44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 22, 2022 02:00PM
Madam Speaker, there is the whole issue of how to deal with different types of sexual assault. My colleague mentioned a few. I would say that this is a different issue. We cannot see the bill as being part of a continuum because we are responding to a Supreme Court of Canada decision, and we could not anticipate exactly when it would be handed down. It is rather unfortunate that the ruling was handed down at the end of the session. We could not tell the Supreme Court of Canada to delay its decision until the fall or to release it sooner so we would have more time. That was out of our control.
I therefore do not think it belongs in a continuum of measures for other problems. It is really something that fell into our lap. The Supreme Court of Canada could have decided not to strike down the section. Then we would have had nothing to do. In short, we had no control over the Supreme Court of Canada's decision, and we are never supposed to have any.
182 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking tonight on Bill C-28, though perhaps not to be speaking at this hour, but I am glad to see Parliament acting quickly in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Brown, which found section 33.1 of the Criminal Code, prohibiting the use of the extreme intoxication defence, unconstitutional. That was on May 13 of this year, only some five weeks ago.
It is important to note that the Supreme Court found section 33.1 violated the charter, both section 7, which provides protection for life, liberty and security of the person, and section 11(d), which protects the presumption of innocence. It is also important to note that our legal system has gone back and forth over time on the legality of using extreme intoxication as a defence in crimes requiring an element of intent.
The Supreme Court of Canada, before the charter, in 1978, in a case called R. v. Leary, said it never could be used as a defence in those kinds of cases. However, after the charter was established in 1994, in a case called R. v. Daviault, the Supreme Court overruled what I guess we could call the previous common law rule and restored the possibility of using extreme intoxication as a defence, finding that the prohibition violated the charter.
The details of the Daviault case were particularly horrible, which other members recounted earlier, and they actually caused Parliament to act fairly quickly in 1995 to restore the prohibition on the use of extreme intoxication as a defence by inserting section 33.1 of the Criminal Code. That is the section the Supreme Court now has said is unconstitutional once again.
I want to stop here and remind everyone that simple intoxication has never been a defence in Canada for crimes of violence of any sort, including sexual assault, and nothing about the current Supreme Court decision or about Bill C-28 changes that. Simple intoxication is not a criminal defence in this country, but there has been a great deal of misinformation, particularly online, that has misled people into thinking that somehow simply being drunk is a defence in criminal law in Canada.
We have to remember that extreme intoxication is a very specific and limited circumstance, a specific circumstance where impairment is so severe that people have no control over their bodies, their minds have no control over their bodies or, in common language, they are unconscious about what they are doing. Even though these cases are rare, like other members who have spoken before me, I am glad to see us acting quickly to restrict the possibility of anyone being able to escape responsibility for their actions by using the extreme intoxication defence and avoiding responsibility, therefore, for the harms that they have caused others.
Many groups have urged us to act quickly, but I acknowledge that there are some others who are concerned that we risk not getting it exactly right by moving too quickly. That is why I am glad to see that the motion we are dealing with tonight has a provision in it for hearings at the justice committee in the fall. It is unusual for us to conduct hearings on a law so soon after passing it, but I think it gives us a chance to review what we are doing here tonight to see if we have in fact had unforeseen problems or to see if in fact there is more that we need to do. That is why I am confident with us moving ahead tonight because we will do that review in the fall.
The Supreme Court of Canada itself pointed out a couple of options available to us as parliamentarians to restrict the possible use of an extreme intoxication defence while still respecting the charter. I believe that Bill C-28 does this well, in ways that would effectively re-establish the principle that in almost all cases, extreme intoxication is no defence.
How would Bill C-28 do this? It would do it in two ways. In order to make a claim of extreme intoxication, defendants will have to provide expert evidence in their own cases that their intoxication was so severe as to amount to what in law is called automatism. This is a well-known legal concept and a specific state already defined in law that the mind is not in control of the body. Therefore, defendants have to present evidence in their own cases, not that it is possible that they were extremely intoxicated and not just claiming that they were extremely intoxicated, but that they were, according to expert evidence presented, in a state of extreme intoxication. That evidence, of course, will have to be presented in court and can be tested in court.
