Philip Toone

[Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, May 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. He certainly raised some valid points, especially the fact that Canadian citizenship is highly valued. People around the world have a deep respect for Canada and Canadian citizenship.

That said, the temporary foreign worker program has shown us that it seems to be very difficult to become a Canadian citizen. It seems to be more and more difficult to obtain Canadian citizenship. The government seems to want to tighten the rules and no longer grant citizenship, or do so less frequently. Instead, the government wants to exploit foreign workers and use them as cheap labour in Canada. We have seen this on many occasions. The examples we have seen of the temporary foreign worker program in Canada show that it is used as a tool to lower the value of the worker on the labour market.

Since we are talking about the granting of citizenship, we should perhaps also talk about valuing workers in Canada. In my opinion, if someone can work, they should also have the right to vote.

[Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, May 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the concerns of my colleague from Newton—North Delta are well-founded. The government would certainly benefit from paying close attention to the matters she brought forward. If I could just elaborate a little bit more, we could be in a situation where, on simple suspicion of fraud, a person could have his or her citizenship revoked.

That kind of power seems excessive, especially, as the member mentioned herself, we already procedures to prove fraud and for people to be penalized and suffer the consequences of fraud where they are found guilty of it, but here we are talking about simple suspicion.

The minister himself has been quoted as saying that citizenship is a mutual responsibility. Surely the responsibility of the state would be to make sure the person's rights are safeguarded, that there would be due process and rule of law.

I would like to hear comments from the member. Does she find that the process that is being proposed here is leading to a situation of lawlessness, where the minister is taking upon himself to be judge and jury without due process? Without the benefits of the whole process, individuals can lose their citizenship and quite possibly end up stateless.

We need to have a better understanding of the rule of law in this country, and the bill seems to be going in the wrong direction.

[Petitions, May 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition that has been signed by dozens of people who are calling for better VIA Rail service in eastern Canada, particularly in northern New Brunswick and where I come from, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

I would like to point out that VIA Rail has already announced that it will delay the resumption of VIA Rail services in the Gaspé, which belies the commitments the company made in the past.

I hope that the government will put pressure on VIA Rail so that it improves service and delivers on its commitments, which would respond to the concerns set out in this petition.

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, May 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. She has raised an interesting point.

The Conservatives have been promising for several years to bring forward such a bill. They have gotten a lot of mileage out of suggesting that there would be a bill to protect victims. They recently held bogus consultations. Quite frankly, I do not know if the Conservatives would be taken seriously by victims groups.

We are seeing the result in the House. Very few recommendations made during the consultations were included in the bill before us. One of the recommendations made mention of the fact that the mechanisms that will be created to help victims require funding. If no funding is provided, it is obvious that that the rights are window dressing and an illusion.

I hope that the government will think about the fact that it has promised for eight years to introduce a bill here in the House. I hope that they will keep all the promises they made in the past and create a Canadian victims bill of rights worthy of that name.

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, May 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very appropriate question. It is worrisome that we could be putting people at risk by changing an element that has been constant in the legal system in our country for many years. Those kinds of changes need to be addressed and need to be studied very carefully before they are put into place. I share the member's concerns. We need to address this issue at committee.

I look forward to expert testimony. A lot of women's rights groups are going to have some interesting things to say about that particular aspect.

Again, we need to discuss this bill further. The idea of this bill, in principle, is a good one; however, it seems to lack an awful lot of forethought. We need to develop these ideas further. As the member points out, quite rightly, we might be putting at risk the very victims we are trying to defend.

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, May 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the excellent member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

We have before us a bill that is supposed to expand victims' rights. It is a step in the right direction to improve the lot of victims. With all due respect, and contrary to what the member for Don Valley West just mentioned, the NDP believes in victims' rights. We always want victims to have real rights, not meaningless rights.

The problem with this bill is that some aspects are bogus, starting with the fact that it took a year to hold a consultation. Several recommendations were put forward during that year but, unfortunately, just four of them were included in the legislation.

The government wants to establish a new process so that victims can assert their rights, but they will have to go through a process created by the provinces. Once again, the government is going to ask the provinces to spend money on a federal bill. If this legislation is really going to create a victims bill of rights, resources should be allocated, but that is not provided in the bill before us.

The bill is supposed to expand victims' rights and the definition of “victim”. This is a good idea in itself. It deserves a debate in committee after second reading. This bill amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to permit victims to see a photograph of the offender at the time of his release. Once again, at first glance, this seems to be a very good idea. It must be examined in committee so that we can hear experts on this issue. I think most experts will fully agree on that provision.

The bill also seeks to amend the Criminal Code to ensure the court informs victims of any agreement reached between the accused and the prosecutor, once a guilty plea is accepted. I am looking forward to hearing experts on this aspect, because it deserves a great deal of attention. Legal experts will have a lot to say on this issue. I believe this bill warrants the attention of the House and of the experts. I hope some witnesses will have a lot to say about this.

The bill amends the Canada Evidence Act to provide that no person is incompetent, or uncompellable, to testify for the prosecution by reason only that they are married to the accused. This changes a fundamental aspect of our system and it also deserves a lot of attention. Until now, it was always presumed that a person did not have to testify against his or her spouse. I am looking forward to hearing the experts on this provision.

