- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Shefford
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 66%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $81,135.43
- Government Page
- Dec/7/22 7:22:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, so much can be said about that particular problem. I was actually just talking about that a few moments ago, because I was just at a gala organized by the organization Equal Voice, and there was a lot of discussion about making more room for women in politics. That said, I see this as a much broader issue, that of representation in government.
I identified the problem. I would especially like to see more indigenous women in politics. I was talking to a representative from the umbrella organization for indigenous friendship centres in Quebec, which are absolutely exceptional centres. My colleague could actually talk more about them. Some of my colleagues have indigenous friendship centres in their ridings in Quebec, and they could talk about the importance of these centres in terms of education, culture and the promotion of indigenous culture. Quebec's indigenous friendship centres are an absolutely incredible model. I hope to be able to visit one soon to see all the educational work they do in society.
As the critic for the status of women, I am very concerned about this issue. In fact, I am in the process of arranging a meeting with the representative of the indigenous friendship centres. I will go back to the Equal Voice dinner to continue the dialogue and arrange visits to discuss the issue of education.
228 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/22 7:21:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I thank my colleague. I know how important the feminist cause is to her.
I am not sure I properly understood the question, she asked it so quickly. Is it possible for her to repeat the question? I had a hard time understanding it.
46 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/22 7:10:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, it is with great humility that I rise this evening to speak to this very delicate, very sensitive issue. My opening thought for this emergency debate on the serial killings in Winnipeg is as follows: Attacking women and girls is the most effective way to destabilize a population, because it compromises its survival.
Jeremy Skibicki, a 35-year-old man, was charged with the premeditated murder of three indigenous women last week. Skibicki had already been arrested in May for the murder of another indigenous woman in the Winnipeg area. At the time, the Winnipeg police believed that there might have been other victims. Now their fears have been realized.
The accused describes himself as an official member of the far-right movement Holy Europe, which is openly pro-life, pro-gun and anarchist. Earlier this year, when he was first arrested, CBC examined Skibicki's Facebook account and discovered that his posts were rife with violent sentiments and anti-Semitic and misogynistic material.
In a press release, the Native Women's Association of Canada issued a statement on the new murder charges laid against the accused. The association pointed out that the most recent crime statistics released in 2020 tell us that the homicide rate for indigenous people is still seven times higher than for non-indigenous people. The fact that it remains so high is a Canadian human rights failure.
The government must not see the completion of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls as the end point, but as the starting point. These murders are proof that everything remains to be done.
The police still refuse to say that this violence was specifically directed towards indigenous women. We do not want to interfere in a criminal investigation, but four murders, four indigenous women, is significant.
In Quebec, the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls is one that the government has always tried to ignore and gloss over by choosing to treat each disappearance and death as an isolated case. However, in 2014, the issue finally broke into the headlines as a potential systemic problem after the RCMP unveiled its figures on the number of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. The numbers speak for themselves, and they are chilling. A total of 1,017 indigenous women and girls went missing or were murdered between 1980 and 2012. There are still 105 women unaccounted for, who disappeared under unexplained or suspicious circumstances.
Between 2004 and 2014, as the murder rate fell across Canada, six times more indigenous women and girls were murdered than non-indigenous. Taking advantage of the momentum generated by the TRC's work, many groups held demonstrations on October 4, 2014, demanding a national inquiry into the causes of the disappearance and murder of indigenous women and a national action plan.
During one of those demonstrations, Béatrice Vaugrante, executive director of Amnesty International for francophone Canada at the time, emphasized that many UN, U.S. and U.K. bodies had asked Canada to put an end to violence against indigenous women. She considered this Canada's worst human rights issue and said the government's failure to recognize the magnitude of the problem and take action was unacceptable.
In October 2004, in response to the tragically high number of indigenous women being victimized, Amnesty International released a report calling for meaningful action and concrete measures. Pressure was mounting on the federal government, which until that point had ignored all calls for action. Less than a year later, in 2015, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada called for a national inquiry into the disproportionate victimization of indigenous women and girls. The national inquiry's final report was released on June 3, 2019.