The second way in which Bill C-28 would make it difficult to use this defence is that the prosecution would be able to argue that even if the accused has proved that they were in a state of extreme intoxication, they failed on the standard of criminal negligence because they failed to take the measures a reasonable person would have taken to avoid causing harm.
If a person takes intoxicants or combines prescription drugs and illegal drugs or combines alcohol and magic mushrooms or whatever it is that the accused was doing, and if they, as a reasonable person, should have known the possibility of losing control and the possibility of violence, then they should have taken measures to limit that possibility, and if they did not, then they could not use this defence.
My summary, in plain language, is that the Supreme Court of Canada cracked open the door on the use of extreme intoxication defence, and what we are doing with Bill C-28 is shutting that door as far as possible while still being consistent with the Charter of Rights.
The Minister of Justice has presented a charter statement for Bill C-28 that certifies that Bill C-28 is in fact charter compliant and consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court in R. v. Brown. I have no reason to doubt the content of that charter statement.
As likely the last speaker on Bill C-28 tonight before we adopt it, I do not want to risk going on at too great a length, but let me say that after a House sometimes has had a bad reputation with the public for being overly partisan and polarized and unable to look after the public good, I believe we are demonstrating something different here tonight.
Through the confidence and supply agreement between the Liberals and New Democrats, I believe we have already demonstrated that in a minority Parliament we can co-operate and work together to get things done, but Bill C-28 demonstrates an even broader ability of parliamentarians from all parties to come together co-operatively and to act swiftly in the public interest. That is what we will be doing tonight when we pass Bill C-28 a little over a month after a Supreme Court decision that cracked that door open to escaping responsibility for violent acts by claiming extreme intoxication.
What we are doing tonight is once again, as I said, making that a remote possibility. We are making it the remote possibility that it should be.
I hope we come across other opportunities in this Parliament to have the same zeal for working together. One of those opportunities is on the issue of coercive and controlling behaviour, and there is a link here because we are talking about violence primarily against women.
Twice the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has recommended to the House that the government introduce legislation to make coercive and controlling behaviour a criminal offence. Such legislation would recognize that coercive and controlling behaviour is in itself a form of violence, but it would also recognize that it is very often a precursor to physical violence.
As I said, twice now the justice committee has recommended this to the House, and I hope we will find an opportunity to get the same all-party agreement and the same ability to move forward on that piece of legislation as well.
In conclusion, sometimes I am very proud to be a part of this Parliament, and tonight, on Bill C-28, is one of those nights.
1409 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it warms the heart to hear my hon. colleague is proud to be a member of the House tonight. I commend him for his work on the justice committee.
In light of the compressed timeline we are dealing with, we all recognize the government needed to act with extreme urgency when this decision came down. Is the member open to working with members of all parties on the justice committee in the fall to hear from witnesses who may have ideas on how this legislation, which will have already passed by then, could perhaps warrant further amendments to the Criminal Code to best close this loophole?
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to state again, as I have many times, that the hon. member for Fundy Royal and I have a good working relationship, despite the fact there are many things we might not agree on. Sometimes there is common ground, as there is tonight.
Certainly I agree with him. Though it was not our idea and I believe it may have been his idea, the motion we are dealing with would order the justice committee to conduct such hearings in the fall. As I said in my speech, it will give us the opportunity to see whether we have done the right thing and whether there is more we can do on the issue of violence against women through extreme intoxication.
Absolutely, the answer is yes.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his very thoughtful presentation today. I also want to thank him for his co-operation at the justice committee and for his hard work.
I want to ask him what he is hearing from key stakeholders. I know we have been engaged with a number of key stakeholders who are quite supportive of the legislation. His co-operation is essential to getting this passed. I want to know what his stakeholders are telling him about this legislation and if there is any feedback on its overall intent, as well as the balance that we were able to find in coming forward today.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my experience is the same as what the minister and others have expressed, which is that the vast majority of people I have heard from in this short period of time, especially ordinary citizens, would like to see us move very quickly to close this possible loophole. The majority of organizations that are more active in legal reform have also said they think this bill accomplishes what we need to do.