I am going to quote Michael Spratt, who said:

Bill C-32 also amends sections of the Canada Evidence Act dealing with spousal incompetence compellability. Historically the Crown could not compel (force) an accused's spouse to testify. This is no longer the case. Under bill C-32 no person is incompetent or uncompellable to testify for the prosecution because of marriage. The new legislation does not, however, remove spousal privilege - found in section 4(3) of the Canada Evidence Act.A spouse still cannot be forced to testify about spousal communications.

Here is the interesting point, “They can however be forced to testify about all other manner of issues--including issues that may impact on the sanctity of the spousal relationship”. As Mr. Spratt points out, “It is unclear what this has to do with victims rights”.

To continue the quote, it states:

It is interesting to pause to note that: It is also unclear why the government did not amend the wording of section 4(3) of the Canada Evidence Act. This section speaks of 'husband' and 'wife'...

I would like to come back to this. I am a bit disappointed and discouraged that our Canadian laws still make reference to marriage as being between a man and a woman. I thought that was already resolved: a marriage can be between two men, two women or a man and a woman. Once again, we see that Canadians laws unfortunately have not been amended to reflect the new reality that has existed for many years.

I hope that the government will take this opportunity to amend the act to reflect the reality of the times. Society has evolved, and unfortunately, the House seems to have a very hard time evolving at the same time.

Let us get back to the bill. I look forward to hearing what the experts have to say about the fact that spouses will now be able to testify against each other. This could fundamentally change the relationship between married couples. This deserves to be studied.

Another provision in this bill would create a mechanism to enable victims to file a complaint with federal and provincial departments for a denial of any of their rights under the bill of rights. This could be at the provincial or federal level, but most rights fall under the jurisdiction of provincial courts.

If victims file complaints through a new mechanism, this will create a new bureaucracy, largely at the provincial level. Furthermore, there is nothing in the bill about funding for this bureaucracy. We have to assume that the province will once again have to find its own resources to pay for something imposed in a federal law.

It is wrong to think that the provinces have unlimited amounts of money to spend. The federal government is once again offloading a responsibility onto the provinces without providing any funding. That is unfortunate. We see this too often in this House, and we are seeing it in the bill we are debating tonight.

I hope that the government will examine the situation carefully and provide funding for the bill of rights it is proposing today. It does not mean much to create a bill of rights that does not include funding, especially for the less fortunate victims. These victims do not have the means to exercise their rights. An inaccessible right is an illusory right.

In a previous Parliament, this same government eliminated a program that gave victims recourse under the charter. That is very unfortunate, because once again, if a charter bestows rights that are inaccessible for financial reasons, those rights are completely illusory.

We in Canada believe in our charter as well as in the bill of rights being debated today, but the fact remains that no money means no rights. It is a well-known fact. When it comes to asserting their rights, underprivileged people need more support than privileged people.

This bill does not go far enough. I hope that expert witnesses will point that out in committee and suggest improvements to the bill.

One of the last points I would like to mention is that the bill will codify the right to make a restitution order. It will also “specify that the victim surcharge must be paid within the reasonable time established by the lieutenant governor of the province in which it is imposed”.

We see that ultimately the Governor in Council will get to decide what is a reasonable time. Although that is not unacceptable, there is some detail lacking. I hope the committee will clarify that issue.

I would also like to add that many people have publicly shared testimonials about this bill. I planned to discuss a press release issued by the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes, which also raised a number of questions about the bill, but I will save that discussion for another time.

I hope that the committee will take into account the testimonials we have heard so far, as a way to hear from more citizens and experts. This bill deserves our consideration and support at second reading so that it can benefit from a more thorough study.

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, May 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Newton—North Delta. Her speech was very eloquent, and we should really examine it closely because she raised many very interesting points. I would like to ask her a quick question.

This bill proposes to create a complaints mechanism for victims. An agency would deal with those complaints at either the federal or provincial level. However, there is no funding for this. The federal government is once again mandating the provinces to spend money.

I would like the hon. member to comment on the fact that the federal government is always downloading costs onto the provinces. I would also like her to talk about the impact this will have on the services the provinces can provide.

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, May 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his presentation. It is very interesting, and it is clear that the bill deserves our attention. We must improve the situation for victims in Canada. If the government's initiative is serious, then we will be able to improve things for them.

However, the Conservatives themselves said that justice is expensive. Access to justice is also very expensive for victims. There is not a single penny that comes with the charter being presented today. How are less fortunate victims going to access all these fine programs? They are going to have a tough time.

For those who have money, so much the better. I have no doubt that those victims will benefit from this initiative. However, less fortunate victims are not just victims of crime. They are victims of the fact that they are less fortunate. How are they going to have access to justice? What is there in this bill to help them?

I would like to hear what the minister has to say about that.

[Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act (Vanessa's Law), May 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

That actually brings us to the issue of transparency and the real trust people have in this government when it comes to consultation.

Previous bills have eroded this trust. It is very difficult to trust the government when consultations are often bogus or non-existent. We know that the government often tries to push bills through the various stages very quickly. Mammoth bills are a very good example, because we have very little time to debate them. However, we need to take the time to do so. I want the House to be able to express its point of view so that the committee understands the direction the House is taking.

I invite the members of the House who want to move forward more quickly to make their comments as soon as possible so that we can guide the committee in its work.

In addition, the government often—all too often—tends to limit debate on bills. We have seen this on many occasions. I hope the government will clearly understand that a bill must not be passed quickly; instead, it should be well thought out. Experts and stakeholders must be given an opportunity to testify.

We hope there will be a good debate in committee, as well as in the House.

[Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act (Vanessa's Law), May 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his suggestion.