Kevin Lamoureux
Winnipeg North, Manitoba · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, when we take a look at this particular legislation, or any other piece of legislation or budgetary measures that the government has brought in since the last election, when Canadians elected a new Prime Minister and a new government, we will find that listening to Canadians is the top priority.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want the member to recognize the degree to which the Conservative Party always wants to talk down the economy. It brings me to yesterday, when we found out that the Prime Minister went to the G7 and that 13 new deals were signed off, with countries such as Japan, Italy, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands and Portugal, fi…”
“Mr. Speaker, since the last election, just over a year ago, when Canadians voted for our current Prime Minister and a new government, we have been listening to the people of Canada. Members will see that listening in every aspect of our legislative agenda and our budgetary measures.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on my friend's comment that we live in the real world. The real world is looking pretty good in terms of where Canada has been since the last federal election. We have a Prime Minister who has been out and about, attracting literally billions of dollars in commitments of investment.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciated to a certain degree the member's comments when he made reference to the issue of the process. However, I would ask him to realize that, over the years, things have changed considerably. We saw time allocation used during Stephen Harper's government a record number of times.”
“Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling a petition from a number of individuals. Actually, over 1,000 people have signed the petition. The petitioners are looking for a sense, from both the provincial Government of Manitoba and Ottawa, of working together to try to come up with a solution to deal with Manitoba's unique situation related to our wo…”
The complete record
Every one of 3,647 lines we hold for Kevin Lamoureux, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 54 of 73.
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate how the Bloc's approach to Bill C-12 very much recognizes the need for the change. I think, as immigration has generally flowed over the last number of years, at times we need to make a change. I know that the Province of Manitoba did what it could to assist the Province of Quebec with some of the asylum claims. When we look at the legislation as a whole, and I posed a related question to one of the member's colleagues, we see that many of the issues that have been raised in the debate are, I think, worth having more discussion on to get answers to some of the specific questions being posed. My question for the member is this: Would he not agree that a wonderful forum for that is at the committee stage, given that everyone is in principle supporting the legislation?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the candid answer. Let me give the member a real challenge. The leader of the Conservative Party attacked the RCMP last week. What he said was despicable. If we reflect on the institution of the RCMP, it is world-class and recognized around the world, yet the leader of the official opposition said the things he said, disrespecting the RCMP. We even have Conservatives challenging him on what he said. Does the member believe, as I do, that the RCMP deserves the respect of all members of this House and that the Leader of the Opposition owes an apology to Canadians for what he said last week, which was so disrespectful toward the RCMP?”
“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member would apply the same principles to 2012, when the leader of the Conservative Party was around the caucus table and thousands of Hungarians were coming into Canada, 95% of whom did not have legitimate asylum claims. In fact, that is what led the Conservatives to reform the system back then. Fast-forward to today, when we have things such as the pandemic and the international student issue, which has been driven in good part by post-secondary institutions in the private and public sectors and by the provinces. Would the member not agree that at times there is a need to make changes? Today, he has an opportunity to make a change by allowing Bill C-12 to go forward. Would the member not agree this is the responsible thing to do because at times there is a need for change, like today?”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's thoughts and expressions on the whole asylum issue. I think it is worthy of note that, whether it is with respect to the asylum issues in 2012 or those today, there is a time when we need to look at ways we can improve upon the system, and that is exactly what the legislation would do. It recognizes the need for change because of things that have taken place. Whether with respect to the pandemic or the wave of international students, there are some serious issues. By passing the legislation, we would be reforming the system. I wonder whether my colleague can provide his thoughts on just how important it is that we pass the legislation because of the types of changes we need in immigration today.”
“I am wondering if he can explain to those who might be following the debate why the Conservative Party is so resistant to allowing things to go to committee in a timely fashion, where Canadians and stakeholders could give direct input to members, who can continue to debate it at committee.”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-12 , a substantial piece of legislation that would make our borders secure, is complemented by literally hundreds of millions of dollars of commitments, increases in the number of Canada border control officers and increases in the number of RCMP officers. The member spent a great deal of his time talking about the need for bail reform. The good news is that bail reform will also be coming very soon. The issue I have with the member and the Conservative caucus is that they have this persistence in not allowing things to get to the committee stage, specifically when dealing with crime-related issues.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the many words that my hon. colleague put on the record. The question I have for her is about recognizing that, through time, there is a need to make changes. Whether it was during the pandemic or in other situations, such as with the demand from post-secondary institutions to have more international students, at times there is a need to bring forward legislation. We have a Prime Minister who was just elected back in April. He made a solemn commitment to bringing in many of the changes we are bringing in today and have brought in in days prior. I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on how this legislation is a reflection of what the Prime Minister has been talking about.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague; they were well-thought out. The question I have for her is more about a process issue. A lot of the questions and comments we hear from the opposition, particularly from the Bloc, have been fairly supportive about wanting to have more dialogue on the issue. Going through second reading into committee, members are afforded all sorts of opportunities to ask questions, debate, listen to stakeholders and so forth. Can the member provide her thoughts on how important it is that legislation of this nature actually passes through the system?”