As I said in my speech, there are some, but only a few I have heard from in the past few days, that think that we could do more or that we could make closing the door even tighter. I am not sure they are correct about that, given the Supreme Court decision, but I am certainly willing to hear from them in the hearings we will conduct this fall.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in terms of the stakeholders that did come forward, I know that LEAF has shown support for this piece of legislation. However, LEAF specifically called for a great deal more education within the justice system, and more advocacy for women who deal with, and have to go through, the criminal justice system when they experience violence.
Could he talk about what the government should be doing in order to address those concerns that LEAF brought forward?
78 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in justice, when talking about a number of issues, there is always an area where we need to do more. That is the issue of violence against women. We have heard the Liberal government talk about its action plan for quite a long time now, and I think most of us are ready to see that plan and would like to make sure there is actually action in the action plan.
As I mentioned toward the end of my speech, the issue of coercive and controlling behaviour is a form of violence, but it also usually leads to physical violence eventually. We have had all-party agreement at the justice committee; we achieved that twice. We have held hearings at the justice committee. I express my hope, and I do it again, that sometime very soon in this Parliament we will get the same all-party agreement to move quickly on that issue as well.
157 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
There being no further members rising, pursuant to order made on Tuesday, June 21, the motion is deemed adopted and Bill C-28 is deemed read a second time, referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed on division.
63 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/22/22 10:14:15 p.m.
- Watch
We have a point of order. The hon. parliamentary secretary.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/22/22 10:14:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I believe, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 12 a.m.
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/22/22 10:14:28 p.m.
- Watch
Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to see the clock at midnight?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/22/22 10:15:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Canadians are struggling with soaring gas prices and the highest increase in food costs and inflation in 40 years. While Canadians are struggling, the government has refused to provide relief, despite the fact that it is raking in billions off the backs of consumers. Worst of all, the government is filling its massive fuel slush fund by the taxing of taxes. I speak, of course, of the HST being applied to the federal excise tax on fuel, the federal carbon tax on fuel and the provincial tax, never mind the product. My god, I am sure that if the Liberals could get away with it, they would put a tax on a tax on a tax.
This is why I am going to ask the government, for a fifth time now, to please help Canadians.
I know that my colleague will likely have some government talking points. I am going to help him out, so that we can really get to the substance of this debate.
The Liberals are likely going to cite child care. Yes, child care is great. I support child care, but how does $10-a-day child care help Canadians if they cannot afford the gas to take their child to day care? What about those of us who do not have kids or whose kids are adults now?
The Liberals will tell us that inflation is a challenge that multiple countries are facing. They might even list the countries where inflation is worse than in Canada, but our concern should be our constituents and Canadians here. How does the fact that it is worse elsewhere help those of us struggling here at home?
The Liberals might mention that payments are coming from the carbon tax and list the projected amounts that families are supposed to be rebated. When? People need help now. Can people expect payments when they can still afford to make a mortgage or rent payment or when they can still afford to put food on the table?
The Liberals will likely also cite how supply chains and many things are outside of the government's control. Do members know what the federal government has complete control of? It has complete control over how it chooses to use the massive slush fund of at least $2.5 billion. That is $2.5 billion extra that the government had not budgeted for or earmarked, the windfall.
Doing nothing is a choice. If the government wants to choose to continue to tax taxes, that is its prerogative, but I will plead with my hon. colleague to please put himself in the shoes of people who dread the end of the month and who wonder whether or not they will be able to make their bill payments. People are at their breaking point. They need help.
I hope that the fifth time is the charm and that this fifth call on the government will be enough to persuade it to help struggling Canadians.
Therefore, I ask my hon. colleague this: Will the government stop taxing taxes and will it please help Canadians who are struggling?
521 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/22/22 10:18:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member is starting to sound more and more like our Conservative colleagues across the way, not so much in terms of concern about inflation but more in the rhetoric and manufactured outrage, in my opinion, that he seems to be displaying.
I apologize to him that he has asked this question five times. I hope he listens carefully, because my answers will be extremely direct. I will not talk about child care, I will not list countries and I will not talk about payments coming back to people from the price on pollution, despite the fact that they are all extremely important programs.
Indeed, I will talk about affordability being top of mind for our government, just as it is for most Canadians these days. We understand that Canadians are worried about inflation and that they are rightly asking what their government is going to do about it.
