SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 286 - Feb/27/24

Feb/27/24 5:26:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The rules are very specific. A member cannot intentionally mislead the House. The member is intentionally misleading the House, because it is the same company. They are the same two people.

40 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/27/24 5:26:56 p.m.
Watch

We are not going to start a debate on that. This gives me the opportunity to say that, it being 5:27 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. The question is as follows. Shall I dispense? Some hon. members: No. [Chair read text of motion to House] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

118 words

Mr. Marty Morantz

Feb/27/24 5:30:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to request a recorded division.

10 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/27/24 5:30:34 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 28, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

23 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/27/24 5:30:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it 5:42 p.m. so we can begin private member's hour.

34 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/27/24 5:30:57 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Feb/27/24 5:31:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-205 Bill C-320 Bill C-233

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak to Bill C‑320, which amends the Criminal Code with respect to disclosure of information to victims. The Bloc Québécois supports this bill. As vice-chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women since 2020, I have contributed to numerous studies aimed at addressing violence against women. The figures are very alarming. Many cities in Quebec and Canada have gone so far as to describe the situation as an epidemic. We need to come up with concrete solutions for victims, to prevent the violence from creating more victims. In a recent article, I promised to make this a priority in my status of women file. Today, I will explain the Bloc's position in greater detail. Then, I will elaborate a bit on the benefits of this bill. In closing, I will reiterate the importance of making this a non-partisan issue. First, the Bloc Québécois's position is consistent with its commitment to support initiatives that keep women safe and that address violence against women. We believe that victims have everything to gain from getting as much information as possible about their assailant and the situation surrounding the assailant's potential release. This position is in keeping with the Bloc Québécois's support for Bill C‑233. As a small reminder, that bill amended the Criminal Code to require a justice, before making a release order in respect of an accused who is charged with an offence against their intimate partner, to consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety and security of any person, to include as a condition of the order that the accused wear an electronic monitoring device. The Bloc Québécois will always stand up to protect victims of crime and strengthen the relationship of trust between the public and our institutions. Secondly, the bill before us now seeks to amend the Criminal Code to enable victims of a criminal offence to get an explanation about how certain decisions were made about their assailant. This includes the eligibility dates and review dates applicable to the offender in respect of temporary absences, work release, parole or statutory release. Adding a mechanism that would give victims access to additional information about their assailant's situation and decisions being made about that person is certain to strengthen the justice system. Over the past few years, Quebec has positioned itself as a world leader in enhancing victim protection and strengthening victims' trust in the justice system. For example, the Government of Quebec has launched a pilot project in a number of courthouses to create courts specializing in sexual assault cases in certain courthouses; one of them is near me, in Granby. There is also the electronic monitoring device pilot project, which was successful and has been deployed across the province. These advancements meet the objective of recognizing how vulnerable victims of an offence are and putting all the tools at their disposal so they can be safe. This way, the justice system can evolve and adapt to better serve the needs of victims of crime. In an effort to be consistent, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑320. If they pass, these legislative changes will represent an added value for the victims, including female victims of domestic or sexual violence, for example. The justice system has to be more effective in general and more transparent, not least to facilitate the legal process and ease the long-term effects on victims or their family, especially when a decision is made about releasing the assailant. It also strengthens public trust in the justice system so that no other victim of a crime will hesitate to report it to the police. Statistics show that there has been a spike in femicide and domestic violence. Between 2009 and 2019, there was an increase of 7.5%. