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 654
View Rosane Doré Lefebvre Profile
View Rosane Doré Lefebvre Profile
2015-06-19 11:27 [p.15346]
Mr. Speaker, Sunday is National Aboriginal Day, and we have sadly just learned that the economic conditions in aboriginal communities have gotten worse under the Conservative government. According to The Aboriginal Economic Progress Report, the employment rate for people on reserve is 9% lower than that for other Canadians.
How does the minister justify such a disastrous record?
View Rosane Doré Lefebvre Profile
View Rosane Doré Lefebvre Profile
2015-06-19 11:28 [p.15346]
Mr. Speaker, with answers like that one, I think that Canadians need a real change in government.
Today the RCMP will release a new report on missing and murdered aboriginal women. The families of these victims, aboriginal groups, the provinces, the territories, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada and even the United Nations all agree that we need a national inquiry to understand and put an end to this tragic problem.
Will the government stop ignoring this issue and launch a national inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women?
View Rosane Doré Lefebvre Profile
View Rosane Doré Lefebvre Profile
2015-06-18 14:31 [p.15292]
Mr. Speaker, we know that the Conservative government is not too fond of the media, but it is a whole other story when Correctional Service Canada directs its employees to take the weekend off to avoid answering questions from journalists investigating the death of inmate Veronica Park.
This kind of attitude and these kinds of comments are completely unacceptable. Journalists and the family have a right to know what happened in our public institutions.
Will the minister denounce this situation?
View Rosane Doré Lefebvre Profile
View Rosane Doré Lefebvre Profile
2015-06-17 14:55 [p.15208]
Mr. Speaker, people in Laval are outraged by Canada Post's decision to put an end to home delivery. Despite record profits, Canada Post insists on doing away with an essential service for our seniors and SMEs.
Today, we learned that some neighbourhoods will be exempt while others will not. Canada Post is making things up as it goes along. This is another example of the Conservatives' mismanagement.
Will the minister finally do the only reasonable thing and restore home delivery service?
View Rosane Doré Lefebvre Profile
View Rosane Doré Lefebvre Profile
2015-06-17 17:17 [p.15233]
Mr. Speaker, it is truly a pleasure for me to ask my colleague opposite a question on behalf of my constituents from Alfred-Pellan in Laval.
In the bills that the Conservatives introduce, the devil is often in the details. When examining the proposals set out in Bill S-4, I had some concerns that I would like to raise.
One of those concerns in particular reminds me of the nightmare of Bill C-51 and its lack of a proper oversight mechanism. Bill S-4 presents the same type of problem. It would allow greater access to personal information without a warrant and without provisions for an oversight mechanism.
In fact, I am wondering why the Conservative government is working so hard to allow snooping without a warrant and why it is creating bigger holes with bills such as Bill S-4.
View Rosane Doré Lefebvre Profile
View Rosane Doré Lefebvre Profile
2015-06-17 17:22 [p.15234]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague across the way another question about Bill S-4.
According to some experts, many parts of Bill S-4 are unconstitutional. Why, then, will the government not simply take out the parts that are unconstitutional, especially in light of the Spencer ruling?
I would like my colleague to comment on that.
View Rosane Doré Lefebvre Profile
View Rosane Doré Lefebvre Profile
2015-06-17 18:44 [p.15246]
Mr. Speaker, I am truly proud to rise in the House as the deputy public safety critic for the official opposition and speak to Bill C-644. I will have the opportunity to do so in my speech.
I must say that I am rather surprised by this bill, which was introduced by a backbencher and pertains to the Criminal Code. There are specific aspects of this bill that will be very harmful to the Parole Board of Canada. The member mentioned in his speech that we have no choice but to release inmates after they have served two-thirds of their sentence. I would like to set the record straight by reminding members that that is not true. The people who work at the Parole Board of Canada do a very good job, and they always consider whether an inmate should or should not be released. They will always act in the best interests of Canadians.
The current system already allows for the return to custody of offenders who violate parole. I truly believe that the Conservatives are heading in the wrong direction by interfering in the operations of the Parole Board of Canada and the rehabilitation of offenders. Studies have clearly shown that a gradual, supervised and monitored release is the best way to keep the public safe.
I am wondering what my colleague opposite thinks about that.
View Rosane Doré Lefebvre Profile
View Rosane Doré Lefebvre Profile
2015-06-17 18:49 [p.15246]
Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour for me to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the people I represent in Alfred-Pellan, in the eastern part of Laval.
