SoVote

Jun/7/22 7:11:02 p.m.
Watch

As I suggested during those last interactions, we should try to stick to the motion at hand, even though I did not correct or change the course of the previous speaker. I see another point of order, from the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac.

45 words

Mr. Richard Bragdon

Jun/7/22 7:11:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt the member is in proper order by giving these remarks and he should be allowed to continue. This is very much on point and very much a priority. It needs to be discussed in the House, so I do not quite get what the point of order was for in the first place.

59 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/7/22 7:11:47 p.m.
Watch

As I said previously, I will always ask members to stick to the motion or bill we are debating at hand. Again, I remind everyone that we are on the main estimates, so there is a pretty wide scope of information we can debate in the House. The hon. member for Fundy Royal.

53 words

Hon. Rob Moore

Jun/7/22 7:12:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we are on the main estimates, and the justice estimates are within those main estimates. This relates to the justice system in Canada and we need more justice in this country. That is precisely why I am speaking about these main estimate-related issues. When confronted by the impact of the Supreme Court's ruling, the Liberals are saying we do not have to worry about parole hearings. What that actually means is that the government is comfortable with putting these families through revictimizing and retraumatizing parole processes, even though at the end of the day, it is essentially all for show because, in the government's words, the killer will not receive parole anyway. This process does not benefit anyone involved but is particularly devastating to the families of victims. I recently spoke to a mother who suffered the loss of a child due to the actions of a drunk driver. I spoke to her about the parole process she had to endure. She said the process was traumatizing and that as soon as some time had passed and she was able to take a step forward in the grieving process, the offender involved applied for parole or appealed the Parole Board decision and she was snapped back to the worst day of her life. This is a cycle that repeats itself over and over. That is the real life sentence. Like the mom I spoke with, the families impacted by the Supreme Court's decision on reducing life sentences for mass murderers will spend the rest of their lives grieving the loss of their loved ones. I have read the Supreme Court ruling, and we are speaking about the estimates and the justice estimates within them. The Minister of Justice speaks about a charter dialogue, a dialogue that happens between the courts when they make charter decisions and Parliament as we enact laws, including laws within our Criminal Code. The ball is now in our court in this Parliament. The ball is in the government's court to respond to the court decision. We know from the ruling that the door has been left wide open for Parliament to respond. For the sake of victims, for the sake of our communities, for the sake of ensuring that families do not have to go through repeat parole hearings and for the sake of the life of every victim, we need to make sure that we, as a Parliament, respond. The Conservatives call on the government to respond to this particular decision of the Supreme Court with legislation that ensures every life in Canada counts and that families are not revictimized over and over again. They have already suffered far too much. I thank members for listening this evening. Let us take up the challenge that has been put before us and enact strong legislation that keeps our communities safe and protects victims and their loved ones.

489 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Jun/7/22 7:15:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague and I may agree on one thing, and I want to reassure Canadians. In his speech, the member referenced that criminals doing the most heinous of crimes will be eligible for parole. It is important to emphasize that eligibility for parole does not mean they get parole. There is a lot of literature on this and we have the statistics to know that certainly the most dangerous of criminals are not going to be getting parole. I am concerned, and I think he can agree with me on this point, that we have not adequately dealt with the rights of victims of crime. He mentioned Sue O'Sullivan, our former ombudsman for victims of crime. She was not satisfied with the legislation we got in 2014. I wonder if my hon. colleague would agree that we need to do much more for victims of crime.

152 words

Hon. Rob Moore

Jun/7/22 7:16:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with the member. We have to do more. In fact, she mentioned a former ombudsman in her question. We do not even have an ombudsman for victims of crime and that is truly outrageous. The position has been vacant for some time. What we are trying to do is eliminate the revictimization of families for the case in Moncton where three RCMP officers were shot and killed. That individual is going to be up for parole at 47 years old. That means a lifetime of attending parole hearings for the families, whether the offender ever gets out or not, and that is not fair to those families.

112 words

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.)

Jun/7/22 7:17:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, looking at the justice file is something we were talking about during the member's intervention, which I thank him for. These are the programs we opened up in January: sexual harassment in the workplace, the access to justice in both official languages fund, family violence in the justice partnership and innovation program, the justice partnership and innovation program in general, victims fund for child advocacy centres, victims fund for project funding, victims fund for provincial and territorial program funding, the youth justice fund, and consultation, co-operation and engagement on UNDRIP. Could the member comment on the variety of justice programs that we are funding through these estimates and how they are making Canada a stronger place?