Then, in 2016, following the disappearance of Sindy Ruperthouse, an Algonquin woman from Pikogan in Abitibi, near Val‑d'Or, the Quebec government launched the Viens commission. There were reports of a number of indigenous women in Abitibi accusing the police of physical and sexual abuse. Released in 2019, the report's conclusion highlights years of systemic discrimination against indigenous groups. The inquiry also calls for a public apology from the government for the harm done over time.
In October 2019, François Legault rose in the National Assembly and apologized on behalf of the Quebec government. The Government of Quebec is still reviewing the document's 142 recommendations for addressing the situation.
Five years after its initial report, Amnesty International published a second report entitled “No More Stolen Sisters: The Need for a Comprehensive Response to Discrimination and Violence against Indigenous Women in Canada” and highlighted the five factors that contributed to the phenomenon of violence against indigenous women.
These factors are the role of racism and misogyny in perpetuating violence against indigenous women; the sharp disparities between indigenous and non-indigenous women when it comes to the fulfilment of their economic, social, political and cultural rights; the disruption of indigenous societies caused by the historic and ongoing mass removal of children from indigenous families and communities; the disproportionately high number of indigenous women in Canadian prisons, many of whom were themselves victims of violence; and the inadequate police response to violence against indigenous women, as illustrated by the handling of missing persons cases.
The calls for justice from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, presented as legal imperatives rather than optional recommendations, set out transformative measures in the areas of health, safety, justice and culture, including the following: establishing a national indigenous and human rights ombudsperson and a national indigenous and human rights tribunal; developing and implementing a national action plan to ensure equitable access to employment, housing, education, safety and health care; providing long-term funding for education programs and awareness campaigns related to violence prevention and combatting lateral violence; and prohibiting the apprehension of children on the basis of poverty and cultural bias.
While there is still an ongoing debate about whether it is appropriate to use the word “genocide”, I believe there is a general consensus on the term “cultural genocide”. In fact, we can now say that the federal government of the day and the clergy responsible for the residential schools deliberately attempted to assimilate or erase a culture. The government of the day was clearly intent on committing cultural genocide. It was an official policy, even. Under the guise of equal educational opportunity, the primary goal of this policy was to assimilate the children and eradicate indigenous cultures.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada is of the opinion that this policy of assimilation has had a negative impact on all indigenous peoples and has undermined their ability to thrive in Canadian society. In their descriptions of encounters, families and survivors who spoke at the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls consistently linked their experiences to colonialism, both historic and modern forms, in one or more general ways: historical, multi-generational and inter-generational trauma; social and economic marginalization; maintaining the status quo; and institutional lack of will. The Canadian government and the clergy planned this collective trauma with the ultimate goal of driving all indigenous communities to extinction. Those communities have since been left to deal with the consequences alone.
According to Viviane Michel, president of Quebec Native Women, it is essential that communities and families have an opportunity to be heard as part of any inquiry. She also said that understanding the deep roots of the systemic discrimination faced by indigenous women is crucial to ensuring their dignity and safety.
As we listen to the testimony of indigenous women, four types of violence emerge. The first is structural violence. There is also social, legal, cultural, institutional and even family violence. That last term is frequently used in an indigenous context to make it clear that violence affects not only couples, but also the children and potentially other people connected to the family. There is also personal violence. This type of violence covers actions such as physical violence, psychological manipulation and financial control and involves individuals. There may be some overlap that emerges from the facts of the Skibicki investigation. There is a recognizable pattern, an all-too-familiar pattern that Quebeckers can unfortunately relate to because of their own numerous femicides and the tragic death of Marylène Levesque in early 2020.
In conclusion, it is essential to recognize and understand the sources of violence and support indigenous peoples' efforts to rebuild. It is also essential to promote gender equality, support women's empowerment and establish a nation-to-nation partnership with indigenous peoples. The Bloc Québécois has been advocating for all these measures for years.