The current high inflation is a global phenomenon, driven in large part by the lasting impacts of a once-in-a-generation pandemic and amplified by China's ongoing COVID-zero policies and Russia's illegal invasion in Ukraine. These are not excuses; I am putting out the facts so that the member clearly understands where the problem originated.
As inflation is a global and multi-faceted issue, our government understands the importance of taking targeted measures here at home to help Canadians make ends meet. How have we supported Canadians, and what are we going to do to continue to support them? To answer the member's question directly, this was top of mind when the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance highlighted, just last week, the five real and tangible steps we are taking to help get inflation under control and make life more affordable.
First, the government recognizes the central role of the Bank of Canada. For more than three decades, it has been the bank's responsibility to tackle inflation here in Canada, and we will let the bank continue to do this important work.
Second, as we made clear in budget 2021, we will also address the shortage of workers in this country. Our plan to do so is part of a set of measures that Janet Yellen, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, has described as modern supply-side economics.
Third, our government also understands that fiscal restraint is key in combatting inflation. Our government is determined to see our debt-to-GDP ratio continue to decline and our deficits continue to be reduced.
Fourth, our government is also committed to making sure that there are enough good middle-class jobs for Canadians. By doing so, we will continue to see our economy be prosperous, as we know that the middle class is so critical in ensuring that prosperity.
Last, we will help Canadians directly with the challenge of affordability, in issue the member has raised. Through the affordability plan, we will provide just under $9 billion in new support for Canadians. Our plan includes enhancements to the Canada worker benefit; a 10% increase to old age security for seniors over 75; a $500 payment this year to nearly one million Canadian renters who are struggling with the cost of housing; lower child care fees for families across the country; and benefits indexed to inflation, including the Canada child benefit, the GST credit, the Canada pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement.
This is how we will make life more affordable for Canadian families while controlling expenditures and maintaining Canada's AAA credit rating.
595 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/22/22 10:22:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague listed a number of things that he says his government is doing. Who is paying for these things? It is Canadians. It is Canadians' hard-earned taxpayer dollars that are being used to fund these things.
However, I did not really hear anything beyond great, grand commitments. How does that help someone who is struggling? It is cold comfort to someone who is sitting at the table at the end of the night, wondering whether they can feed their family next week.
What I hope my hon. colleague could help me to better understand is not a rehashing of things that have already been announced but what Canadians can expect, what my constituents can count on as they struggle to pay their bills.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/22/22 10:23:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is what they can count on.
They can count on the Canada workers benefit, a 10% increase to old age security for seniors over 75 and a $500 additional payment this year to nearly one million Canadian renters who are struggling with the cost of housing. Families across the country can rely on lower child care fees. They can rely on the fact that there will be indexation to inflation for the Canada child benefit, the GST credit, the Canada pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement.
I regret that the member seems to think that these policies are being rehashed and re-laid out and that he does not see the tangible benefits these policies have for Canadians. I am sure that if he goes back and talks to Canadians who are receiving these benefits and explains to them how the changes will further impact their lives, they would see the benefit of them.
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/22/22 10:24:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chance to come back to my question to the Minister of Housing from a couple of weeks ago on the housing crisis in this country, and specifically those who are experiencing homelessness and living unsheltered. I had asked the question because decades of underinvestment in both housing and mental health and addiction support are hitting my community hard. As one example of what this looks like, over the past several months an encampment has grown in downtown Kitchener to now upwards of 50 people living in tents in the downtown. My community is reeling.
At the time, I was told the solution was the reaching home program. It is part of Canada's homelessness strategy. It supports the goals of the national housing strategy, and the aim is to reduce chronic homelessness by 50% by 2027-28. Just last summer, the Parliamentary Budget Officer reviewed that plan, and here is what he had to say about it. I quote:
...we project that in the absence of additional spending the number of households in housing need would have increased to approximately 1.8 million households with a $9.3-billion aggregate affordability gap by 2025-26.
Turning back to my community, this seems like an example of the increase that the PBO was expecting. In 2018, there were 333 people experiencing homelessness in Waterloo Region. Going fast-forward to our most recent point-in-time count study last fall, we see that it tripled. There are now over a thousand people experiencing homelessness in Waterloo Region, 412 of whom are living unsheltered, for example in tents downtown. The rest are in emergency shelters or in transitional housing. There might be the hidden homeless, or people in institutions such as a hospital or a domestic violence shelter. It is clear in my community, and from the PBO's report in other communities across the country, that these plans are not working.