“Mr. Speaker, to pick up on the question that was just posed, what I like about the legislation is that the new Prime Minister along with our new minister have done a fantastic job of presenting a comprehensive approach to dealing with the issue. I congratulate her on her appointment to cabinet. Not only do we have this legislation, but there are budgetary commitments for RCMP officers and border control officers. Could she provide her perspective as to why it was important to have a holistic approach to deal with this critical issue?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite did it all while reflecting on the Conservative tough-on-crime policy and amplified the idea that Canada is broken. I would say to the member opposite that Canada is, in fact, not broken. We continue to work with provinces to deal with issues like bail reform, because it is a shared responsibility. The hon. member sits right behind the leader of the official opposition , and the leader of the official opposition did something despicable over the last week. He called RCMP officers, in particular the head of the RCMP, “despicable”. The RCMP is an institution that is recognized around the world as positive. Does the member believe that the leader of the Conservative Party should apologize?”
“Mr. Speaker, interestingly enough, the member was part of a government that made cutbacks to Canada border control. If we contrast that to Canada's current Prime Minister , not only are we committed to bringing forward legislation that would help in securing our borders, but the Prime Minister and the government have also made it very clear that we are going to provide financial resources. A good example of that is 1,000 new Canada border control agents, people working in CBSA. Does the member not agree that the contrast between the Conservatives and the Liberals is quite extensive, with the Liberals definitely showing goodwill in getting things done in protecting our borders?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member sidestepped the question on Ukraine. I am a little confused as to whether or not the Conservatives actually supported Ukrainians coming from Ukraine during the war. Maybe he can provide a very succinct explanation. Did he support that number coming to Canada? I think it is a reasonable question. The other thing is this: In the province of Manitoba, whether it be the chamber of commerce or the provincial government, many different stakeholders want to keep all the temporary workers currently in the province. I wonder if the member could provide a comment on that, if he does not know what to say about Ukraine.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wanted to pick up on the immigration issue because now we have had two Conservative members stand in this place and be somewhat critical of the government on immigration policy. It was not that long ago when Russia invaded Ukraine. Canada opened its doors, and I believe the Conservative party, at that time, supported us doing that. There were approximately 300,000 people of Ukrainian heritage who came to Canada because of the war in Ukraine. Does the member believe that the federal government, or immigration, should allow for the extension of the work permits of those people who came from Ukraine?”
“Mr. Speaker, to pick up on the last question, the legislation is one very important aspect in terms of what the new Prime Minister has brought forward, but another important component is the budgetary issue. There is close to a $1-billion commitment and 1,000 new border security officers, not to mention the 1,000 new RCMP officers. I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts regarding why it is important, as a new government and Prime Minister , to provide not only legislation but also a budgetary response to the need.”
“Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to get across to the member is this. At the end of the day, there were changes made under Jason Kenney because of a serious issue in 2012, 2011 and 2010, which happened to be at the same time the member's leader was part of the government. The then government had to deal with asylum claims that hit 60,000 in one year. Now fast-forward, and we have a situation, because of a number of factors, some of which are beyond the federal government's control, that dictates that we again make changes. Would the member not agree that in order to protect the integrity of the system, yes, Bill C-12 would address the issue?”
“Mr. Speaker, I had to do some quick research. From when I was the critic for immigration, I remember this quote: ...that the European Union is the number one source region for asylum claims to Canada, that Canada gets 98% of Hungarian asylum claims filed worldwide and that about 95% of those claims are abandoned or withdrawn by the claimants themselves or subsequently rejected by our fair and generous Immigration and Refugee Board. This is from former minister of immigration Jason Kenney. The member had the opportunity to work with Jason Kenney directly, and not only did the Conservatives fail to rectify all the problems then when they brought in refugee reform, in terms of asylum seekers, but the member also has the tenacity to try to give the impression that what is taking place today is all to be blamed on the federal government.”