We did so during the election campaign, and we will continue to do so, because one of the major obstacles we are facing is the failure of the comprehensive land claims policy. That is exactly why the Bloc Québécois wants it to be completely overhauled.
I could go on at length about this, but I believe my time is up.
1534 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my most hon. colleague from Drummond for his question and commend him for all of his work.
I will come back to what he said, but, as I said in my speech, there is also a part of the bill that will enable us to better document these cases of racism and to collect data. I spoke about it in my speech, but I thank my colleague for bringing me back to the subject.
It is thanks to that data that we will be able to make changes. It takes facts and figures to get an overall picture of what is happening, and that is what the bill will enable us to do, so that we can avoid the type of situation that his friend has all too often experienced.
We all have stories about times when it was more complicated to cross the border than usual. Having worked for an MP who had border crossings in his riding, I heard some pretty crazy things. This bill will enable us to document it all to prevent this sort of situation from happening. I hope that the CBSA will do some soul-searching so that it can build public trust.
203 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-20, an act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments.
I would like to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois supports this bill at second reading. This bill would give citizens recourse against the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, which can, on occasion, abuse its authority.
There is currently an independent oversight mechanism in place, but its mandate covers only matters of national security, so it needs to be expanded. Citizens who wish to file a complaint must do so directly to the CBSA, but the information is not public and, because the mechanism is internal, it is not totally neutral and objective.
As a result, there is no external review body to deal with public complaints against the CBSA, and that is what this bill seeks to correct. The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑20 at second reading because we believe that an independent complaint process is both necessary and good for the public. As my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles said, it was in 2004, 18 years ago, that Justice O'Connor recommended that an independent process be put in place to handle public complaints against the CBSA.
For example, in early January 2020, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada found significant flaws concerning searches of travellers' electronic devices, which demonstrated the importance of having an independent body to review complaints. The bill must be referred to a committee quickly so that it can be studied and the concerns of different groups, including unions, can be heard. I will come back to this later to explain what this will change, and I will speak about the perspective of unions and victims.
First, this bill seeks to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the Canada Border Services Agency Act to change the complaints process for citizens and provide the opportunity for travellers to file complaints against CBSA officers.
This bill is similar to Bill C‑3, which was introduced in the 43rd Parliament, and Bill C‑98, which was introduced in the 42nd Parliament. Both died on the Order Paper for the sole reason that they were never a priority for the government. All parties supported Bill C-98, but we never voted on Bill C‑3. We are wondering if this bill will now be a priority.
Bill C‑20 contains a number of things. It replaces the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with a new body called the public complaints and review commission, or PCRC. This new body will be mandated to review and investigate complaints concerning the conduct and level of service of RCMP and Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, personnel. It will also conduct reviews of specified activities of the RCMP and the CBSA.
The bill authorizes the chairperson of the PCRC to recommend the initiation of disciplinary processes or the imposition of disciplinary measures in relation to individuals who have been the subject of complaints. It amends the Canada Border Services Agency Act to provide for the investigation of serious incidents involving officers and employees of the CBSA.
The most important point of this bill is that it enables this new body to review the CBSA's activities and to investigate public complaints involving both officers and employees. Under Bill C-20, the public complaints and review commission can receive complaints from the public about the RCMP or the CBSA, but the complaints will generally be sent directly to the RCMP and the CBSA first for an initial investigation. If the complainant is not satisfied with the investigation of the RCMP or the CBSA, then they can ask the PCRC to look into it. Basically, here is what that means.
In such a case, the PCRC could present its findings and make recommendations. The RCMP or the CBSA would have to respond in writing to the PCRC reports by the deadlines set out in the acts and regulations. An external mechanism will therefore be put in place.
What is more, complaints related to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages or the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada will not be dealt with by the PCRC. However, the PCRC will forward any such complaints to the appropriate organizations.
