SoVote

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC)

Jun/8/22 2:24:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, this week, a coroner’s inquest has begun into one of the worst cases of multiple-partner violence in Canadian history. Basil Borutski murdered Anastasia Kuzyk, Nathalie Warmerdam, and Carol Culleton in separate incidents on the morning of September 22, 2015 in Renfrew County. Borutski was well known to all of his victims and to police for a long history of violence. He was a dangerous serial offender with a history of beating women. Now, the three families, and our entire community, are reliving the horror of that event through the inquest. Bill C-5 is a radical left-wing bill that would eliminate mandatory minimum penalties. It sends the wrong message to women who live in fear of domestic violence. It sends the wrong message to the courts. In this case, a violent offender who openly ignored court orders that were part of his probation was released anyhow. Bill C-5 is a slap in the face to every woman in Canada by a Prime Minister consumed by his own toxic masculinity.

176 words

Context: House Hansard - 84 - Jun/8/22

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

Jun/8/22 2:31:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share what I heard from the representative of a community that this government claims it wants to help. She says that eliminating these minimum sentences is not only a bad idea masquerading as a good one, but an idea that will further jeopardize the communities this initiative is supposed to protect. That is what we heard from Murielle Chatellier in a parliamentary committee. On the one hand, the Prime Minister is abolishing mandatory minimum sentences with Bill C‑5; on the other, he does not mention victims of gun violence even once in Bill C‑21. Why is the Prime Minister so intent on helping criminals rather than victims?

119 words

Context: House Hansard - 84 - Jun/8/22

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC)

Jun/8/22 3:09:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, let us hear what Stephan Fogaing, a member of Montreal's Black community, has to say about Bill C‑5: “In short, when the federal government contemplates doing away with some of the minimum sentences in the Criminal Code, we can only wonder whether they are more interested in protecting criminals than the public and victims of crime.” Given what these people had to say, is the Prime Minister interested in listening to them, or does he prefer to protect criminals over victims?

91 words

Context: House Hansard - 84 - Jun/8/22

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Jun/8/22 11:48:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Minister of International Development assumed his role after significant concerns were raised about the approach he took while he was defence minister to respond to sexual harassment and assault allegations within Canada's military. It is important that he be willing to take a different approach in his new portfolio and raise the bar in calling international organizations to account for instances of sexual violence that occur within them. International development can involve situations of significant power imbalance, so measures to prevent exploitation and to hold perpetrators accountable are crucial. We have seen too many instances of failures in this regard. Earlier I asked the minister about serious allegations of exploitation and violence at the World Health Organization in Congo and also at UNWRA. He noted in response that he had raised those concerns with the WHO, saying, “they assured me that they are working on this.” I would suggest that a serious response to sexual violence requires more than taking the WHO at its word. It is important to review the context. During an ebola outbreak in the DRC between 2018 and 2020, over 150 women came forward to report facing sexual exploitation by those involved in the WHO response, and 150-plus victims going on record suggests a deep and wide systematic failure of the WHO. The WHO's own report found at least 21 alleged perpetrators who were directly employed by them, including international and local staff. Various countries have pushed the WHO to improve its procedures, and the EU responded by halting funds to the WHO in the DRC. This shows how serious our allies and partners are taking this matter, and rightly so. Despite this scandal, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus was reelected as the head of the WHO earlier this year. Now, Ghebreyesus has not exactly had an auspicious time as WHO head. In 2017, he announced, and then rescinded, an offer to make Robert Mugabe a WHO goodwill ambassador. It is hard to argue that someone is interested in taking a firm line against corruption and exploitation when they want to make Robert Mugabe a goodwill ambassador for their organization. So much for setting an example to employees. Notwithstanding all of the things that have happened since, such as cozying up to the Chinese government and launching baseless attacks against Taiwan, this issue of Robert Mugabe revealed enough. International development should be about empowering everyday people who are victims of violence and oppression to take control of their lives and not about cozying up to dictators who claim that building their profile will somehow make the world a better place. The WHO needs to change, but does not seem to have the capacity or the leadership to turn itself around, and our response has not been as strong as our allies. I would like the government to clarify how it plans to hold the WHO, leaders at the WHO and individual perpetrators of violence to account. It is not good enough for the minister to say that the man who wanted to make Robert Mugabe a goodwill ambassador has assured him of his personal goodwill towards victims. My original question also mentioned allegations of sexual misconduct at UNWRA. These allegations were the subject of an investigation by the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services, which provided an internal review. The report concluded that there was no evidence of sexual misconduct, contrary to the allegations, however the report remains confidential and internal to the UN. Although it is fair to acknowledge that not all allegations are borne out by a full investigation, I wonder if the government finds it acceptable that these allegations were dismissed on the basis of an internal investigation or that the resulting report was never made public. A full, unredacted version was never even shared with member states. Does this way of dealing with such allegations conform to what the government considers an appropriate standard for responding to allegations of sexual assault? I hope that the minister or the parliamentary secretary will be able to provide a more detailed response about the position of the government and concrete action taken on these important matters.

698 words