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to help reverse this troubling trend. The year 2024 is not off to a good start, since the first femicide in Quebec took place at the beginning of January in Granby, in my riding. Once again, my thoughts and sympathies go out to the victim's loved ones. The reality on the ground highlights the gaps, including the status quo in the justice system: Many victims continue to fear their assailant, even while that person is in custody. We can only applaud an initiative that seeks to improve the victim's experience of the justice system throughout the process, starting from the moment she decides to file a complaint. We need to rebuild their trust. Actually, “Rebâtir la confiance”, or rebuilding trust, is the title of an important non-partisan report that was produced by elected officials in Quebec City on the issue of violence against women, highlighting victims' lack of trust in the system. Thirdly, I would like to emphasize this non-partisan aspect that allows us to move this file forward. I know that the Conservative members will support this bill. We need to rebuild victims' trust in the justice system, which these same victims describe sometimes as lax. This bill seeks to better equip victims and their families so that they can obtain accurate and concurrent information on the court's decisions on their attacker. Victims and their families say that they are sometimes surprised to learn that the attacker is entitled to early release, long before the end of the 25-year sentence, for example. This needs to be taken into account. The Liberal caucus will also be in favour of this bill because it will improve the level of transparency in the judicial process. The NDP caucus, too, will be in favour of this bill because it will improve the level of transparency in the judicial process. We all agree on the need to find solutions to help victims regain this all-important trust and further encourage them to come forward. I would like to briefly come back to a few other measures that were recently brought in that seek to meaningfully work on this issue of violence. We know that adding meaningful proposals and establishing a real continuum of services will help victims. No magic wand is going to fix all of this in one shot. I want to come back to the matter of the special court for victims of sexual assault. This is a recommendation from the report entitled “Rebâtir la confiance”, that is currently being analyzed. The purpose of such a court would be to give victims a safe space where they can be heard by the justice system, a space where the workers at every level, including judges, are sensitive to the needs of victims. The first such court was set up in Valleyfield on March 5, 2022. It was a world first. Yes, Quebec became the first place in the world to set up a court specialized in domestic violence. With regard to electronic monitoring devices, Quebec has once again been a leader in better protecting victims. Quebec became the first province in Canada to launch a two-pronged monitoring system for domestic violence suspects. However, threats still exist. From what I heard in committee, we need to be careful that these devices do not create a false sense of security and ensure that they are worn properly. We also need to consider the fact that connectivity may be a problem in some places, especially remote areas, which means that the devices may not work properly there. We need to address that. I had argued from the outset that the government should follow suit and recognize Quebec's leadership on this issue. On May 20, 2022, Quebec was the first jurisdiction in the country to do this. It was ridiculous that only criminals sentenced to two years less a day should have to wear an electronic bracelet. The federal government should follow suit so that criminals with the toughest sentences could also find themselves subject to this measure under the Criminal Code. We have seen study after study in committee, but concrete action is slow in coming. There was the committee study on intimate partner violence, which also demonstrated the need to broaden our perception of violence and include the notion of coercive control. Recently, there was the clause-by-clause study of Bill S‑205, which specifically aimed to broaden the scope of electronic bracelet use. There is also this question of trust in the system that was raised during the study on abuse in the world of sport. Victims questioned the complaints system and called for an independent public inquiry to restore their trust and encourage reporting. In fact, that was the top recommendation in the report by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. The government must take action now. In closing, I would say that it is important to send a strong message to the victims and to take additional measures. We have to set partisanship aside and ensure that we actually mean it when we call ourselves feminists, that we walk the talk. I have had enough of fake feminism. On the other side, they cannot claim to be feminists by boasting about getting tough on crime if they also infringe on women's right to control their own bodies. We have to remain vigilant and not fall prey to demagoguery, disinformation, and dare I say even the erosion of law and order. That would be the logical conclusion. It is going to take a lot more than common sense to find solutions. Let us all—elected members, justice officials and community stakeholders at every level—work toward a common objective: to save women's lives so that there is not one more victim.

