44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 30, 2022 11:00AM
- May/30/22 11:44:37 a.m.
- Watch
We are out of time.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development.
18 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an honour today to speak to Bill C-233. I would like to start by thanking the member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle for putting forward and creating space for the bill. Throughout her career, she has been a tremendous advocate for those who have suffered from domestic and partner violence, both for those who have endured physical violence and for those who have silently suffered emotional and psychological abuse: coercive control that is no less harmful and in many cases has a violent or even deadly outcome after protracted years of silent suffering.
The member understands deeply that deterrent tools to preventing such violence, which happens to far too many partners and their children behind closed doors in far too many homes in this country, require education and a trained comprehension to effectively use the tools in our legislative tool box to protect those who are most vulnerable in a court system that is, in many cases, failing them.
When the member for Oakville North—Burlington and I came to the member with the story of Keira Kagan, she compassionately understood and made space for the work we are debating today. We have heard the story of Keira Kagan: the little girl who was the brightest of sparks who was tragically lost and whose death was completely preventable. I note, as did other members, that yesterday should have been her seventh birthday. We have shared the tireless advocacy of her mother, Dr. Jennifer Kagan-Viater, and her stepfather, Phil Viater, on the floor of the House. It was a parent's cry for justice in a system where there was every effort to do what every mother wants to do at the very core of her being: protect her child.
We heard their call. It became the siren for many others, including leading advocates for women from my community in York Centre and from across this country who were no longer asking, but demanding that light be shed on this pervasive form of abuse: to name it, to know it and from there to be able to use the tools we have to protect them.
To each one of the large and small organizations in my riding, from Tikvah Toronto to the North York Women's Shelter, from local advocates for immigrant and racialized women to the National Council of Jewish Women of Canada, Toronto chapter, and to the many parents and victim-centred organizations from coast to coast to coast, I can clearly and with gratitude say as we enter the last hours of debate here in the House that they have been heard.
It is a rare but incredible thing when we have consensus across the floor. When we do, we know it is because we have heard the call of Canadians at the deepest levels.
Bill C-233 was first tabled in early February. It went through to second reading and to committee in April with a co-operative effort to move schedules and get it to the important work of the committee by May. I would like to thank the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, in her role as chair for the status of women committee. She, like many of us, understood the importance of the bill and her co-operation and leadership from across the floor must be acknowledged as we contemplate the bill now.
Much of the work that goes into the legislative process involves many conversations and emails, coordination of witnesses and stakeholders, asking the hardest of questions and unpacking key issues here and at committee. Each of the members who I have mentioned played a key role in the learning and advocacy that has taken place for Bill C-233.
Bill C-233 seeks to address two key components of education and legislative tools. It amends the Judges Act to expand judicial education, which currently covers topics such as sexual assault and social context, to include coercive control in domestic violence. It amends the Criminal Code to require a justice to consider whether an accused who is charged with intimate partner violence should wear an electronic monitoring device before a release order is made.
Through this process, we have shed light on the definition of coercive control. An important piece of this legislation is providing education to understand that while physical forms of intimate partner violence and domestic violence are well known and easy to detect, there are more covert forms of psychological abuse that are not always recognized as violence.
Coercive control can often be an early indicator that abusive relationships will escalate into physical or even lethal violence. A study of femicides from 2015-19 found coercive, controlling behaviours such as stalking, isolation and threats were frequent components. On average, a woman is killed by an intimate partner every six days in this country.
The patterns of behaviour for coercive control are intended to isolate, humiliate, exploit or dominate a victim. This can include emotional, verbal and financial abuse; isolation, such as preventing someone from going to work or school; and limiting their access to finances.
This invisible chain of behaviour escalates and can be quite visible through warning signs, when we know them, that include monitoring movements, sexual coercion, threats to harm a child and restricting access to money or even food. This outline of coercive control only scratches the surface of what judges will need training on in what has until now been a murky side of the court system. Victims straddle family and criminal court systems, and there is a dire, and at times deadly, impact on children.
We now understand the pathology of this form of intimate partner violence. It is unseen and brutally harmful. Its victims are the partners and children of these relationships where dependency, vulnerability and children themselves become weaponized. We cannot look away any longer.
The second aspect of Bill C-233 addresses the contemplation of using e-monitoring as a deterrent tool. In Keira Kagan's case, her father had 53 court orders against him. None ultimately served as a tool to keep her safe from harm. What we know is that education and implementation go hand in hand, and that is what this bill intends to do. It is a start.