I took the time to carefully study Bill C-644, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (failure to comply with a condition). After what was presented to us and what was included in the bill, and after discussing it with various experts in a number of fields—and I will talk more about that later in my speech—I unfortunately must oppose such a bill, for a number of reasons that I will go over here today.
First of all, by introducing this bill, the Conservatives have proven once again that they are more interested in scoring political points than they are in bringing forward really effective measures to improve public safety. The current system, as we know it, already allows for a return to custody when offenders violate parole.
What is more, the courts are already clogged up and can barely keep up with the cases submitted in a reasonable timeframe, which is hurting victims and undermining the entire justice system. Not only does Bill C-644 exacerbate that problem, but it could also prove to be extremely costly for Canadian taxpayers.
As I mentioned, the current system already allows for a return to custody of offenders who violate parole. Such violations include breaking a curfew, associating with a criminalized group, being under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and so on. It is based on an individual risk assessment done for every offender by either the Correctional Service of Canada or the Parole Board of Canada.
I would remind the House and especially the member introducing this bill that conditional release is an integral part of the rehabilitation process and contributes to enhancing public safety. I am not the only one to say so. A number of experts in various fields, including people who work with victims groups, people who work with Correctional Service Canada, or other people who work along the way in the conditional release process all agree.
By disrupting the Parole Board of Canada's operations in this way and interfering with offenders' reintegration into society, this bill does absolutely nothing to improve public safety in Canada.
As I said, we on this side of the House took the time to consult a number of experts to ensure that we had good advice on this bill. A number of stakeholders support the NDP's position. I received an opinion from the Office of the Correctional Investigator, among others, expressing concerns about this bill. Furthermore, much like us, Steve Sullivan, a former federal ombudsman for victims of crime, the John Howard Society of Canada, the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers and the Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec have serious concerns about Bill C-644.
I would like to talk about what some stakeholders who oppose this bill had to say. I spoke with the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes, which said that this bill will only complicate the system and burden everyone involved, especially the victims and their loved ones, who go through incredibly stressful and disappointing situations as a result of the slow process and the lack of consideration they face. The association is wondering how this bill will benefit victims and their loved ones. Unfortunately we cannot get a straight answer to that question.
I also took the time to meet with the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers. Although this is not being considered, this bill, as it is now, will have a direct impact on the officers' work. They have no idea how these new conditions will apply to their work. It seems that there will be a very significant impact on the procedures within Canada's correctional system and on the work of these corrections officers. They have some serious concerns and they also oppose this bill.
I also found it extremely interesting that the former federal ombudsman for victims called for better parole provisions and wanted the government to work on that. When he appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, he said a number of things, including this:
I would encourage all members to understand, and I'm sure you all know this, that parole is actually an integral part of public safety.
We absolutely must not forget—for public safety and for the safety of the many victims all across Canada—that we need good laws.
The bill before us conflicts with everything we know about the parole system. We have to make sure that people reintegrate successfully. Unfortunately, what this bill proposes will just make things worse.
If I may refer to my notes, there are several other things I would like to mention. For example, various provisions of this bill suggest that it also conflicts with several UN conventions we have signed. What is more, it conflicts with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. All in all, what we have before us today is very serious.
In summary, I would have liked to see a more useful bill. If the members on the other side of the House really want to protect victims as much as they say they do, then could they propose concrete measures to truly ensure that victims are protected? Could they ensure that we have an effective conditional release system? It already is, as there are some extremely competent people working in that area. However, there is currently a very heavy burden in terms of timeframes. The system is often too slow and if the government really wanted to improve things, it should have invested its energy on improving conditional release measures.
I think that was all I wanted to say about this bill. As I will say again to the House, I will oppose this piece of legislation. I think that as the official opposition, the NDP did a very good job and held meaningful consultations on this bill. We consulted people from various sectors, including Correctional Service Canada officers who will be directly affected on the ground.
What is more, the people who represent victims across the country or who have done so in the past have some serious concerns about Bill C-644.
That is why I am with them, I am standing up for them, and I will oppose Bill C-644.
View Rosane Doré Lefebvre Profile
View Rosane Doré Lefebvre Profile
2015-06-16 12:05 [p.15134]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the other side of the House for his speech. I think it is important to note that the bill the House is considering today comes to us from the Senate. It has a number of flaws and problems that we have pointed out.
I want to note that my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard is our immigration critic. She has worked very hard on this bill. The numerous experts who appeared at committee identified the very serious flaws in this bill. Unfortunately, once again, as is so often the case with the Conservatives, they are playing politics with an issue as important as the one before us today.