1658 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Feb/27/24 5:41:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5 Bill C-320

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House on behalf of the people of North Island—Powell River. Before I start my speech on this particular bill, I want to take an opportunity to send my love and condolences to the “real” North Island, as they like to call it. It is an area of a lot of small communities and small indigenous communities that, unfortunately, have seen several deaths of young people in the last few months. I know they are reeling from this, and a lot of constituents have reached out to express their fear, their concern and their need for support for youth. I want to thank them for doing that, and I thank all the organizations in the region that are opening up their hearts and workplaces to accommodate and work with youth and their loved ones. It is a very hard time. I just want to acknowledge that, for all of us in this place, we know that youth are the most important gift that we receive as humanity. When we lose them, in whatever way, it cuts us deeply. I just want to send my love and prayers to them and continue to work with them towards solutions so we can protect our youth much more effectively. However, we are here today to talk about Bill C-320, which is a private member's bill from the member for Oshawa. The bill talks about having a requirement to provide victims with an explanation as to why a specific parole date had been chosen, so victims can better understand the parole system. I think it would be a minor change, but it could have a significant impact on people. We know that too many people who are victimized often feel revictimized when they hear information that they are surprised to receive. Therefore, as we move forward collectively in this place, making our systems as clear as possible just helps to build that connection and provide some orientation when people are going through very hard and difficult times. When we look at the justice system, we see high rates of incarceration of indigenous and racialized people, those living in poverty and, of course, those with mental health and addictions issues, which is really concerning. I do not know if “justice” really belongs in the title. This reminds me of several indigenous communities and elders I have spent time with. Every story is a little bit different, but the main theme is this: When we have a person in our society who is behaving in a way that is hard, stressful or unpleasant for the society, we do not blame that person. Instead, we step back and look at the whole society to see what is happening within the collective that is creating this response in the person. I think that is a really hard thing to do; it shows how strong so many indigenous communities are, because they have that capacity. When the system is broken, it breaks people; it breaks communities, and we see this way too often. It is extremely stressful for those who are experiencing it, but when we objectify it, push it away and say “those people are this way”, we dehumanize them. I hope that the idea here is to actually look at ways to collect people together to better inform them of the process, to make it collectively safer for everyone and to recognize that our system is broken. As we move through these small changes, we have to start looking at what big changes need to happen to really fix some of these huge, gaping holes. We have heard a lot of talk, especially from the Conservatives, about Bill C-5. I understand that their methodology is about being tough on crime, but I am more interested in what actually works. I really believe that we should be listening to the people who spend their lives in these fields and explore these realities, because we need to make sure that our communities are safer. One thing that concerns me is that we often forget to invest in the preventative measures. Instead of dragging people out of the river, prevention means that we go upstream to find out why they are falling in the river. However, we do not see enough of that. There were some recommendations in the report from the justice committee on improving support for victims of crime. We really need to start looking at this. This is one step toward it, but we need to do some work and make sure we are working with all the provinces and territories to provide support for victims across Canada. We need to look at it from a national perspective as well. I do not want to impose on provinces, but maybe we need to have some standards we need to meet. What is really unfortunate is when one rule applies here but does not apply somewhere else in our country, which can often create divisions. Also, it can be very confusing if we ever have anything that is cross-jurisdiction. We also have to think of clarity of message so that when people are victimized, the more we are collectively doing similar processes, the more effective things will be. With more repetition, people will start to know what to expect. In the report, there was a very important recommendation, “That sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights be amended to clarify that the information to which victims of crime are entitled should be provided automatically rather than on request”. The recommendation does go on from there, but this is an important action we need to start taking. Again, when a person is victimized, it can be very overwhelming. We know that when working with people who have trauma, one needs to repeat things and make sure they understand. Asking them to request is often asking too much from people who have already been victimized. Another recommendation I want to touch on is recommendation 8: “That the Department of Justice promote and expand restorative justice opportunities, and that adequate funding be provided to restorative justice programs.” In my riding, for example, the Comox Valley Community Justice Centre does some very innovative work. It has multiple people trained. It works very closely with indigenous communities to make sure the process is inclusive. It does some very hard work. Restorative justice is not supported enough, so I would love to see more federal funding. When people who victimize have to accept accountability, have to be accountable to their community and have to really sit and hear the impact on the person they victimized, it changes the dynamics. It gives the victim a lot more power to speak out, to share and to have impact. It really starts to create community. This is an important recommendation. I will be supporting the bill the member put forward. It is a small step that is somewhat helpful, but we have a lot of work to do. The system is breaking people, and there are too many broken people in this country. We should all do better by them.

1213 words

Ms. Leslyn Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk, CPC)