There are those who see these amendments as first steps. We heard from many national advocates who expressed their concerns on the implementation of e-monitoring in terms of the settings and who would be subject to it. There is undoubtedly more work to do; there always is, but we must start and we have.
With this bill, coercive control and its understanding would become part of the language used within our legislative system. Our judicial system would have the tools to be educated on this and to identify it when it is in their courts. It would have deterrent tools that could prevent escalating violence in a cycle that does not end with the separation of a relationship.
We must be talking about this, and Bill C-233 has opened the conversation nationally, so that judicial training can set a precedent for the discussion of coercive control and the needed deterrent tools in other aspects of our system, be it with lawyers, social workers, health care workers or the many aspects of our system that are meant to protect victims and children.
We are in lockstep with other countries doing this work and exploring education on and, in some cases, criminalization of coercive control. These range from Australia, where studies have been done on the impact and potential criminality of it in the framework of domestic violence since as early as 2020, to the United Kingdom's section 76, which includes coercive controlling behaviour in an intimate family relationship as an offence.
Even here in Ontario, more recently than any of the above mentioned, the former Bill C-78 sought to update the definition of “family violence” in the Divorce Act to include “coercive and controlling behaviour”. The discussions and the work have begun, so that we can ensure the victims are not left unprotected.
Each morning I wake up and spend a short bit of time in the practice of the Jewish tradition called Daf Yomi, the daily page of Talmud, whereby around the world, over a cycle of seven and a half years, an entire community studies a page of law. We review the compendium of Jewish law that has evolved over thousands of years, studying each debate, each small change and its lead-in to the next. We are taught to first learn much and then seek to understand it profoundly.
This daily practice humbles me and reminds me that, each day in the House, we are putting our efforts forward to create change, and that the work we do here each day is a small step that makes space, as the member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle has done, and sheds light to understand how we can protect and create safety for our community and all of its members, especially its most vulnerable. It is a profound responsibility and a privilege to do this work, and we must. For the many victims of abuse, families, partners and children, we owe it to them to protect them, and yes, we owe it to Keira Kagan.
1564 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I just want to thank all of my colleagues from the bottom of my heart.
I thank all the organizations, and Dr. Jennifer Kagan and her husband, Mr. Philip Viater, for having advocated for so long. Yesterday, as was mentioned, was Keira's birthday. Only in memory of her can we continue to speak out for other victims of domestic violence, such as her, who are the most marginalized and vulnerable people in our society. I just want to take this moment to say that Keira is everybody's daughter. These children are our children, and we suffer along with those who suffer.
I thank everybody from the bottom of my heart, and I hope we can pass this bill as quickly as possible.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 11:54:56 a.m.
- Watch
The question is on the motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 11:55:28 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we would request a recorded vote.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 1, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
The Chair has been advised that there is a question of privilege that the hon. member for Perth—Wellington would like to raise.
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 11:56:17 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege concerning the refusal of my request for Adjournment Proceedings, or a late show, concerning my question pursuant to Standing Order 37(2) to a spokesperson for the Board of Internal Economy during the May 16 question period.
On the afternoon of May 16, I followed the provisions of Standing Order 37(3), which states, “A member who is not satisfied with the response to a question asked on any day at this stage,...may give notice that he or she intends to raise the subject matter of the question on the adjournment of the House. The notice referred to herein...must be given in writing to the Speaker not later than one hour following that period the same day.”
The following morning, I received the following message from the Private Members' Business Office: “We are not able to accept your notice for an adjournment debate because Standing Order 38 indicates that only a minister or parliamentary secretary may answer questions during the Adjournment Proceedings.”
While the office was correct in acknowledging that this is what Standing Order 38 says, it overlooked the House's order of October 2, 2001, recorded at page 677 of Journals, which stated:
By unanimous consent, it was ordered, — That notwithstanding any Standing Order, a question to a spokesperson for the Board of Internal Economy may be raised during the proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38 and a spokesperson for the Board who is not a Minister of the Crown or a Parliamentary Secretary may give the response during those proceedings.
I pointed this order out in a reply email. The answer I received from the Private Members' Business Office was as follows, “Should you obtain unanimous consent, as was obtained on October 2, 2001, we would then accept the notice provided yesterday.”
I had filed my late show notice because I had hoped perhaps there might be more information, which the spokesperson for the Board of Internal Economy, the hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe, could not have shared in the 35 seconds he had to answer me during question period. Additionally, given that it might be September or October before the late show gets scheduled, perhaps there might even be an update on the file, which then could be shared with this House.
