Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 200
View Judy Foote Profile
Lib. (NL)
Mr. Speaker, a Federal Court judge has found that dirty tactics were used to try and disrupt Canadians' right to vote in the last federal election. The judge found widespread electoral fraud in many ridings. Instead of being concerned about attacks on voters, Conservative MPs are attacking the Federal Court judge. Why are Conservatives attacking judges, rather than getting to the bottom of this crime?
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
2013-06-03 14:43 [p.17520]
Mr. Speaker, an ultra-partisan group lost the last election, and now it has lost in court. The party brought forward an ultra-partisan court effort without producing a single, solitary person who was prevented from voting by a telephone call or a robocall. It was this absence of evidence that caused the court to rule that there is no evidence linking the Conservative Party to any inappropriate or illegal calls.
View Judy Foote Profile
Lib. (NL)
Mr. Speaker, the Federal Court confirmed that there was fraud, so the fact is there was fraud. Additionally, the court found that the most likely source of the information used to commit fraud was the Conservatives' secret database. Why would Conservative MPs object to the Federal Court's fraud findings if they were not trying to protect the criminals responsible?
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
2013-06-03 14:44 [p.17521]
Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my hon. colleague to actually read the judgment, which found that there was no evidence linking the Conservative Party or its officials, or its candidates in fact, to any wrongful activity in this regard. In fact, the ultra-partisan group that brought forward this case failed to produce a single solitary voter in all of Canada who was prevented from voting by a robocall or a telephone call.
View Mauril Bélanger Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mauril Bélanger Profile
2013-05-31 11:47 [p.17468]
Mr. Speaker, in November 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that Canada Post had to honour pay equity and compensate more than 6,000 employees. A year and a half later, the matter is still not settled. When I raised the question, I was told that Canada Post is an independent corporation that manages its own human resources. However, in 2011, the Conservatives did not hesitate to intervene, and if Bill C-60 is passed, they will not stop intervening.
Why do they interfere in Canada Post's affairs when it suits them, but they do not intervene to ensure compliance with a ruling by the highest court in the land?
View Steven Fletcher Profile
CPC (MB)
Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to ensuring that we fulfill whatever the court decides.
Right now, in this particular case, the Government of Canada cannot interfere, because it is an arm's length crown corporation. However, I am told by Canada Post that they are working very diligently to get this matter resolved, because they have to.
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2013-05-28 14:43 [p.17155]
Mr. Speaker, last week, the Federal Court issued a damning ruling against the Conservative Party.
Justice Mosley ruled that the Conservative Party database had been used to conduct widespread, systematic fraud during the 2011 election.
What will the Prime Minister do to hold all those in his party who committed fraud accountable?
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
2013-05-28 14:43 [p.17155]
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the hon. member did not read the ruling.
If he had, he would know that the Conservative Party was vindicated in the ruling and that there was no evidence that the Conservative Party was guilty of what the hon. member is accusing us of. We won the election, we were vindicated in the ruling and we will continue to work for Canadians.
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2013-05-28 14:44 [p.17155]
Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Prime Minister, who has been up talking about accountability all day. Justice Mosley ruled last week that the Conservative Party database was used to commit widespread election fraud and that in a typical pattern for the government, the Conservative Party did everything it could, to quote the judge, “to block these proceedings by any means”.
Why did the Prime Minister allow the government to engage in trench warfare to prevent the truth from coming out? Will the Prime Minister explain the lack of accountability of his operatives in this case?
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
2013-05-28 14:45 [p.17155]
Mr. Speaker, actually, what the ruling said was that there was “no finding that the [Conservative Party of Canada], [or] any CPC candidates...were directly involved in any campaign to mislead voters” and that the partisan group that brought the legal action failed to produce even a single person who had been prevented from voting as a result of an illegal robocall or a phone call.
Speaking of accountability, it is time for the member to stand up and explain why he took the occasion over this weekend to attack all Canadians outside of Quebec with a divisive comment designed to protect the Senate status quo and all the Liberals who are privileged to sit in that Senate.
View Craig Scott Profile
NDP (ON)
View Craig Scott Profile
2013-05-28 14:55 [p.17157]
Mr. Speaker, last week, as the Prime Minister will know, the Federal Court found that widespread electoral fraud was committed during the 2011 election involving phone calls telling voters that their voting location had changed. The court found that the voter database at Conservative headquarters was very “likely” the source of the data for those calls.
The Conservative Party announced very quickly that they were “pleased” with these findings, so the question is this: Is the Prime Minister pleased that his party's resources were used to commit widespread voter fraud?
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
2013-05-28 14:56 [p.17157]
Mr. Speaker, of course, the question is based on a false premise. What the court ruling actually said was: “....no finding that the [Conservative Party of Canada], [or] any Conservative candidates...were directly involved in the campaign to mislead voters”. That is what the ruling said.
It was a partisan action brought forward by an ultra-partisan group that failed to produce a single solitary voter anywhere in Canada who was prevented from casting a ballot by a misleading phone call.
View Susan Truppe Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act. Bill S-2 would remove a factor that contributes in no small way to violence against women living in many first nation communities. The proposed legislation would give these women similar legal protection to that enjoyed by other Canadian women and the same legal tools and mechanisms that other Canadian women use to prevent and combat abuse and violence, particularly from spouses or common-law partners.
For many years, debates in Parliament about this issue have focused on the legislative gap: the fact that no effective law has existed for more than 25 years since a Supreme Court decision ruled that provincial matrimonial real property law cannot be applied in first nations communities, yet the truth of the matter is that this is much more than a legal issue for countless women. It is about pain and suffering, victimization and injustice. For many women, it is also about survival, courage and resolve.