“My Conservative colleagues from Manitoba know that, yet they sit on their hands and are quiet when we have rural communities in Manitoba advocating for something their leader is saying no to. That is irresponsible leadership coming from the Conservative Party, whether it is immigration or even the issue of the RCMP, and I'll save that for another time.”
“Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate the question. I have been consistent over the years, as I believe the Liberal Party has, in regard to the true value of immigration. Let us contrast that to the far-right leader of the Conservative Party . The far-right leader of the Conservative Party goes against, I would argue, many of the thoughts prairie MPs would have regarding some of the statements he has made publicly. This anti-immigrant messaging coming from the Conservative Party's leadership is very concerning. As an example, I would challenge my Manitoba colleagues in the Conservative Party. We have a province that desperately wants to retain people who are on working visas and people who have working visas that are expiring.”
“We can talk about provinces; we can talk about post-secondary institutions, and we can talk about unethical employers. It is a combination of things. As the Prime Minister has said, we are going to bring stability to the immigration file. This is part of it. We have a new Prime Minister who has made that commitment, and that commitment will be fulfilled.”
“Mr. Speaker, I find it a bit surprising that the Conservatives, while in opposition, are really concerned about constitutional issues and the charter when it comes to the government bringing in laws, because they sure were not concerned before. When the member sat around with the Harper government, they were not at all concerned about these issues. Court rulings have demonstrated that the government is very much aware of the issues facing the immigration system today, including asylum seekers and potential asylum seekers. The legislation is very important in terms of protecting the integrity of the system. I understand the issue in great detail in regard to the immigration file and the issues around asylum. I understand why there is a problem. It is not just Ottawa.”
“Madam Speaker, if I were to encapsulate it, I would suggest to my friend and colleague, who posed a very good question, that it does two things. It complements budgetary allocations in a very real way because it puts in significant changes in law to ensure that there is more information sharing, as an example. It is also complemented in terms of the significant budgetary measures that we are taking. I mentioned earlier, for example, the hiring of 1,000 new RCMP officers and 1,000 new CBSA employees. Those two issues will, in fact, make a profoundly positive difference for the citizens whom he represents and whom we all represent. I would hope, for that reason in itself, that we would get more co-operation in seeing the legislation get through to the committee stage.”
“Madam Speaker, it was posed to the minister earlier, based on a report, that we look at expanding the number of weeks in the training of RCMP officers. I believe there is room for discussion in regard to the whole issue of training. For example, when I listened to the question earlier, I was sitting with one of my colleagues and I thought to myself, and shared that thought, that it would be valuable to have, every four or five years, ongoing training opportunities that reinforce the changes that take place in society. We need to approach the issue of the security of our borders and other forms of security with an open mind. That means, at the very least, being open to ideas. Let us have that discussion and let us, when we are in a position to take action, look at doing that.”
“That is the reason some of the initiatives Bill C-12 would bring in add more value to the legislation. It becomes a question of whether we want to see that sharing of information, either with the Coast Guard or with immigration. (1345) If I had another 20 minutes, I could go into detail as to why we need to protect the integrity of the system and to be able to recognize that there is abuse within the system and that there is the potential for significant abuse. These amendments are absolutely critical for dealing with the issue of asylum, for example. Many issues that I have, whether they are related to asylum or other issues related to security, can best be addressed in one-on-one discussions and debates and by the presenters who go before the standing committee. We have had Bill C-2 . We now have Bill C-12 .”
“The legislation would also provide more strength in terms of the anti-terrorist-financing regime, including through stronger anti-money-laundering penalties. With respect to the substance of the legislation, the Bloc member referred to the Coast Guard, saying that the Coast Guard would have expanded responsibility. I believe that the sharing of information that a Coast Guard can receive can be exceptionally valuable in terms of the security of our nation. As a result, I agree that there need to be checks in place related to privacy and actions that would not adhere to our Constitution, but at the end of the day, that is valuable information and I would suggest that this information, if accessed appropriately, can ultimately save lives and a whole lot more.”
“What is despicable, and I would add a few other words to that, is the damage that it causes when the leader of the official opposition makes comments of that nature. I would suggest that the leader of the official opposition owes a sincere apology inside the House to all Canadians for saying what he has said. Bill C-12 would amend the accelerated scheduling pathway that allows precursor chemicals that can be used to produce illicit drugs to be rapidly controlled by the Minister of Health . This would allow law and border enforcement agencies to take swift action to prevent the illegal importation and use of precursor chemicals and would at the same time ensure strict federal oversight over any legitimate use of these chemicals.”