It is my concern that my privileges in being able to raise this matter further are being frustrated, perhaps by a misapprehension of the nature of the order adopted by this House on October 2, 2001. Footnote 127 on page 517 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, describes the provenance of this order:
In 2001, Mauril Bélanger...raised a question of privilege to object that, while oral questions could be put to a representative of the Board of Internal Economy, the Member, if dissatisfied with the reply, could not then discuss the matter further during the Adjournment Proceedings since only Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries could reply to questions during such proceedings. The House later adopted a motion, by unanimous consent, to provide that the spokesperson for the Board, who was not a Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary, respond during the Adjournment Proceedings.
Here we are with yet another question of privilege on the right to have a late show concerning an inquiry about the House of Commons administration. In my view, the House's 2001 order was of a permanent standing nature. Paragraph 20.96 of Erskine May, 25th edition, explains the following:
Orders of a permanent character which ‘stand’ in force from one session to another and (unless indicated otherwise) from one Parliament to another, codify and direct many of the procedures and practices of the House and are known as standing orders. Standing orders may be amended or repealed, or new standing orders introduced, by motion and decision in the House in the normal way; there are no set rules on how such a motion may arise.
Madam Speaker, I draw your attention to page 16 of Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, fourth edition, which adds:
Some orders of the House have a shorter or longer life than a session. For example, an order of the House may give committees a longer time to report on particular Estimates or annual reviews than is permitted under the Standing Orders. Such an order is spent when the business to which it relates has been dealt with. On the other hand, some orders, although not made into Standing Orders, may come to be regarded as having virtually permanent operation. One such order was passed in 1962 adopting a form of words for the prayer with which the House begins each sitting.
Of course, the wording of our own daily prayer, a matter of recent discussion, traces its approval to a decision of the House found at pages 172 and 174 of the Journals for February 18, 1994. The wording of the prayer has not been approved in every subsequent session, but rather, the 1994 order has proven to be of sufficient authority.
For an example of another House order of a similar enduring nature that was adopted by this House without ever having been catalogued among the numbered and bound Standing Orders, I refer the Chair to pages 72 and 73 of the Journals for November 19, 1984:
By unanimous consent, it was ordered,—That the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs shall have permanently referred to it all annual reports made to Parliament pursuant to section 72 of the Privacy Act and section 72 of the Access to Information Act; and
That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to:
1. consider every report prepared under section 72 of the Access to Information Act and of the Privacy Act;
On the strength of that House order, all annual reports from departments and agencies under the access to information and privacy laws were referred to the justice committee for over 30 years, until just a few years ago, despite the fact that the House created, in 2004, a special committee dedicated to, among other things, access to information and privacy issues.
Only in 2015 was this 1984 House order superseded, after the House adopted an amendment to Standing Order 108(3)(h) concerning the mandate of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics to specify that the committee would receive access to information and privacy annual reports.
In my respectful view, the House's order of October 2, 2001, is of a similar nature and remains in effect today. A plain reading of that order suggests that it was neutrally worded with regard to time in stating, “a question... may be raised... and a spokesperson... may give the response".
Nowhere in the order does it say it is limited to Mr. Bélanger's question or that its application was limited to a single question. Looking beyond the actual wording of the October 2, 2001, order, I would invite the Chair to consider also the motivations which led to its adoption.
In response to Mr. Bélanger's question of privilege, which I described earlier, the then-government House leader, the Hon. Don Boudria said, at page 5722 of the Debates on September 28, 2001:
This is most unfortunate, and creates an injustice. I agree with the hon. member on that. If, in the near future, the clerks could prepare for us the necessary amendment to the Standing Orders, I would be agreeable to discussing it with the other House leaders, with a view to amending the Standing Orders and making things equitable. It seems to me that is the solution.
The following week, when the motion for the October 2, 2001, House order was presented, the then-parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, Geoff Regan, said at page 5883 of the Debates:
Following other discussions among the House leaders I believe you would find, if you were to seek it, unanimous consent for the following motion.
If one were to follow the thread between these events, I think it is patently clear that the order of October 2, 2001, was meant to address, permanently, the gap in the published Standing Orders, which allowed questions to be posed to spokespersons for the Board of Internal Economy but not a late show follow-up or, in other words, in the words of Mr. Boudria, to make an equitable cure to this injustice.
Accordingly, I would respectfully submit that my notice seeking to raise the matter during adjournment proceedings should have been treated as receivable and therefore received by the House administration. Further, the House administration's refusal to accept my late show notice respecting my question about the allegations of Liberal partisanship on the part of the Clerk of the House constitutes a breach of privilege.