The PCRC will be made up of civilians who are not former members of the RCMP or the CBSA. This is an independent external process. Another thing about this bill is that the response timelines for the RCMP will be codified, because many felt that the RCMP responded too slowly to the reports of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or CRCC. The bill will therefore replace the CRCC with the PCRC and a deadline will be imposed.
The bill also requires the commissioner of the RCMP and the president of the CBSA to submit an annual report to the Minister of Public Safety outlining what the organizations have done during the year to address the PCRC's recommendations. The minister will be required to share the report with the House of Commons and the Senate within 15 days.
There will also be a more targeted collection of information to determine whether racism against certain groups is an issue. It will be documented. The bill also calls for a public education and information campaign to inform travellers of their rights.
The PCRC will be responsible for tracking serious incidents—such as a death, serious injury or violation of laws—and making them public. It may send an observer to ensure that CBSA and RCMP investigations are conducted impartially. The PCRC may review, on its own initiative or at the request of the Minister of Public Safety, any RCMP and CBSA activity that is not related to national security. The reports would include findings or recommendations on RCMP and CBSA compliance with legislation and directives, and the adequacy, appropriateness, sufficiency or clarity of RCMP and CBSA policies, procedures and guidelines.
One difference from Bill C-3, which was a similar bill introduced in the 43rd Parliament, is that the PCRC will be established by a specific piece of legislation, whereas in the previous version, it was established by amendments to existing laws.
The PCRC will not be able to compel the CBSA and the RCMP to take disciplinary action, but both agencies will be required to report to the minister to justify their response to the recommendations, and these reports will be made public 15 days after the minister receives them.
The bill aims to create an independent process for reviewing complaints and the work of the Canada Border Services Agency. This new entity, the public complaints and review commission, will also replace the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. This new commission, the PCRC, will deal with both the RCMP and the CBSA.
The new entity created by Bill C-20 will make it possible to file complaints directly with the CBSA and directly with the PCRC, depending on the complainant's preference. The complainant decides. If an individual is not satisfied with the response they get from the CBSA or the RCMP, they can ask the PCRC to review a complaint that has already been filed.
The process is nevertheless long and complicated. There is a good chance that most individuals will give up before the end of the process. For example, if an officer makes a sexist or racist comment towards a traveller, filing a complaint with the CBSA, waiting for a response and then sending the complaint to the PCRC could be more complicated and demanding for most travellers than just ignoring the comment, which is quite sad. The committee will have to examine whether the process proposed by Bill C‑20 is adequate or if it should be revised.
Creating this new external body is necessary, according to Mary Foster, from Solidarity Across Borders. In 2019, she said that “making a complaint to the CBSA about the CBSA doesn't really lead anywhere”. Having the option of challenging the findings of an investigation is therefore essential to maintaining public trust.
All parties supported Bill C‑98 in the 42nd Parliament, but, as I said earlier, a vote was never held on Bill C‑3.
Now we are once again discussing a bill that is good for the public because the existing system does not include an adequate complaint mechanism for people. Civil liberties groups have long called for the creation of an independent complaint-handling body like the one for the police.
For example, under the Access to Information Act, the Canadian Press obtained a list of complaints that travellers submitted directly to the CBSA.
According to the documents, in 2017-18, nearly 900 complaints were filed, about 100 of which were deemed founded, including cases of travellers being on the receiving end of border officers' racist or rude comments. Complaints against the CBSA are currently handled internally, with little transparency. That is the problem Bill C‑20 may fix.
Second, from the union's perspective, the Customs and Immigration Union's national president, Mark Weber, is concerned that Bill C‑20 could put more pressure on the labour-management relationship, which the union says is already strained. We have to keep that in mind.