My question to my colleague is this. Why did they not listen to the numerous experts who appeared at committee and said there were flaws in this bill? On this side of the House, we do agree with the principle of the bill, but it has fundamental flaws. Why did they not listen to the experts who appeared at committee? Why did they not amend this bill to make it a piece of legislation that would be acceptable to everyone?
View Rosane Doré Lefebvre Profile
View Rosane Doré Lefebvre Profile
2015-06-16 13:37 [p.15146]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway for the speech he just delivered in the House on Bill S-7.
We have talked a lot in the House about protecting the rights of women and children, and that brings me to an extremely important subject that has gotten quite a bit of attention over the past few weeks: the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on residential schools. Unfortunately, too many first nations children have experienced the full range of the negative repercussions of those events on their communities.
When it comes to the rights of women and children, does my colleague think that it is important to come up with meaningful solutions for all women and children across the country? Among other things, what about implementing one of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's 94 recommendations, the one about launching an investigation into missing and murdered aboriginal women?
View Rosane Doré Lefebvre Profile
View Rosane Doré Lefebvre Profile
2015-06-12 11:35 [p.15011]
Mr. Speaker, we still do not know if the Prime Minister looked into where senators reside before appointing them.
Senators' extravagant expenses are downright shameful. They treated themselves to fishing trips, personal trips for themselves and their spouses, rounds of golf and tickets to hockey games, all on the taxpayer's dime and with impunity. It is high time we got rid of this archaic institution. Most Quebeckers no longer want it.
Will the Conservatives finally stop defending the status quo?
View Rosane Doré Lefebvre Profile
View Rosane Doré Lefebvre Profile
2015-06-12 11:37 [p.15012]
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is still defending the indefensible.
Worse still, rather than apologize for their unacceptable behaviour, Liberal senators and those who were appointed by the Prime Minister are rubbing salt in the wound. Now they want to to be their own judge and jury behind closed doors. Seriously, what a lot of nerve.
Why is the Prime Minister allowing these internal, secret, backroom games? Why is he not getting on board with the NDP's proposal to eliminate all of these secret House and Senate committees and give the people the transparency they deserve once and for all?
View Rosane Doré Lefebvre Profile
View Rosane Doré Lefebvre Profile
2015-06-12 12:47 [p.15028]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Halifax for the speech she just delivered to the House.
During the debate on this bill, we have been talking a lot about trying to help women. Women are generally marginalized enough already. Is marginalizing them even more with Bill S-7 really a step in the right direction?
I would just like to hear what my colleague from Halifax thinks about the Conservatives' chronic hypocrisy when it comes to the status of women in general in Canada. The first thing that comes to mind is the issue of murdered and missing aboriginal women. The Conservatives refuse to take any action on that or follow the recommendations made by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.
Could my colleague comment on the Conservatives' double-talk and hypocrisy regarding the marginalization of women in Canada?
View Rosane Doré Lefebvre Profile
View Rosane Doré Lefebvre Profile
2015-06-12 13:02 [p.15030]
Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour for me to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the people of Alfred-Pellan in Laval, whom I have been fortunate to represent for the past four years.
Today, I am speaking to Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, or as the Conservatives like to call it, the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act.
In the speeches that were made today, I heard many references to equal opportunities for women and the marginalization of women. I would really like to talk about that aspect in particular. However, first, I would like to mention a few little things that are directly related to the Conservative government's proposal and the work that my colleagues on this side of the House have done on Bill S-7.
To begin, I would like to thank my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard, our immigration critic, who did an incredible job examining Bill S-7. I saw the work that she did in committee and the amendments that she wants to propose. She has my full support for the amendments she wants to make to improve Bill S-7, as it now stands.
First of all, I have to say that I support the intent of the bill, which seeks to combat polygamy and forced and underage marriage. I also recognize that any violence against women and children is completely unacceptable and that there is still a lot of work to be done to prevent and crack down on these crimes.
However, I remain convinced that this bill does not adequately respond to such serious problems. In fact, Bill S-7 could make existing problems worse. It is important to mention that no woman should be subjected to gender-based violence, and that includes forced and underage marriage. This bill could inadvertently have very serious consequences for women and children by putting more social pressure on the victims of forced marriage and deporting victims of polygamy, for example.
If, as they often say, the Conservatives really care about the victims, they will heed the warnings of the different experts who appeared before the committee and conduct more detailed studies before adopting measures such as the ones proposed here. Instead of focusing on such a sensationalistic bill, with the short title proposed by the Conservatives, a bill that does not address the root of the problem, I sincerely believe that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration should conduct serious, large-scale consultations with community groups and experts to fix the real problem of sexual violence.