“A politician who says that the leadership of the RCMP is despicable, and goes on in great detail, does a disservice not only to the institution of the RCMP but to all of us who sit inside the House, let alone if it is the leader of Canada's official opposition making that statement. That is why I posed the question earlier to my colleague across the way from the Conservative Party, who was appointed by the leader of the Conservative Party to take on the role of shadow minister: Does he support what the leader of the Conservative Party is saying? I respect, to a certain degree, that the member chose not to answer the question. I suspect that he understands why it was not an appropriate thing for the leader of the official opposition to say. I believe that the leader of the official opposition owes an apology to all Canadians on this issue.”
“It is the same question I posed to the minister responsible for introducing Bill C-12 , and it is in relation to the RCMP. I am offended because, over the last number of days, there has been a lot of news and social media coverage about a statement the leader of the Conservative Party made. The Winnipeg Free Press said that the leader of the Conservative Party called the leadership of the RCMP “despicable”. That is a very important issue in this debate. The government says it is going to increase security at our border, reinforce the strength of the RCMP by investing in another 1,000 officers and that we should, collectively, support those two institutions. (1340) As I indicated, the RCMP as an institution is recognized around the world as a first-class security and law enforcement agency. Let there be absolutely no doubt about that.”
“There were 770,534 grams of other opioids and 22,237,913 grams of other types of drugs seized. With regard to firearms, something that is constantly discussed, 662 firearms and 11,119 prohibited weapons were seized. In terms of hard dollars, it amounted to $29,961,000. In suspected proceeds of crime, the amount was $2,919,000. This work was done in the first nine months of the year. That is why I say the work our Canada border control officers do for us is so critically important, as is the RCMP's. I asked the Conservative shadow minister or critic a very specific question related to the RCMP. I want to raise this because I take it very seriously, as I know Canadians do. When I posed my question to the Conservative opposition critic, he chose to sidestep the issue and not answer.”
“I want to recognize the efforts of our border control officers. There are interesting statistics, which we always like to talk about. Whether it is the RCMP or our border control officers, I do not think we give them enough credit for the fine work they do. When I say “we”, I am talking about parliamentarians as a whole and, even beyond the House of Commons, provincial politicians. To give a sense of the type of work that border control officers do for us, I will provide some statistics from January 1 to September 19 of this year. These are all seizures by the Canada border security agents. Regarding cannabis products, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 37,467,000 grams were seized. For hashish, it was 379,000 grams. For cocaine or crack, it was 2,702,000 grams. For heroin, it was 73,946 grams.”
“I suspect we will hear more about that on November 4, when we present the fall budget to Canadians through the House of Commons. The legislative component is absolutely critical. The sharing of information is so important. Things have changed over the years. We all know that, through technology and the advancement of the Internet, there are things that can be done through the Internet with all the different types of weapons out there. I am not just talking about guns. Weapons can take many different forms. There is a need for legislation of this nature. (1335) Bill C-12 has two pillars. The first is securing the border and the second is combatting transnational organized crime in terms of things like illegal fentanyl and illicit financing. These are the types of issues being dealt with in this legislation.”
“He has committed not only legislation but also budgetary measures to this. A budget is coming on November 4. We often receive questions about RCMP officers, Canada border control officers and the commitment the Prime Minister has made. It is no small commitment. The Prime Minister says that we are serious about securing Canada's borders. This means not only bringing in Bill C-2 , which would provide extra strength, but also factoring in 1,000 new RCMP officers and 1,000 new border control officers. This is a significant commitment that goes over and above the legislation. As a government, we recognize that we can bring forward legislation and that, in this situation, there is a need to put more boots on the ground. This is something that will be materializing.”
“Canada Post was being used to distribute fentanyl in my province and in particular in northern communities. This is a legitimate concern that comes from stakeholders in rural Manitoba. The government responded by ensuring there are more checks in place to minimize the amount of fentanyl going through Canada Post. That is the goal. The Prime Minister , cabinet and the Liberal caucus want to see less fentanyl in our communities. Whether it is through Bill C-2 or Bill C-12 , and our talking about the principles of these, this is what we are hoping to accomplish. Stronger borders is another issue that has been of great concern in the last 12 months. Actually, it has been less than 12 months. Again, we have the newly elected Prime Minister . He was elected back in April.”