120 words

Hon. Rob Moore

Jun/7/22 7:17:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has listed some things, so I will note that we have a vacant position for a victims ombudsman. When the offenders ombudsman position was vacant, it was filled the next day. For the victims ombudsman position, it has been months since it should have been filled. In a very short period of time, we have had a Supreme Court decision that says if someone drinks enough, they might be found not guilty of a serious offence. We have had the striking down of a law that valued every life for consecutive periods of parole ineligibility. We have also had Bill C-5, which says that for serious gun crimes and serious offences against other individuals, a person can serve their sentence from the comfort of their own home. That is just in the last month that we have been dealing with these things. It is time for the government to reverse course, drop Bill C-5 and respond to these Supreme Court decisions.

168 words

Mr. Richard Bragdon (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC)

Jun/7/22 7:19:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important that Canadians come to understand the fact that there seems to be a lot of misplaced priorities by the current government. There seems to be, in what it has been presenting as it relates to justice, a disproportionate emphasis on getting soft in the sentencing of people who have committed offences and crimes through the illegal use of firearms, and a disproportionate response to law-abiding firearms owners, who have kept to the law and been faithful in abiding by the law. Can the member comment on that? I would be interested in his thoughts on the rights of law-abiding firearms owners and going after the true perpetrators of crimes with firearms.

121 words

Hon. Rob Moore

Jun/7/22 7:19:51 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member hit the nail on the head. What we have is a situation where law-abiding firearms owners are not the problem. However, once again, as we have seen over the past couple of decades, law-abiding firearms owners are the target of the Liberal government. Meanwhile, with Bill C-5, jail time is being eliminated by the government for robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, importing or exporting knowing it is unauthorized and discharging a firearm with intent, all of which are offences that used to carry with them mandatory jail time.

103 words

Mrs. Karen Vecchio (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC)