There are a number of things that the government could do to help women who are marginalized. Despite the fact that the number of women MPs in the House of Commons has reached a record high, women have a long way to go to achieve equal representation. However, I hope we will steadily approach that target as more women stand for office. Nonetheless, there are different measures that the government could adopt to help women throughout the world take an interest in politics—whether municipal, provincial or federal—and in changing laws to meet their needs. We know that when more women hold power, the laws and approaches are very different. Problems are solved by women for women. It has been shown that it is very positive to have a parliament composed of 50% or more women. This leads to changes in the bills that are introduced.
This is an extremely sensationalistic bill, and I deplore that. I sincerely hope that my colleagues on the other side of the House will take the time to examine the amendments put forward by my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard, who simply wants to bring some common sense to this bill. Once again, I still believe in and have a lot of faith in this Parliament, and that will not stop. I sincerely believe that we can work together.
The House of Commons has committees to study bills with various experts, such as community leaders and experts in general law, civil law or immigration.
These experts did not have harsh words, but they did share some concerns. On this side of the House I would say that we did some worthwhile work with the proposals made by the experts and others invited to the committee. We took their ideas to try to improve this bill, because what we have been trying to propose all along is common sense. However, the concrete measures set out in Bill S-7 will unfortunately not have the desired impact.
I am making a heartfelt plea to the Minister of Immigration today. I ask him to consider these amendments, eliminate the sensationalistic and partisan aspects of this bill, and bring some common sense to this bill. A real consultation on Bill S-7 is needed.
From what I read of the testimony, there was a lack of consultation. I would like to quote a statement by Action Canada for Sexual Rights and Health:
The bill reflects a lack of consultation (closed-door meetings and invitation-only consultations), and a lack of transparency, participation and public debate. The proposed amendments are not based on the experiences of women and girls who have survived acts of violence, such as forced marriage.
That is pretty serious testimony about the lack of consultation. I sincerely believe that if a bill purports to help women and children across Canada in terms of forced marriage and violence against women, it should include real solutions to help them.
All members of the House are very familiar with the organizations in their ridings and the incredible work they do. In Laval, many organizations work to help women in various ways. They might be active in politics, encouraging women to run for office and participate actively in elections. Organizations also help women who are often in need. One that comes to mind is the Table de concertation de Laval en condition féminine. Many of my colleagues on this side of the House also have Afeas in their ridings. I see my colleague from Laval—Les Îles nodding. That organization is very visible in my riding; I am speaking for both of us. Afeas is very visible in Laval. Its goal is to help women, help them escape marginalization and misery, and ensure that women have the same rights as men across the country. So much needs to be done.
I see that my time is almost up, but I would like to comment briefly on what could be done to help women across the country. It is not necessarily just what is being put forward in Bill S-7. There are a lot of things we could do to help women in different communities.
When I asked my colleague from Halifax a question, I mentioned the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, which recently submitted its report and 94 recommendations. I think the federal government has a role to play in about a good third of the recommendations. It could do something about the issue of murdered and missing indigenous women all across Canada. It should have done something about that issue a long time ago. I truly believe that if the government really wanted to help murdered and missing indigenous women and their families, it would do something.
A number of other subjects could have been addressed to end the marginalization of women. Two examples that come to mind are pay equity and women's leadership on corporate boards, whether public or private. Something really meaningful could have been done.
Regarding Bill S-7, I have to point out again that we could make it better. It is not too late. The NDP has proposed some amendments. I still hope that the Conservatives will agree to compromise a little, ensure that these amendments are incorporated into the bill and put an end to all the smoke and mirrors. In the end, that is all that Bill S-7 really is.
View Rosane Doré Lefebvre Profile
View Rosane Doré Lefebvre Profile
2015-06-12 13:12 [p.15031]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle for his questions and his interest in Bill S-7.
As I said, a number of things could be done differently when it comes to Bill S-7. It is up to the Conservatives to make the necessary concrete changes to the bill.
We are proposing some extremely worthwhile improvements to the bill. For example, the government could commit to consulting stakeholders, such as front-line workers and experts, on the programs and measures that would most effectively prevent and combat gender-based violence and the best ways to put these practices in place in Canada.
We are also proposing that the government recognize the need to provide more prevention services and support to the victims of forced and underage marriages and female victims of any type of violence.
These very sensible suggestions were made by a host of witnesses and experts. These are concrete ideas. It is a matter of putting in place prevention and education measures. To me it makes sense.
I sincerely hope that the government will support the amendments proposed by my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard.
Results: 1 - 15 of 654 | Page: 1 of 44

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data