He says that officers are placed on leave without pay, sometimes for a year or more, pending the outcome of investigations. He also notes that customs officers frequently work overtime and can be exhausted, which does not help. We need to ensure that customs officers have adequate resources, which the Bloc Québécois often asks for, considering the government's lack of interest in our borders. We have been asking for this frequently and for a long time. The Bloc Québécois would like the union to be involved in the process that leads to passing Bill C‑20, particularly in committee.
The staffing shortage at the CBSA is a well-known problem. This is causing delays and tension between officers and travellers. The government will also have to address this problem.
The CBSA has a great deal of power, including the power to detain and search Canadians and to deport people. It is therefore incomprehensible that the CBSA still has no external investigation mechanism.
In its legislative summary, the Library of Parliament cites the case of Maher Arar, a Syrian-Canadian citizen who was arrested during a layover in New York on his way home to Canada.
In 2004, a commission of inquiry into the Arar case led by Justice Dennis O'Connor suggested creating a new civilian agency to oversee the activities of both the RCMP and the CBSA, as I said earlier.
In other words, 18 years later, the CBSA still does not have one. Only the RCMP has this external oversight mechanism. However, the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency is already responsible for overseeing national security activities, and only national security activities.
I want to make it clear that the Bloc Québécois is not putting the blame on CBSA or RCMP officers as a whole, nor is it putting the CBSA on trial. Rather, we feel the government is responsible for the lack of oversight over the CBSA and the lack of transparency, which is inappropriate for such an important agency. We think the Liberals and the Conservatives should be held to account for tolerating all this for so long.
As I said—
1978 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/22 11:26:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, reconciliation is essential, but we cannot talk about reconciliation unless we have discussions as equals, nation to nation.
I spoke about how Canada's treatment of its indigenous peoples has tarnished its international reputation. Canada did not want to sign the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and refused to do it for far too long. That is unacceptable.
The fact that Canada did not sign the declaration and even delayed these declarations and negotiations is unacceptable, especially when we are talking about opening a dialogue and engaging in these exchanges.
I think it is clear that we must open this debate and have real discussions, but the government avoided signing the UN declaration for far too long.
123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/22 11:10:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, it appears I have the thankless task of closing this evening's take-note debate. I am speaking, albeit with a great deal of disgust, as the Bloc Québécois critic for the status of women in this take-note debate on indigenous women and girls.
This debate is taking place the night before Red Dress Day, a day to honour missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people.
It is sad to see that even now, in 2022, attacking women is still seen as a way to endanger the survival of a people. It is sad that we are still talking about mothers, daughters, sisters, friends who have disappeared, women who are no longer here, who will never come back.
Nevertheless, I will approach my speech from three angles: the Liberal government's inaction, some of the issues discussed at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, and finally, a bit about Quebec's perspective on this issue.
After waiting more than three years, the Liberal government finally unveiled its action plan to end violence against indigenous women and girls last summer, yet indigenous women and many indigenous organizations feel the response is insufficient and long overdue.
When asked at a press conference about the federal government's progress on the plan it presented last summer, two years late, regarding the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, the Minister of Justice admitted that the government had fallen behind because of the federal election in September 2021 and because of the war in Ukraine, which started on February 24. The government is finding excuses to explain its inaction. Why is the government not stepping up?
The federal government must take its share of the responsibility, but it is not doing so, especially with respect to the report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, on which the federal government has done little to follow up.
The figures are staggering. Between 2004 and 2014, while the homicide rate across Canada was declining, the number of indigenous women and girls who were murdered was six times higher than the rate among non-indigenous women. According to the 2018 figures for Canada, 25.1% of non-indigenous women report having experiencing physical and sexual abuse by an intimate partner, but that figure rises to 43.7% among indigenous women. In addition, 38.2% of non-indigenous women report having experienced physical and sexual violence committed by someone other than an intimate partner, compared to 54.9% among indigenous women. The situation did not improve during the pandemic.
Obviously, these are the official figures, and in cases where women were willing to come forward, of course it is not easy to admit it and speak out against it. It it hard to get out of a cycle of violence. The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls stated that ending it “requires a new relationship and an equal partnership between all Canadians and Indigenous Peoples”.