Jun/7/22 7:20:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-233

Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honour to stand here as we discuss the business of supply and the main estimates for 2023. I would like to begin by thanking a lot of people who have been talking to me over the last three weeks about the Supreme Court ruling that was made on May 13. I would like to thank the member who just spoke earlier, the hon. member representing New Brunswick. I would like to thank people from the London Abused Women's Centre, especially Jennifer Dunn and Megan Walker, and all those who have connected with me to ask if this is really the truth, if this is really happening. I want to go to what happened on May 13 and the discussions that started following a Supreme Court ruling. On May 13, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a major decision indicating that criminal defence in cases involving assault, including sexual assault, would be able to use a defence known as self-induced extreme intoxication. It is really hard for me to look at this. I am not a lawyer. I am just a normal human being who has children, who has family and who loves her community. I want to ensure that things like this do not exist in a court of law. I have reached out to some of these lawyers, to some Crown attorneys, and we have amazing support here from the member for Brantford—Brant and the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, just the work they have done to share with me what is going on here. These are the things we need to talk about. I am not going to blither anymore. I am going to talk about what has actually happened. On that date, there was a ruling saying that extreme intoxication could be used, because otherwise it goes against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sections 7 and 11. I started looking at this, what it actually means and how it happened, and I went back to the history of why section 33.1 exists in the Criminal Code in the first place. This had to do with the fact that someone had been charged and there was a problem because at the end of the day, they were allowed to use this type of defence, the fact that this person was totally intoxicated and yet sexually assaulted someone. I started looking at some of the different cases and asking why this is such an important thing to Canada and how we can ensure that this would never happen again. How can we ensure that someone would never be able to use extreme intoxication, especially when it is an offence on another individual, especially when it has to do with sexual assault, bodily harm, or any type of violence against a person? This is why I am so concerned with this. When this Supreme Court ruling came out, I asked my colleagues about three key issues: What needs to be addressed in the Criminal Code? What are the specific loopholes? What can we do to address this issue immediately? The first thing we did as a group, and there were four of us who signed on, was to send a letter to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada explaining that we wanted to talk about this and that we knew there was an issue. We indicated that these decisions imperil the safety of sexual assault victims by permitting the dubious defence of non-insane automatism due to self-induced intoxication. Sexual offences disproportionately affect women and vulnerable people. The Attorney General has had sufficient time to study this ruling. The ruling clearly implores the government to act. The government has not. We have only heard silence from the government. That is why I am here today. This judgment was made on May 13. Today is June 7. We already know that when it comes to victims of sexual abuse and exploitation, the chances of people coming forward are already very slim, going into the criminal justice system. We just finished Bill C-233 last week, where we talked about judges' training and we talked about the fact that there is such a disconnect there. Understanding domestic violence, understanding criminal law, understanding what it is like to be a victim is so important. That is why l will continue to ask and continue to advocate for judges having training on domestic abuse, on sexual exploitation, on rape, all of these things, and how important it is. Although Bill C-233 is expected to pass through the Senate, we still need to make sure that judges are taking this. That is why, when we look at this decision, we say, oh my gosh, the victim is lost throughout the entire discussion. That is why I have so many issues with this. We sent this letter over two weeks ago, and we are still waiting for a response. I recognize that the minister has spoken to us in question period, but we are waiting for action, and that is what I am calling for today. We want action. We have people like Jennifer Dunn, the executive director of the London Abused Women's Centre, who said, “Women are already disproportionately affected when it comes to assault and sexual assault so this will affect them tenfold.... To be able to use that as an excuse and potentially not be convicted for their crimes is absolutely absurd.” That is why I want to continue to have this discussion. We are talking about a person and the fact that if people are violated, there is a fear of coming forward after everything. Whether it is the judge's training, or whatever it may be, the fact is that someone could even use extreme intoxication as a defence. I am sorry, but if it were my daughter who was raped and someone used extreme intoxication, as a mother watching my child, I would ask, how could anyone let that happen? I ask every person out there to reflect on this: If this was a member of their family or a member of their community, how would they feel if they knew that they did nothing? It has been three weeks now. Let us get this done. I am just going to ask the minister to get this done. We know that section 33.1 is unconstitutional, based on the nine Supreme Court judges saying it is unconstitutional, and they have come back to the government and indicated, even in their decision, that the government could do something, so I am asking where the government is on this. Why have the Liberals not done anything? I know that on an issue just a month ago, they had an immediate response. At that moment they were talking about oil and gas. That day, they talked about the fact that they were going to appeal that decision. We are talking three weeks later, and we still have not heard from the government what it is planning on doing. I want to go back and talk about why section 33.1 was put there in the first place, so that members have an idea of what can happen and why this is so important. I am looking through these notes, and there were two cases that involved men who were high on drugs when they killed and injured family members. The extreme intoxication was used to acquit one man and order a new trial for the other. Right there, we have people high on drugs who killed and injured family members. With the case that just came up here recently, I know there has been lots of discussion on that one. It is not up to me as a parliamentarian to judge what is right and wrong, but it is to fill in those holes. We sit here and ask if this is fair. This is where the rights of the victims are lost and the rights of the criminals are talked about as being charter rights under sections 7 and 11. I ask members, what if they were the ones violated and every single right was gone because the violator took those rights away from them? What if their rights were taken away and all we were worrying about were the criminal's rights? I sit here and think that the criminal's rights are outweighing the victim's rights. Something is absolutely wrong there. The case that brought this all up, and the reason we are having this discussion, was the May 13 decision. It was about a case that involved a man who had consumed alcohol and magic mushrooms. He broke into the home of a female victim and violently assaulted her with a broom handle, leaving permanent injuries. He was declared by the courts to have been in a psychotic state and to have had no will to control his actions. I sit here and wonder how we define extreme intoxication. How many times have people gone to somebody's Facebook and seen that somebody had written “I was extremely intoxicated”? I have spoken to friends and different people who will talk about not remembering what happened that night. What we are doing here is actually saying that if people are not able to make that choice, although they voluntarily consumed the alcohol or the drugs, they are involuntarily doing the thing, because they do not have the state of mind to make the right judgment. I go back to point one: They had the choice to drink, and they had the choice to take drugs. There are some cases where awful things have happened when people have been given drugs. We understand that this happens as well, so we have to look at that, but when people are voluntarily doing something and then the next time they are actually victimizing somebody else, why are we sitting back and allowing that to be the case? Why are we sitting there and saying extreme intoxication can be used? We know that it is very minute, because we know that there is a threshold, but my problem is that one is too many. That could be somebody's daughter. That could be anything like this. We have to look at the victims first. We have to look at the violators first, and that is what we are not doing. I think the decision made by the Supreme Court, whether it is right or wrong, gave direction to the government to do something, and I am asking the government where it is at making this decision. We know that, as I said, people are not going to come forward if they think this can be used, so I am very concerned as we are moving forward. There is a lot of work we need to do here. When it comes to intimate partner violence, when it comes to violence and when it comes to offences on other victims, I believe we can all agree that the victims matter and that they should come first, so I urge the government to do something now, not three weeks from now, but now.