Feb/27/24 5:49:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-320

Madam Speaker, it is my honour to rise on behalf of the residents of Haldimand—Norfolk today. We have all heard the old proverb that knowledge is power, and it is for this reason that I rise to speak in support of Bill C-320, the bill my colleague from Oshawa has championed in the House. We have heard the painful story that has inspired this bill. It is about a daughter who was blindsided by the early parole given to her father's killer. Because the killer was given a life sentence of 25 years without parole, early parole was not something that was anticipated by the family. It is the tireless advocacy of Lisa Freeman that has led to this bill coming before the House. The goal of the bill is to simply lay out what needs to be done to include the families of victims in the parole process. Victims of crime would be given timely and accurate information, according to this bill, about parole eligibility. Victims would be included in the information about how those decisions are made and notified prior to the violent offender being released from the system. Bill C-320 would also provide clarity on a victim's ability to participate in the parole hearing. There is an embarrassing trend in Canada in which the rights of murderers and violent offenders seem to overshadow the rights of victims of violent crimes. In May 2023, one of the most notorious killers, Paul Bernardo, was transferred from a maximum-security prison to a medium-security facility. His victim's family was not notified of this transfer until after it had occurred. This pattern continues today. Just last week, news broke that a serial killer, Robert Pickton, who was convicted of six counts of second-degree murder and accused of 20 very similar offences, was eligible to apply for day parole. This parole application came just 17 years into his 25-year sentence. It was one of the victim's close relatives who spoke up because the families of the victims were not informed of the parole eligibility. There is an expression in law that justice must not only be done, but also must be seen to be done. In law, we are careful about ensuring that the sentence fits the crime. We are concerned that the accused should get a fair trial in every situation. All of these values are very important to the criminal justice system and to due process. It is important in upholding the integrity of our judicial system, but what is also important is how we treat victims. The justice system owes a minimal level of decency and dignity to inform victims' families of these kinds of decisions and how these decisions are approved. Without doing so, the justice system is exacerbating and adding to the trauma of the families of victims when they are blindsided by early parole hearings or transfers to low-security correctional facilities. Many Canadians assume that, when a sentence is given of 25 years, that is what the offender will serve. Victims and their families cannot continue to be retraumatized in this manner by being kept in the dark about the rationale of decisions in the parole system. Bill C-320 would be vital in ensuring that victims are able to feel free, safe and protected. I come back to the saying that knowledge is power. Take the example of the personal case of Ms. Freeman, who has inspired this legislation. Ms. Freeman's father, Roland Slingerland, a Royal Canadian Navy veteran, was murdered in cold blood while he was working in a downtown Oshawa rooming house. If the victim's family had been informed before the transfer occurred that his murderer was being moved to a facility just 10 kilometres from the victim's daughter's home, she would have been better prepared emotionally, psychologically and mentally for that. Victims' families do not deserve to be revictimized by the parole system, nor should the system provide false hope and a false sense of security that the person who harmed or murdered their loved ones is behind bars. The average person, when they hear of a sentence, does not think in terms of parole. They think in terms of that person's serving the entire sentence. Imagine that a family member could just be walking down the street and accidentally encounter, for example, their father's killer. Imagine how traumatizing this would be to the victim's family. Would it not make more sense to inform the family, or perhaps allow them to participate in the parole hearings and provide a victim impact statement? My background is in law. I know how the process by which dates for parole eligibility are determined and how transfers to lower-security facilities are determined. It is not an arbitrary process. Someone does not just wake up and arbitrarily set a date for parole eligibility. There is a process, and the bill before us would include victims in that process by giving them access to information. This would increase the transparency and the trust in the system. This simple bill would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to give some level of security, respect and dignity to the families of victims. Bill C-320 is a common-sense bill. The legislation would increase transparency and accountability for the government and the justice system by making sure that victims of crime are treated with respect and dignity, and are not arbitrarily left out of the parole hearing process. It would give a stronger voice to victims of crime, as advocates have said. It is quite simple: Victims should not be constantly revictimized by a system that prioritizes offenders' rights over victims' rights, yet this continues to happen over and over again. As parliamentarians, we have a duty to represent the voices of our constituents and to put forward legislation that upholds the rights of all Canadians, that strengthens our laws and that fixes the injustices in our judicial system. This is exactly what my colleague, the member for Oshawa has done by bringing forward this legislation. I want to thank and commend him for bringing it to the floor of the House and for taking it to third reading. I also want to thank Lisa Freeman for her courage, despite the loss of her father. Transparency and accountability must be at the heart of our democracy. Let us work together in unity to send the bill to the Senate and see that it is passed into law. Victims of violent crime deserve better from their justice system, and the bill is a critical step in the right direction.

1119 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/27/24 5:59:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-320