When I consider the issues surrounding Bill S-2, I look through the prism of these ideas, the individual experiences of Canadians who have fallen victim to a legislative gap. Theirs is typically a harsh reality of impossible choices. An abusive husband threatens to evict his wife and children from their family home in a first nation community. She cannot leave with the children because they have no place else to go. If she stays, they will all suffer physical and emotional trauma. There is no law that would allow her to stay in the family home with her children. It is a miserable and awful truth lived by some Canadians each and every day.
During its review of the legislation now before us, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women heard from a number of witnesses, including Ron Swain. Mr. Swain is the vice-chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. He is also an ex-police officer who recently retired after more than two decades on the job. During his testimony, he recalled a particular incident that was typical of what was experienced dozens of times during domestic disputes on reserves:
Usually, a big fight takes place, the police are called, the police show up, and whoever is the perpetrator or the offender gets arrested and taken away.
I can give you an example...going back a few years [where that] individual happened to be from that community, and he was with a Métis girl who wasn't from that community and didn't have band membership or wasn't part of the band. Once the person was released from custody, he went to the chief and council. Within a very short time, a band council resolution was passed, and then he had control and custody of that building, the house, the matrimonial home.
They were in a common-law relationship at that time. She had some children but not from that relationship. She was basically forced to leave that community. There was no separation of property. She basically had no rights...she was escorted off that community with just the clothes on her back and with her children.
Ron Swain's testimony cuts to the heart of the issue. Until effective legislation is in place, the vast majority of Canadians who live on reserve will be vulnerable to this type of abuse, and there is not a court in the land that can help them.
The standing committee also heard from Jennifer Courchene, a first nation woman who survived a similar situation: her husband evicted her and their children from their family home. In part of her testimony, she said:
When I went to court, the judge did want to help us. He said he would...if he could, but he couldn't. He said his hands were tied.
She also stated:
There are probably many, many other women who have gone through what I've gone through, and the story is pretty much the same: the woman loses the home...[and] if there had been something to help us, we would have taken it, rather than be homeless, that's for sure.
Bill S-2 would close the legislative gap that continues to cause harm. The proposed legislation would give Jennifer Courchene and the thousands of women like her the legal protection they so rightly deserve, protection similar to what the law affords women who live off reserves, women like me.
As my hon. colleagues should recognize, the proposed legislation would feature a two-part solution. The first part would authorize Canada to recognize laws developed and endorsed by first nations communities. The second part is the provisional federal rules that would apply in those communities that have yet to develop laws related to matrimonial real property rights and interests. The federal rules would not take effect until 12 months after Bill S-2 became law. The end result would be laws to protect the matrimonial rights and interests of all Canadians, regardless of where they live. The provisional federal rules would give victims of abuse or violence access to two tried and true legal tools to defend themselves: emergency protection orders and exclusive occupation orders.
Currently the law does not provide people who live in the majority of first nation communities with access to these orders, yet these orders are widely credited with saving the lives of thousands of people, typically women facing violent, abusive spouses or common-law partners.
These orders, the provisional federal rules and the rest of Bill S-2 are designed to ensure that Canadians who live on reserve have similar matrimonial real property rights and protections to those of Canadians who live off reserve.
The proposed legislation would promote the safety of children and caregivers who experience family violence. It would enable children to remain in their home and benefit from the stability that this provides: the connection with the community and extended family and access to services, schools and special programs. In the event of separation or divorce, Bill S-2 would also ensure that matrimonial assets are divided in an equitable manner.
The importance of these points cannot be overemphasized. Children who witness violence between their parents are more likely to end up in violent relationships when they grow up. The proposed legislation would help break this cycle.
Most first nations women do not have access to the legal protections and tools available to other Canadian women. Women who live off the reserve can secure legal remedies, such as court orders. For women in abusive relationships, these orders are vital tools they can use to protect themselves and their children. The orders also serve as powerful deterrents to would-be abusers.
Bill S-2 would help prevent violence against women. I urge my hon. colleagues to consider the matter from the perspective of a woman who lives on a reserve with a physically abusive spouse. If they do, I fully expect they will be joining me in voting in favour of the proposed legislation.
View Kyle Seeback Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the aboriginal affairs committee, I certainly know how important this legislation would be for women living on reserve.
I want to ask a specific question about where the protection is for children involved in these situations. Having access to the extended matrimonial home is so important.
I know that Bill S-2, in addition to providing access to emergency protection orders, would also allow the court to consider these factors to provide extended exclusive occupation and access to the family or matrimonial home, which is something that ordinarily happens for women who live off reserve.
Could the member please comment on that and how important this is?
View Susan Truppe Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Speaker, emergency protection orders are often the initial procedure in a relationship breakup, which would be followed by application for exclusive occupation and valuation.
During the time period of the emergency protection order, the spouse or common-law partner could apply for exclusive occupation of the family home.
The federal provisional rules in Bill S-2 would enable the court to provide short- to long-term occupancy of the family home to the exclusion of one of the spouses or common-law partners. The duration of this order could range from a determined number of days to a longer period, such as until dependent children reach the age of majority. This provision would help ensure that spouses or common-law partners who are primarily caregivers would have access to housing for their children and or dependent adults.
The period of time that may be identified in an exclusive occupation order granted to a non-first nation individual by a judge under Bill S-2 would be defined, not open-ended. Judges may be asked to determine, as they do in similar proceedings off reserve, the appropriate duration of an exclusive occupation order.
Bill S-2 would require that the judge, in considering an application for an exclusive occupation order, take into account certain factors.
Results: 1 - 15 of 200 | Page: 1 of 14

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data