The calls for justice from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, presented as legal imperatives rather than voluntary recommendations, set out transformative measures in a number of areas including health, safety, justice, culture and ordinarily the following:
We need to establish the position of a national indigenous and human rights ombudsperson and establish a national indigenous and human rights tribunal. The report also talks about developing and implementing a national action plan to ensure equitable access to employment, housing, education, safety and health care.
The government must provide long-term funding for educational programs and awareness campaigns related to violence prevention and combatting lateral violence. Furthermore, the government must prohibit the apprehension of children on the basis of poverty and cultural bias. This is all great on paper, but the government must now stop shelving report after report and start responding to the calls to action.
After the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls tabled its more than 2,000-page report, chief commissioner Marion Buller even stated that despite their different circumstances and backgrounds, all of the missing and murdered are connected by economic, social and political marginalization, racism, and misogyny woven into the fabric of Canadian society.
Indigenous communities need to rebuild, and Quebeckers and Canadians need to acknowledge the collective trauma experienced by these communities, understand it and take steps to ensure that such a tragedy never happens again.
Moreover, the increasing pressure on the federal government, which until that point had disregarded the calls to action, finally gave rise to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada in 2015, almost seven years ago. The commission came out in favour of a national inquiry into the violence disproportionately experienced by indigenous women and girls.
The national inquiry's final report was released on June 3, 2019, and all the long delays were unacceptable, especially on the part of a government that calls itself feminist. Its failure to act tarnished its international reputation. Béatrice Vaugrante, then executive director of Amnesty International for francophone Canada, said as much because numerous UN, U.S., and U.K. bodies asked Canada to end violence against indigenous women. She considered this Canada's worst human rights issue and said the government's failure to recognize the magnitude of the problem and take action was unacceptable.
In October 2004, in response to the tragically high number of indigenous women being victimized, Amnesty International even released a report entitled “Stolen Sisters: A Human Rights Response to Discrimination and Violence against Indigenous Women in Canada”, an unmistakable call to take action and implement concrete measures.
Five years after the initial report, Amnesty International followed up with a second report entitled “No More Stolen Sisters: The Need for a Comprehensive Response to Discrimination and Violence against Indigenous Women in Canada” to underscore the five factors that contributed to the phenomenon of violence against indigenous women. First, the role of racism and misogyny in perpetuating violence against indigenous women. Second, the sharp disparities between indigenous and non-indigenous women when it comes to the fulfilment of their economic, social, political and cultural rights. Third, the disruption of indigenous societies caused by the historic and ongoing mass removal of children from indigenous families and communities. Fourth, the disproportionately high number of indigenous women in Canadian prisons, many of whom were themselves victims of violence. Fifth, inadequate police response to violence against indigenous women as illustrated by the handling of missing persons cases.
At the committee on which I sit, we have seen in many studies—such as the study on the disproportionate impact that the pandemic had on women, the study on invisible work, the study on women in rural communities, and the study on intimate partner violence—that indigenous women and girls are almost always among those who are most affected.
We are in the process of completing a study on the impact that resource development has on indigenous women. In study after study, witnesses from different indigenous communities and organizations are sharing their harsh realities with us. They are also sharing concrete proposals.
As vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking, I am also shocked to know that nearly 54% of trafficked women are indigenous. That seems extremely high to me.
I also had to address this issue while filling in at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. In fact, this issue finally made the news for the first time in 2014 when the RCMP released figures on the number of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. A total of 1,017 indigenous women and girls went missing or were murdered between 1980 and 2012. There are still 105 women unaccounted for who have disappeared under unexplained or suspicious circumstances. That is a lot.