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-320. The legislation has gone through a very productive process in which it has generated fairly wide support in the House of Commons. It is quite encouraging. What we have witnessed over the years is a great deal of support for victims of crime. This is something that has been amplified through a number of pieces of legislation that the government has introduced and through legislation that has been introduced by private members. There is nothing wrong with recognizing when a private member brings forward legislation that would have a positive impact and it receiving the support it should. In this situation, Bill C-320 is a bill that, from what I understand, all sides of the House are getting behind. There is an expectation that it will pass, and ultimately go to the Senate and hopefully pass through the Senate in a timely fashion. It is always encouraging when we see legislation, through the draw system and priorities, that members of Parliament have brought forward as individuals that gets to the point that, in all likelihood, it will achieve passage through the Senate of Canada and ultimately receive royal assent. When we read the legislation in the form it is today, it is very easy to understand and appreciate why it has garnered the support it has. We all recognize the commitment to supporting victims of crimes and their families, and also their communities, because they too are often the victims of violent crimes, and how we can provide that support. This legislation is one step in ensuring that there is a higher sense of accountability for information. I believe, as I know my colleagues do, that we need to look at ways that individuals who have caused harm to others are held accountable for their actions. On issues such as release, parole hearings or even conditional releases, there needs to be a sense of recognition, in a very strong and tangible way, that the victims and the family members of those victims are aware when someone has been released or granted parole. As well, details need to be provided on the rationale of the system in allowing that individual to be released. The issue of protecting our victims or standing up for victims was amplified in one of the budgets we provided, through the victims fund, which was close to $30 million, that was made available to provincial and territorial governments, and non-governmental organizations, to increase awareness and knowledge of victim issues, as well as the legislation and services that are available. That was a couple years back. Not only have we taken specific actions in certain areas of legislative changes, but we have also put the budgetary resources to support victims. I find it interesting, when we can build that support base, how relatively quickly we can come up with the consent of the House. The other day I was talking about the former leader of the Conservative Party and her private member's bill regarding the education of judges, if I can put it as simply as that, on the issue of sexual abuse and exploitation. As a result of the wide level of support for the issue, not only was the House able to pass it but, from what I understand, provincial jurisdictions have also taken it into consideration, and I would like to think have actually acted on it. There are things that take place here in Ottawa that can have a positive impact on the entire system. Here, of course, we are talking about criminal law, so it is somewhat different, but the principles are the same in the sense that the legislation received widespread support and ultimately is going to pass through the House. Where I find I get a little offside at times with the Conservative Party is when its members try to give the false impression that they want to be tough on crime, such as when they talk about one of their four priorities and give the very simple statement, “We are going to stop crime.” What I refer to as bumper sticker slogans are often accompanied by misinformation to try to give the impression that, for example, the government is weak on the issue of crime. The speaker before me made reference to a case where an inmate had been transferred. The first thing that came to my mind was when Ralph Goodale, when he was minister of public safety, brought to the attention of the House the issue of Tori Stafford's brutal murder that took place in 2009. When the sentencing came down, the perpetrator ultimately was put into a maximum-security facility and was then transferred in 2014 to a medium-security facility. That happened under a Conservative regime. However, when something of that nature happens on this side, the Conservatives will say that the Liberals are soft on crime. There seems to be a double standard used by the Conservatives, one standard they will use when they are in opposition, to try to give the false impression of being tough on crime and the government of the day being soft on crime, and then another standard when they are in government. It would be interesting to know how many private members' bills dealing with the issue of crime have been debated, ones originated from the Conservative caucus. A couple of them have passed. How does this compare to the type of government legislation they brought in when they were in the position to do so? I like to believe that supporting law enforcement agencies is really important in dealing with crime. When the Conservatives say they are going to stop crime, I like to remind my constituents that it was the Conservatives who actually cut $430 million from RCMP funding. That does not help stop crime; however, it feeds into the message, while they are in opposition, that the Conservatives are going to be tough on crime. I would suggest that we need to see more consistency coming from the member opposite. In terms of Bill C-320, today, we are witnessing how the member has been able to build up a consensus that would benefit the victims of crime. To that end, I will be supporting this particular piece of legislation.

1064 words

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Feb/27/24 6:10:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-205 Bill C-332 Bill C-320