“He wants to see specific actions taken in order to foster more co-operation, if I could put it that way. (1330) I will use the issue of fentanyl as an example. The United States says that fentanyl coming from Canada into the United States is a huge problem. I believe that what is being brought into the United States is less than 1%, but we still take it seriously. The Prime Minister has been very clear about the impact fentanyl is having not only in our communities but also in other nations. He recognizes the impact that drugs coming into Canada is having. Back in late spring, the government attempted to address concerns expressed on many occasions about how Canada Post was obligated to deliver first-class mail, or size 10 envelopes, which are just standard envelopes.”
“We recognize there are many aspects of Bill C-2 that address concerns Canadians justifiably want to see some form of action taken on. To those who have been following Bill C-2 , the government is not saying no. It recognizes that we need to get other aspects incorporated into Bill C-2 to move it more quickly through the House of Commons. We believe that the legislation we are proposing today deals with these concerns to a degree where we will hopefully see the bill get to the committee stage. We need to take a look at the changing dynamic that Canada is facing today, compared to where it was a year ago. One only needs to look at the last national election in the United States. President Trump has made it very clear that he has concerns on a number of fronts with respect to Canada and Mexico.”
“He has made it a priority in Bill C-2. In listening to the many comments thus far, both from the Bloc and the Conservatives, I can appreciate that there are aspects of Bill C-2 they are concerned about to the degree where the legislation was not receiving the type of support that can see it go to committee in a quick fashion. In fact, I believe we had just over 18 hours of actual debate on Bill C-2. There are some issues within Bill C-2 that are somewhat contentious, and concerns have been raised about them. However, just because they are not necessarily incorporated in Bill C-12 , which we are debating today, it does not take away from the importance of other measures in Bill C-2. It is important that we recognize it is not just the government's opinion but also that of stakeholders, particularly law enforcement agencies.”
“It is important for us to recognize, right at the beginning, why legislation of this nature has become such a priority. Canada's new Prime Minister , along with the cabinet, members of the Liberal caucus and others, understands that things have changed a great deal over the past year. We have seen great emphasis put on the border between Canada and the United States. Border security concerns have been elevated to a degree I have not seen in my many years of being a parliamentarian. We have a prime minister who recognizes just how important it is that the government act quickly to address a number of those concerns. That is the reason why Bill C-2 was introduced as early as it was. The Prime Minister was amplifying just how important border control is because of some of the crimes being committed in Canada.”
“Madam Speaker, as I indicated in my question, I appreciate many of the comments the member from the Bloc party has raised here this afternoon. I think this is very much a responsible approach to deal with the legislation that we have before us. I can assure the member that many of the concerns and questions she has raised will no doubt be talked about extensively during the committee process. Hopefully, the member will be able to get the answers she is looking for. Obviously, we have a minister who is committed to getting the legislation through. I appreciate the frankness and the manner in which the Bloc appears to be supporting the legislation. Ultimately, we will have to wait and see what sort of priority the opposition, collectively, will put on this legislation.”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments that the member put on the record this morning. A lot of the questions she poses are no doubt concerns that people will have going forward, as we debate the legislation. Ultimately, my question for the member is with respect to a standing committee. The Bloc seems to support the principles of Bill C-12 . Is there anything specific in the legislation that the member would like to see amended? The follow-up to that would likely be something in the neighbourhood of clarity. The Bloc supports the bill going to committee, is that not correct?”
“I am wondering if the shadow minister would agree that the leader of the Conservative Party crossed the line when he said that the RCMP is “despicable”. I think Canadians need to hear what the member has to say about the comments his leader made. Does he support those comments?”
“Madam Speaker, the Conservatives try to give the impression that whether someone is a letter carrier or a mail organizer for Canada Post, they are going to start opening the letters of Canadians. I find that amazing. I am going to sidestep that particular issue because we see a more serious issue from over the last number of days. The leader of the Conservative Party made very serious statements against the RCMP at the highest level. I think the member would agree with me that the RCMP is recognized around the world as a first-class institution. When his leader starts providing the types of comments he has put on the record, false comments, at the end of the day he is displaying a great deal of disrespect for the RCMP.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to talk about the minister's role with regard to the RCMP. The RCMP is recognized worldwide as a first-class law enforcement security agency. Let there be absolutely no doubt about the degree to which it is apolitical. The leader of the official opposition is calling into question the leadership of the RCMP. That has to cause concern among Canadians in terms of confidence in the RCMP. I am wondering if the minister would take this opportunity to reinforce the important role the institution of the RCMP has played in the past and will continue to play in the future, as well as talk about the irresponsible comments from the leader of the official opposition .”