Finally, I want to discuss some of the things we are experiencing in Quebec. I want to highlight the work being done at the Val-d'Or Native Friendship Centre. I hope to have the opportunity to visit it one day. We are also sensitive to the issue of restorative justice. Then there is the Viens commission that was launched by the Quebec government following the disappearance of Sindy Ruperthouse, a woman from Pikogan in Abitibi, near Val-d'Or. My colleague, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, could tell the House about this. She said that she has heard a number of indigenous women in Abitibi accuse the police of physical and sexual abuse, and the same thing could happen in many other ridings throughout Quebec. My colleague from Manicouagan can also testify to this.
Here is what an organization in Quebec had to say. According to Viviane Michel, a former president of Quebec Native Women, it is essential that indigenous women, families and communities have the opportunity to be heard as part of any inquiry. She also said that understanding the deep roots underlying the systemic discrimination faced by indigenous women is crucial to ensuring their dignity and safety. She also pointed out that the report itself recognizes that indigenous women are at greater risk of being murdered or going missing, and she wondered why the government was not taking real, concrete, tangible action that would make a difference.
In closing, the Bloc Québécois has been promoting this nation-to-nation partnership with indigenous peoples for several years now. Furthermore, during the election campaign, our party's position was clear. Modern treaties are needed. This position is extremely important to me and my colleagues. It will be up to the nations themselves to say what they want and decide what they want to negotiate with Ottawa.
I would like to mention one last thing. Last fall I travelled to the shores of Lake Memphremagog, at the invitation of the Eastern Townships chapter of World March of Women. Red dresses in varying sizes were hung up on a line. I realized that women and girls of all ages are among the missing and murdered, each with their own story, and they all had loved ones who were left to wonder what had happened to them.
1725 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the always-on-point member for Trois-Rivières.
I feel a sense of bewilderment today as I rise to speak to Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. I have many questions and concerns.
As my party's status of women critic, and having observed an increase in cases of femicide and gender-based violence, I feel confused about the strange message the government is sending with this bill. I am going to broach the sensitive issue of mandatory minimum penalties by talking a little about my proud history working with community-based services.
I will then speak to the flaws in the bill and will conclude by talking about what I would like to see in terms of combatting violence and sending a strong message against hate and discrimination. I know that my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord has addressed the bill from a legal standpoint and that my colleague from Trois-Rivières, as a renowned ethicist, will certainly bring an ethical perspective into this debate.
I want to mention again that I worked in community-based services, more specifically for an organization focused on alternative justice and mediation. I truly believe in alternative and restorative justice, which is why I am in complete agreement with the Bloc Québécois's traditional position. With respect to mandatory minimum sentences, my party is in favour of an approach to justice that fosters rehabilitation and crime reduction.
Considering that mandatory minimums have few benefits and introduce many problems, such as the overrepresentation of indigenous and Black communities in prisons, in addition to increasing system costs and failing to deter crime, the Bloc Québécois supports the idea of abolishing certain mandatory minimum sentences. However, the problem is that the Bloc Québécois believes this is a bad time to abolish mandatory minimums for firearms offences, because many Quebec and Canadian cities are seeing an influx of firearms, due in particular to the Liberal government's failure to implement border controls.
Several women's groups are very concerned about this issue and would like to see better gun control, because this can even impact femicides. Abolishing mandatory minimums without strong action by the federal government to counter the illegal importation of firearms at the border sends a contradictory message. My colleague, the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, the public safety critic, has asked many questions about this.
Although abolishing mandatory minimum sentences for possession of firearms is something we can get behind, abolishing them for certain gun crimes such as the discharge of a firearm with intent, robbery or extortion with a firearm, as proposed in this bill, seems inconsistent with the government's claim of maintaining mandatory minimums for certain categories of serious crime. We will need to take a serious look at this aspect of the bill, as I am sure committee members will do.
I want to point out that the Bloc Québécois spoke in favour of introducing the principle of diversion for simple possession of drugs in the last election campaign and in debates on Bill C‑236. Community groups that work with the homeless and do excellent work with street outreach workers reached out to me on this subject during the last election campaign.