Madam Speaker, I am also pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-320, which was introduced by the member for Oshawa. This bill is very much in line with other private members' bills that have been introduced by various members from various parties. These bills demonstrate that there is complete unanimity on this issue, unlike in many other areas. All parties agree when it comes to the issue of protecting victims and integrating them better into the justice system. For example, I can talk about two other bills that were debated very recently in the House, including Bill C-332, which was introduced by the NDP member for Victoria and seeks to criminalize coercive control. That bill focuses more on partners or spouses in a family context. I would like to read the bill summary: This enactment amends the Criminal Code to create an offence of engaging in controlling or coercive conduct that has a significant impact on the person towards whom the conduct is directed, including a fear of violence, a decline in their physical or mental health or a substantial adverse effect on their day-to-day activities. This bill seeks to create a new offence for conduct that often occurs in a domestic context. I was also pleased to rise to speak to Bill S-205, which was introduced by now former senator Pierre‑Hugues Boisvenu and has to do with intimate partners. Once again, by way of explanation, I want to read the bill summary as it appears in the bill. It states and I quote: This enactment amends the Criminal Code in respect of interim release and other orders related to intimate partner violence offences. The enactment also provides for recognizance orders to be made when there is a reasonable fear of domestic violence. This bill, which I spoke to in the fall, is rather large in scope when it comes to measures to protect victims of domestic violence. The two bills I just talked about deal with keeping women safe and protecting female victims. We know that the number of femicides increased by roughly 7.5% between 2009 and 2019. My colleague from Shefford also mentioned this. There is a great deal of work to be done to protect women. That is also the purpose of Senator Boisvenu's bill. It talks about the use of electronic bracelets, but also about the obligation to give the victim a copy of the order regarding the accused and to ensure that the victim has been consulted about her safety and security needs when a bail decision is being made. There was already a strong interest in ensuring that victims of domestic violence offences or sexual offences are given more information about, and also have a say in, an accused's release, should a peace bond be issued. The idea is to ensure that the victim is aware of the situation and that she can even be involved in the release process, in a way, by helping monitor the actions of an accused who is subject to certain conditions, such as maintaining distance. Unfortunately, law enforcement agencies do not always have enough eyes to ensure that release conditions are met. Perhaps this is one way to ensure better monitoring and enforcement of orders. Bill C-320 has some minor nuances. In this case, we are talking about victims in general. It is not just about victims of sexual offences or victims of domestic violence, but would include the families of murder victims, for example. The definition of victim as set out in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act includes the direct victim, but it also stipulates that someone else can act on the victim's behalf. This could include the victim's spouse or the person who was their spouse at the time of the victim's death, someone who was cohabiting with the victim, a relative or a dependant. This means that the bill can apply to a broader definition of victim. What this bill does is make it mandatory to give the victim more information on certain aspects. We are not calling into question the very concept of parole, for example. That is something that the Bloc Québécois supports, because we believe in rehabilitation. The parole system may not be perfect, but we must still support it in the sense that, in some cases, rehabilitation takes precedence over a very strict desire to simply keep people incarcerated when it is not necessary or appropriate and when there is a real possibility of social reintegration. Under the bill, the victim must be informed of the eligibility dates and review dates applicable to the offender in respect of temporary absences or parole, and they must be given an explanation of how those dates were determined. The victim must also be informed when the offender is released on escorted or unescorted temporary absence, on parole and on placement, meaning when the offender is sent to a halfway house. The victim must be informed of the date on which the offender will be released and how that date was determined. In short, explanations are given regarding the parole system, temporary absences and orders to place the offender in a halfway house. Without completely reforming the issue of parole, this bill ensures that the person does not learn through the media that an individual convicted of a crime committed against her or a member of her family was released without her full knowledge of the process, the mechanics of that decision. This will ensure greater confidence. In fact, I dare to hope that the bill will help give victims more confidence in the federal prison system and further involve victims in the process. If this transparency can make victims more confident, that can have an untold impact on certain aspects of the judicial process. I mentioned this during the study of Bill S-205. One of the common problems encountered in court when the time comes to lay criminal charges against someone, and particularly in the context of domestic violence, is that the victim is often not a party to the case, but simply a witness. This witness is important because, often, they are the only witness the Crown can use to put someone in jail and proceed with a hearing. If the victim does not have sufficient confidence in the justice system, she may decide not to testify, for fear of retribution. It is often for these reasons that domestic violence hearings go nowhere, for lack of a victim. This is an opportunity to improve overall knowledge of the justice system, from one end of the legal process to the other, as was done with the other two bills, and this one. We can help people understand the system better, have more trust in it and participate more in the process to ensure that those who have committed wrongdoing end up serving the sentence handed down for their actions. However, we also need to ensure that better psychological supports are available. As soon as the institution is required to properly inform victims about the parole process, for example, this can retraumatize many victims. We must therefore ensure that there are sufficient resources and supports in place for these victims if we want to get this right. We will have to make sure that there is a useful purpose, but also that we think more about the victims in the sense that this bill puts victims at the centre of the process. We must not do just one part of the job. We have to make sure that the work is done properly and that victims are fully supported. Ultimately, we have to be able to say that the victim has been put at the centre of our concerns and is part of the judicial process. She is not just an outside witness. This bill has good intentions, and that is why I am convinced that the parties decided to unanimously support it at second reading and in committee, and that they will support it now at third reading.

1356 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/27/24 6:20:07 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Oshawa has five minutes for his right of reply.

13 words

Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC)

