideology over facts. In these cases, every time the government is going to outrageous lengths, really, to subvert the courts, and these bills. I am not exaggerating, I know am out of time but I really want to get this out. These bills are putting people in danger--

[Petitions, June 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise in the House today to present this petition on behalf of my constituents in Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. They are asking the government to help them with the cost of repairing and restoring the shoreline and the walls of the Grenville Canal.

This petition was signed by people from all over the RCM of Argenteuil and several municipalities, including Saint-André-d'Argenteuil, Lachute and Brownsburg-Chatham. They know that the Grenville Canal in Grenville has implications for tourism throughout the Argenteuil region. That is why they are asking the government to help with this project.

[Heritage Protection, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government's lack of leadership when it comes to heritage protection is jeopardizing a number of historic sites in my magnificent region.

For example, the subsidies granted to the Plaisance Heritage Centre under the Young Canada Works program have suddenly been reduced without any explanation or transparency. Now, the centre's season is in jeopardy.

What is more, the Church of the Annunciation in Oka, an extremely precious heritage building, is looking for support because a rosette recently crashed down from the ceiling and landed on the organ, destroying it completely. Even the Grenville Canal, a wonderful canal built just after the War of 1812, is crumbling.

The NDP wants to ensure that there is long-term, predictable funding for history, heritage and culture. Unlike the Conservatives, the NDP will protect our heritage.

[World Environment Day, June 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today in honour of World Environment Day.

Future generations are counting on us right now. Canadians cannot ignore global warming, greenhouse gas emissions, and other environmental challenges. Tackling climate change means implementing incentives for individuals and strict standards for industries and demanding leadership from the federal government.

We need mandatory targets and clear greenhouse gas emissions reduction standards. We need strict standards for gas emissions and energy efficiency. We need strategic infrastructure spending that focuses on public transportation and better energy efficiency for housing so that our communities can be more energy efficient.

These things need to be done, and the NDP will do them.

[Petitions, May 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by people from my riding calling for the creation of a legal mechanism to establish an ombudsman for the extractive sector.

This petition is also supported by hundreds of people in my riding who sent me letters in this regard through Development and Peace. This is a very important human rights issue.

I am asking all my colleagues in the House to support the bill introduced by my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île, which does exactly that.