1881 words

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

Jun/7/22 7:30:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for raising this really important issue. She mentioned that this happened three weeks ago, but the Ontario court actually ruled on this two years ago. Two years ago this week, my New Democrat colleague, the member for London—Fanshawe, called on the government to explore changes to the law to ensure that extreme intoxication could not be used as a defence. It has been two years, and we have been calling for the government to explore those changes. I wonder if the member can comment on how unacceptable it is that the government keeps delaying and that victims are paying the price.

111 words

Mrs. Karen Vecchio

Jun/7/22 7:31:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think the member wrapped it up perfectly. The government is late to the game. Victims need to come first. We have seen this when we talk about the victims bill of rights and the victims ombudsman. Where are they? I appreciate the fact that the member for London—Fanshawe works on issues dealing with women all the time, and I will stand beside her as she is working on those issues, because I think that when we see that women are being violated, we do stand together on these issues. Let us work together to get the government to do something.

105 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Jun/7/22 7:31:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, to pursue the point the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London put forward, I was very troubled by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision when it came down. The more I read the decision, the more I see that the court carefully differentiated mere drunkenness from this very specific extreme intoxication defence. That does not mean I am satisfied to leave the law as it is. We obviously cannot appeal this decision. It is a Supreme Court of Canada decision, but I agree with the member for Victoria and the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London. I would suggest that we all work together across party lines, recognizing that the Supreme Court of Canada itself has invited Parliament to legislate in this area in ways that would not offend the charter, to make sure that even in cases of extreme intoxication there is no loophole for violent crimes.

154 words

Mrs. Karen Vecchio

Jun/7/22 7:33:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I understand where the member is coming from, because there is a line between where drunkenness ends and where extreme intoxications starts. That is the line we have to figure out. Right now there is no true definition. We know that there would need to be psychologists, psychiatrists and a variety of different people, so the threshold is high, but there needs to be something more defined. At this time, the Supreme Court of Canada has come back and said that legislators and members of Parliament need to fix this. That is our job, so we should be having those discussions and fixing that.

106 words

Mrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC)

Jun/7/22 7:33:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her strong ongoing advocacy for victims. I wonder if she can comment on the government's overarching theme of being soft on crime. We see it in a number of ways, in different legislation that it brings forth and in how it approaches many different issues. I wonder if you can comment on how the government is not really standing up for victims of crime, but really having this soft-on-crime approach.

82 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/7/22 7:34:32 p.m.
Watch

Just as a reminder, it is the hon. member who is going to comment, not me. The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

25 words

Mrs. Karen Vecchio

Jun/7/22 7:34:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, to that point, being soft on crime is exactly how I see this. We talk about the revolving door that we see in the courts. We talk about that all the time, and we continue to see it because there is loophole after loophole. That is where the government comes in. When it comes to criminal law and laws like this, we need to look at them and ask where the victim fits in. I have watched different court sessions. I recognize that, at the end of the day, the government wants to get rid of mandatory minimum sentences and so forth. I want to know how many victims' organizations are sitting at the table when the government is talking about that. I have sat with people who have gone to Parole Board hearings and who have been revictimized after the loss of a sister. I have spoken with these people. I ask the government to stand in their shoes for one day and imagine what it is like to lose a loved one, and then imagine having to withstand a government that is soft on crime.

189 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Jun/7/22 7:35:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères. I just got back from a short trip to Stockholm last week to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the first Earth Summit in 1972. These summits on global environmental challenges are always very informative, but over the years they sometimes take on another tone. I have to say that the data is becoming quite worrisome. This year, in 2022, the call for urgent action was clearer than ever. The statistics and the evidence should be stirring us into action and motivating us to implement bold public policy that provides hope for the future. People say there is always someone who is worse off than we are, but based on what I saw in Sweden, I would venture that Canada might not even be able to say that. That is how badly off we are. In its most recent report, the IPCC highlighted the important, if not critical, role that municipalities play in combatting climate change. I would say that Stockholm recognized that well before—

192 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/7/22 7:37:01 p.m.
Watch

Order. I can hear a phone sounding an alarm and I would ask that it be turned off. The hon. member may continue.

23 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 83