Feb/27/24 6:20:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to say that I feel quite humbled and quite happy to be standing here this evening. We have heard the speeches in the House and the comments from members in regard to this bill. We have actually had an opportunity, instead of talking about some of these crimes, to talk about victims and their families. I want to take this opportunity to sincerely thank my colleagues in the House. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the victims and their families for their strength and for their advocacy. In particular, we have heard the name of Lisa Freeman a few times. She is a constituent of mine, who, with incredible tenacity and stubbornness, has helped make getting this bill through the House a reality. As my colleague from Haldimand—Norfolk said, “Knowledge is power.” This legislation would make a very simple amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act with respect to the disclosure of information to victims. It would provide and give greater respect and transparency to families and victims. This is a change, and I will agree that it is a small change, but we are in a situation in which we have heard examples of where criminals are now getting more support from the system than the victims. This needs to be reversed. Criminals' rights should never trump victims' rights, but it seems to happen every single time. It is our job to protect victims' rights. It should never be a family's job. These families, when their loved ones are murdered, get a life sentence. There is the mental trauma and cost, and it never goes away. The least we can do is be more transparent about how the criminals who changed their lives forever are being managed. As we have heard in some of the speeches, we are not going to fix all these serious matters with this one bill, but I think we can all agree that the system needs to be recalibrated. The rights of victims have to be made equal to, or rather they should always be made better than the rights of their offenders. Here we have it, colleagues. A killer could be released into a community where his victims live, at the whim of his case management team, with no need to explain to the victims how the decision was made or when the release will take place, until after the fact. I know all members will agree that this is unconscionable. It should not be a fight that victims have to take on year after year, just to keep the most callous of murderers where they belong. Under the guise of rehabilitation, victims of crime often must stand back and watch while violent offenders exercise their rights, which, as most victims of crime find, are nothing more than a mockery of the justice system and basic common sense. Throughout this debate, we have been able to give victims' families a voice. I just want to add a more recent example, because it is very important that we pass this bill right away, as soon as we can. We heard, just last week, that Robert Pickton is now eligible to seek day parole, a murderer charged with killing 26 women and convicted of the deaths of six. I want to read some of the coverage from the families. A cousin of one of Robert Pickton's victims stated, “The fact that he can actually apply is horrific.” This is what Ms. Williams said Wednesday, ahead of the candlelight vigil taking place by Pickton's old farm. She went on, “That threw me right off. I didn't know and the other families that I'm close to didn't know.” It is extremely unlikely that Pickton would ever be released, but Ms. Williams, a fierce advocate for missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, said that the mere fact that he can apply is disgusting. She also stated, “Our justice system is horrific. It's racist and puts Indigenous women's lives in danger...It makes me sick to my stomach.” She said that no one involved in the justice system informed victims' families that Pickton's day parole eligibility date was approaching, and she found out only after talking with a lawyer she knows. This has to stop. I want to thank colleagues in the House for their unanimous support, because it is an opportunity for us to do something that is right, and we can do it now.

765 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/27/24 6:25:13 p.m.
Watch

Is the House ready for the question? Some hon. members: Question. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): The question is on the motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

69 words

Mr. Colin Carrie

Feb/27/24 6:25:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote.

7 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/27/24 6:25:43 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to Standing Order 98, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 28, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

23 words

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

Feb/27/24 6:26:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Canada's common-sense Conservatives will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. This is in contrast to the Liberal record. The Liberals have axed the homes, built the crime, hiked the tax and stopped the budgeting. We are here to discuss the arrive scam scandal and, in particular, the procurement ombudsman's excellent report. Today, the procurement ombudsman was before the public accounts committee, and he confirmed that he is not at all surprised that the RCMP is now investigating the corruption at the heart of the government. In the arrive scam scandal, we see multiple layers of costly criminal corruption in the government's procurement system. The procurement ombudsman found that the government built a system for procurement designed to encourage companies to charge the government more. This is really incredible. If they charged too little, their bids or points might be removed, so the incentive was built right into the system for companies to charge more. The procurement ombudsman found a chronic problem of so-called bait and switch. This is where the bidding company says it is going to have one person do the work, then it switches and has someone else do the work, someone who is potentially substantially less qualified. This builds on what we already know: GC Strategies, the company that got the ArriveCAN contract, was changing and falsifying resumés they submitted to the government, and the government rigged the process. Members of the government sat down with the GC Strategies team to set the terms of the contract, such that GC Strategies would get the deal. This is a two-person company that subcontracts all the actual work, and yet the government sat down with this company and rigged the process so it would get the contracts. It built a system that would favour insiders to ensure GC Strategies got the deal. On top of that, it designed a process that would encourage GC Strategies and others to charge the government more, not less. It is no wonder that spending is out of control and that Canadians are struggling under the pressure of higher taxes and the impact of higher deficits. When the government designs contracting-out processes, it designs systems to try to charge more. The levels of cost, crime and corruption we see in this arrive scam scandal are really incredible. The RCMP is investigating. I asked the Prime Minister today whether the government will co-operate with the RCMP investigation. There was no answer. We had the procurement ombudsman's investigation report and the Auditor General's report, which reveal what happened. However, we now need to identify who the responsible individuals are and why they did it. Why was the process rigged in order to give this deal to this two-person company working out of a basement? Why was it rigged to GC Strategies' advantage? Why did the government create a system designed to charge taxpayers more, not less? These are the key questions that need to be answered by the government, but I will distill it into one simple point. The RCMP is now investigating criminal behaviour as part of the arrive scam scandal. The parliamentary secretary was formerly with the Ontario government and has a great deal of experience dealing with issues of corruption. Could he tell the House, yes or no, whether the government will co-operate with the RCMP's investigation?