We also need to be clear that the encampment downtown is not only the result of insufficient federal funds for housing. It is the result of mental health as well. Despite using the right words, for example, we can all agree that mental health is health, the reality is that the funding is not there. In the last election campaign, the governing party promised billions in a new Canada mental health transfer to the provinces. When it came time for the 2022 budget, though, there was not a cent budgeted for this transfer; instead, it got a three-line mention to stay tuned for more.
The fact is that we cannot expect municipalities to take on the housing and mental health crises on their own. They need support from the provinces and, yes, the federal government as well. I appreciate that the parliamentary secretary is with us this evening. She is a person I respect. I wonder if she would be willing to join me to meet people at the encampment in downtown Kitchener. Most importantly, will she share this: Will the federal government step up? If so, what would that look like?
517 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/22/22 10:28:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kitchener Centre for his question and his concern for homeless people in his community. I share that concern.
We believe that all Canadians deserve to have a roof over their heads and to live in dignity, but there is a lot of work to do to get there. Some 35,000 people across the country experience homelessness on any given night. That is why we developed the first national housing strategy in Canada using a human rights-based approach. This comprehensive 10-year strategy, supported by an over $72-billion investment plan, gives priority to the most vulnerable members of our society.
Over the past two years, these people have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. During that time, we increased the number of projects for them under the national housing strategy. Thanks to budget 2022, we will soon be able to launch measures that will help them even more. For example, the rapid housing initiative is a very successful program that has helped thousands of Canadians who were living in precarious housing during the pandemic.
Two and a half billion dollars has already been allocated to the program, which will quickly create over 10,000 new affordable homes for Canadians who need it most. In this budget, we are proposing an additional $1.5 billion over two years to extend this initiative, based, in particular, on comments that were made last year. This new funding is expected to help create at least 6,000 new affordable housing units, of which at least 25% will be allocated to housing projects for women.
As my colleague from Kitchener Centre might already know, three housing projects in his riding were made possible through the rapid housing initiative. Together, they will create more than 70 permanent, affordable housing units for the people who need it most. One of those projects is oneROOF. It will soon be able to give people experiencing homelessness, people with mental health or addiction issues, and indigenous peoples a place to call home.
Our government also remains committed to ending chronic homelessness through Reaching Home, Canada's homelessness strategy. We have committed over $3 billion to address homelessness, including doubling annual funding for four years in response to the pandemic. With budget 2022, we will provide $562 million over two years to continue providing doubled annual funding for this program. We will also support research on eliminating chronic homelessness and a new veteran homelessness program.
Our government is making significant and sustained investments in housing. We are working hard to make housing more affordable for Canadians. As my colleague surely knows, and he would agree with me, our federal leadership and the significant investments we have made in housing across the country through the national housing strategy are some of the most significant we have seen from this government and in Canada in over 30 years now.
492 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/22/22 10:31:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think it is important to note that it is true that the federal government is not doing nothing, and organizations like oneROOF are doing incredible work. The projects she mentioned are important projects that are benefiting people in my community every day, but what I think is also really critical for her to understand is that the trend is going the wrong direction. It is insufficient. It is not nothing, but it is insufficient.
Specifically, as I mentioned, we tripled the number of unhoused individuals in my community in the last three years alone. This is a time when the governing party has had the opportunity to do more, and it has not. I am sure this is not only in Kitchener this is happening, but certainly, if the parliamentary secretary wants to, she can come downtown and see people who are living in tents as a result.
My question is the same. While I appreciate what has already been done, and the rapid housing initiative is important, I would like to see her do far more.
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/22/22 10:32:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, again, stable and affordable housing offers a refuge at a time of uncertainty. We agree. We need to do more. That is precisely the message we sent in budget 2022, a budget that was focused on housing.
The budget centred on housing and a commitment to work on ending homelessness. I would like to say to my colleague that if he is inviting me to visit his riding, I would be pleased to go meet with him and his constituents.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