We in the Bloc Québécois want to point out that such a measure will only be effective and truly efficient if investments are made in health care to support health systems and community organizations. They need funding to support people with addiction and mental health problems. I was also reminded of this during the last election campaign. This does not happen by itself.
On that note, we in the Bloc want to point out that the Liberal government refuses to give an answer on the issue of funding health care to cover 35% of health care system costs, despite the unanimous call from Quebec and the provinces. Obviously, without these investments, it is difficult for community organizations to respond to the growing needs resulting from rising homelessness in municipalities, even back home in Granby.
The pandemic has not helped matters, but rather has exacerbated the problem. Once again, the Bloc Québécois is speaking up for Quebec, where diversion is a principle that is fully recognized and integrated into many areas of the justice system. For instance, when it comes to children's rights, extrajudicial measures have been available to young offenders since the 1970s, thanks to Claude Castonguay's reform of the Youth Protection Act. Having worked at an organization that worked with that legislation and with young people, I was able to see the concrete impacts of alternative work, which leads young people to question their actions, to prevent them from ending up in the criminal justice system.
There is also the Programme de mesures de rechange pour les adultes en milieu autochtone, a program that makes options other than criminal prosecution available to individuals from indigenous communities.
There is also the Programme d'accompagnement justice et santé mentale, which gives individuals who have committed a crime and are fit to stand trial a chance to get a reduced sentence or possibly even enter a diversion program, which is very good for them.
More recently, the Programme de mesures de rechange général pour adultes, which is currently being rolled out, gives adults charged with certain offences the opportunity to take responsibility for their actions and make amends for their crimes without going through the usual judicial process set out in the Criminal Code. The organization I worked with helped to implement the program, and I think it might be a success.
Lastly, there is the Court of Quebec's drug addiction treatment program, which allows for delayed sentencing so drug offenders can get clean through court-supervised treatment. It also facilitates close collaboration between the court and addiction resources to develop a treatment plan that includes crucial therapeutic, rehabilitation and reintegration components. The program is currently available only in Montreal and Puvirnituq. How can we expand it?
As the previous examples show, the principle of diversion is not new in Quebec's judicial ecosystem.
Quebec's Bill 32 is all about diversion as well. Minister LeBel's office pushed the government to focus on adopting Bill 32, which sought to improve the efficiency of the criminal justice system. The bill introduced the concept of adapting enforcement to give municipalities more leeway when it comes to ticketing marginalized individuals, such as people experiencing homelessness and those with mental health issues or addiction.
Quebec has already committed to diversion programs in several areas, including youth, indigenous affairs and petty crime, and it is currently exploring this avenue through Bill 32.
As the critic for status of women, I have to note that year after year, we see an overrepresentation of indigenous women in the prison system. People have been sharing statistics throughout this debate. My Liberal colleagues have cited some, but I want to reiterate that indigenous women accounted for 38% of women admitted to provincial and territorial sentenced custody, and for indigenous men, that figure was 26%.
In the federal correctional services, indigenous women accounted for 31% of female admissions to sentenced custody, while indigenous men accounted for 2%.
Are mandatory minimum sentences contributing to increasing the overrepresentation of Black or indigenous people in the prison system? By all indications, they are. What is more, as critic for status of women, I have unfortunately observed that indigenous women are disproportionately affected.
I would like to add that diversion is beneficial for individuals, because the stigma attached to drugs and the barriers that come with a criminal record are sometimes disproportionate to a simple possession offence, and this can lead to a lifetime of consequences.
In closing, as someone who worked in community-based services, I am sensitive to a number of considerations connected with this bill. One thing is certain: This bill should not absolve us, as parliamentarians, of any responsibility, especially given that firearms crimes are a major concern in light of recent events, in which innocent victims have been killed with firearms.
While we agree with the repeal of mandatory minimum sentences, we must not minimize gun crime or the importance of ensuring the public's sense of safety and looking at better gun control measures. The Bloc Québécois is asking for this. It is high time that action was taken.
1457 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