578 words

Mr. Charles Sousa (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.)

Feb/27/24 6:30:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member opposite raises an important issue about procurement activity, which was actually prevalent during the Conservative time and similar to what we are unravelling today with the same characters at play. Our government takes the responsibility as stewards of public funds very seriously, and we are committed to ensuring that the government's spends stand to the highest level of scrutiny. Contracting for goods and services is a routine part of the business of government, it is instrumental in enabling us to deliver the services and programs that Canadians need and expect, and we have an important need to put guardrails in place to maintain the integrity of that process. When it comes to deciding whether to contract out certain projects, many factors are taken into consideration. It starts with the proposition that contractors are there to support the good work of our public servants where it is determined that there is a need for professional services. Public Services and Procurement Canada, as the federal government's central purchasing agent, will work with departments to procure those services in an open, fair and transparent fashion. The department procures on behalf of other departments and agencies when requirements are beyond their own spending authority and advises on the steps needed to then ensure that the money is well spent. However, what we have unravelled, and what our government has been reviewing, is what occurred or what did not occur with respect to those guardrails. These procurements are carried out by public servants in accordance with a number of regulations, trade agreements, policies, procedures and guidelines. The Government of Canada has a governing framework in place when it comes to procurement that public servants are expected to follow. The ArriveCAN app was put in place urgently to track and trace travellers as they crossed the border to limit the spread of COVID-19 within Canada. Our government acted with extreme urgency on a number of fronts during those early days of the pandemic to keep Canadians safe, and the ArriveCAN app was a crucial tool at the time. We are proud that we could be there for Canadians during the pandemic, notwithstanding the fact that the opposition was opposed to many of the services and supports that were given to Canadians and businesses, including the opportunity to keep border crossings open. However, as has been noted repeatedly during today's debate, we know that there are serious and valid questions surrounding the management and integrity of the procurement processes for professional services associated with ArriveCAN, and we owe it to Canadians to take immediate action to improve our processes. The reports by the Auditor General and the procurement ombudsman underscore the need for these improvements. Public servants and PSPC officials have already taken steps to implement the ombudsman's recommendations to strengthen the integrity of the procurement process. This includes work to improve evaluation requirements, increase transparency for suppliers around their pricing and use of subcontractors, improve contract documentation, improve clarification of work requirements and activities. It also includes work to evaluate resources just before the start of work to make sure that their services are actually delivered by the proposed resources to avoid some of that switching of services by those who are appointed. We will ensure that the lessons learned from the ombudsman and the Auditor General reports are turned into concrete action and make certain that the deficiencies uncovered do not occur again. We are committed to a fair and transparent procurement process for the best value for all Canadians.

594 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Feb/27/24 6:35:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is truly incredible listening to that member talk. This government has been in power for eight years. It has broken the procurement system in this country, and the Liberals speak about problems that happened as if they have no responsibility for what happens under their watch. This government is supposed to be in charge and it refuses to take responsibility for the costs, the corruption and the criminality that we now see as part of the ArriveCAN system. The Liberals want us to believe that, well, it was an emergency and the ArriveCAN app was necessary. This app went through 177 different versions, it sent over 10,000 people into quarantine by accident and the versions were not properly tested. They hired two people with no IT experience. There are no excuses, and this government should take responsibility. Again, will the government co-operate with the RCMP investigation into criminality, yes or no?

156 words

Mr. Charles Sousa

Feb/27/24 6:36:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am thankful again for the opportunity to refute some of the member's claims. I get it. Certainly, the response that was provided for him the first go-around, and the reason we are here, is that it does not appreciate the fact he is looking for further videos and a further opportunity to provide whatever exaggerations he sees fit to support his position. We, on this side of the House, are very serious about the opportunities to manage the responsibility of government funds. We are committed to the best value for Canadians by procuring those goods and services. To ensure that it is competitive, fair and accessible, the Government of Canada has a governing framework in place, and we have accepted many of the recommendations from the ombudsman and the Auditor General. Members should recall that it was this government that actually approved that the RCMP do an investigation. It was this government that took the responsibility initially to ensure that those who are being affected are being protected. We are taking every step to strengthen our procurement process. We are committed to incorporating those lessons learned. Notwithstanding the member opposite, the lessons learned require serious responsibility, which Conservatives do not have.

206 words