“That does not necessarily mean that we do not have to do the proper consultation, whether it is with the provinces or the many different stakeholders, like women's organizations, shelters and abuse centres. It is important that we look at that legislation. I hope to be able to continue my remarks—”
“The parliamentary secretary for the department made it very clear that we, as a government, have invested tens of millions of dollars in fighting domestic violence and supporting women in our communities, yet time and time again, we get Conservative after Conservative standing up and voting against our initiatives. That is the reality. When a Conservative member stands up and says, “I have a bill”, I will emphasize time and time again how important it is that we, as parliamentarians, do whatever we can to support the victims of intimate partner violence. I will stand up all the time and advocate for doing what we can. I asked the member if he could tell us what sort of consultation he has done, and his response was that he was a Crown attorney. I was a critic for justice when I was an MLA.”
“Madam Speaker, the second part of what the member was asking for was to depoliticize it. This government has taken apolitical action, and we have seen nothing but political reaction coming from the Conservatives, day in and day out. In fact, in the example I was providing, the member used a false pretense on social media in order to generate negative feelings toward the legislation or toward me personally. At the end of the day, we recognize that the issue is important. That is why we have taken many steps, whether they are legislative initiatives or budgetary measures, to support women.”
“This particular individual says this legislation should be going to committee, virtually without debate. It is just like how the Conservatives attempted to bring through an opposition day motion on the issue. I wish we could get that sort of sympathy toward government legislation dealing with the victims of crime, such as the bail legislation that will be coming out very soon, but I suspect we will not see it. The member was critical of me many months ago because of some so-called reaction I had when he brought in legislation. That was absolutely bogus. He tried to bring forward an issue that had nothing to do with the content of the legislation and had everything to do with the behaviour of the member—”
“A lot of those victims of domestic abuse also have young children. They too, in essence, become victims. That is why I say that, at the end of the day, I would like to think that there is not a member of the House of Commons who is not sympathetic and who does not want to see actions taken in domestic abuse. The member brought forward the legislation and said that there are two things that come to mind. One is to pass the legislation and to pass it immediately. I have often articulated the importance of passing government legislation. This legislation is actually programmed. (1155) Could members imagine if I were to put on limits, saying that for every government bill, there would be only two hours of debate at second reading and then it would go to committee?”
“If the legislation were to pass, that victim I just described could become a victim of the legislation. Ultimately, for the individual who I have described, if there is something that takes place that triggers the death of her or his partner, the legislation would automatically say that it should be first-degree murder. This is the impact that this would also have. We know for a fact that there are endless victims of domestic violence in our communities who do not report. I know this first-hand. I have dealt with victims who are coming to talk to me, to share their experiences. We try, as much as possible, to encourage, to look for support groups, such as women's shelters, and to look at ways in which society and our system could support that victim in receiving some sort of justice. Often, it is not just the one victim.”
“It has a profoundly negative impact, and that is why I say, without any hesitation, that all members of the House of Commons, I would like to think, are very sensitive to this very important public issue. Thinking of the victims, I would like to turn it around a little here and emphasize that there are many instances of intimate partner violence that go unreported. Unfortunately, and sadly, we have individuals in society who are constantly abused, whether physically or mentally, for years, as has been pointed out. I know that the person proposing the legislation is aware of this. We can imagine, if we will, being a young woman who has been subjected to all sorts of mental and physical abuse in a relationship but who, out of fear, does not necessarily report it. There are reasons why that happens.”
“Madam Speaker, let me start off by recognizing that I do not believe that there is a member of Parliament in the House who does not appreciate our need, as parliamentarians, to look at what happens to victims of intimate partner violence. It is a very serious issue. I believe that every member of Parliament, and it does not matter which political entity they are a part of, wants to do what they can to minimize the intimate partner violence that takes place in our nation. To the families that have been affected over the years, as victims, families and friends of those victims, I would extend my personal condolences, thoughts and prayers. I can understand and appreciate the destruction it causes within a family unit. When I talk about the family unit, I am talking about extended families.”
“Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide his comments on what sort of consultation was done prior to his introducing the bill. All Canadians are concerned about the issue. The concern I have is that this is just another American-style type of legislation being proposed without consultations having been done with Canadians, in particular, women's shelters and other stakeholders. Can the member tell the House what consultations he has done?”