I do not make this point lightly. Put simply, pages 81 to 83 of Bosc and Gagnon confirm that “an offence against the authority or dignity of the House, such as disobedience of its legitimate commands” and “acting in breach of any orders of the House” constitute contempt of Parliament.
Should you agree, in addition to permitting my notice to be received by the table, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion to refer the matter to the procedure and House affairs committee for their consideration.
1585 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 12:05:24 p.m.
- Watch
I thank the hon. member for Perth—Wellington for bringing that to our attention. It will be taken under advisement and we will return with a decision.
28 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved:
That, in relation to Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to person in Canada, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill;
and
That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/22 12:06:48 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places or use the “raise hand” function so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.
The hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, you and I are in a unique position: We both have front-row seats to what is becoming quickly a further decline of democracy here in Canada.
The government has moved time allocation on this bill with just two hours of debate. One speaker on the official opposition side has spoken to this piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that has been universally panned. It is quite controversial and warrants further debate.
This is the 101st time that the Liberal government has used time allocation and the 22nd time in this Parliament that their partners in the NDP, the NDP-Liberal coalition, have agreed to time allocation, which makes Motion No. 11 laughable, because the government's argument was that it was going to extend time to give more debate for members, which we now are seeing as a farce.
My question for the minister is this: Given the controversial nature of this bill and the fact that it does warrant further debate, I am wondering how he feels his legacy will be seen in furthering a decline in democracy in this country by muting the voices, limiting the voices, of millions of people speaking through members elected in this place.
204 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, let us put things in context.
If we look at what has been actually happening in our country, we see that over 450 news outlets have closed their doors in the last 15 years, and 64 or 65 in the last two years. Does that have an impact? It has a huge impact on our democracy. Our democracy is not becoming stronger; it is becoming weaker because of that. Things are changing. Things are evolving extremely quickly, and what professional news media outlets are doing has value, and the web giants have to recognize that there is a value and that it is normal that they contribute.
I am very surprised that my Conservative friends have a problem with that, because they even said in the last campaign that this is what we should do. There is an agreement, almost a consensus, that we have to act and that we have to act now. The Conservatives have been stalling debate in this House. They did it with Bill C-8 and Bill C-11. They like to stall things. If they do not want to come here to work, then they should move aside and we will do the work.
202 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have not been a member of the House for all that long, so I would like someone to explain to me what has been happening here over the past few weeks.
I would like to start by saying that we want to work to find solutions to what is happening to our media. The groundwork was laid during the previous Parliament, and we knew where we wanted to go. However, the Liberals called an election and we had to start over. The previous bill that has now become Bill C-18 still contains some of the same elements with no changes. However, we need to find a solution, and we need to do it fast, because billions of dollars are being lost and we need to protect freedom of expression and our media.
There is one other thing. I would like the member opposite to explain to me the point of these incessant motions. Not a day goes by that I do not have to try to explain to my constituents and even to my children what is happening with the legislative process in this session of the House.
I would like to know what we can expect in the coming days. What is the point of constantly challenging democracy, when we have a duty to debate each bill fully?
224 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, with all due respect, I would tell my colleague that the bill she is referring to is the former Bill C‑10, which is now Bill C‑11.
Today we are talking about a different bill, Bill C‑18, on which we are generally working quite well with my Bloc Québécois colleagues, and in particular the member for Drummond, who is the Bloc Québécois's heritage critic and who works very hard and very diligently on everything that he does, including as a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
I thank the Bloc Québécois for highlighting the freedom of the press and for emphasizing that the media must be independent and that print media must be strong and autonomous. That is precisely the purpose of Bill C‑18, which would enable the media to not only survive but also succeed. The bill would also ensure that the media is strong not only in major cities, but also in the regions. We are talking about media in all forms, big, small, print, radio or television.
Together, all these forms of media help strengthen our democracy. Journalists representing these media outlets ask us tough questions here, questions that we sometimes do not want to answer, but it is our job to do so. That is why we need to ensure that these media outlets survive and grow even stronger in the future.
254 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we find ourselves in this place once again discussing time allocation on an important bill. I think for most Canadians, they look at this and say, “We want to see adequate debate on these topics”, yet, at times in this Parliament, when adequate time has been afforded, we see other parties using that time to perform obstructionist tactics and waste the time of this place.
Can the minister please comment on the bind we seem to find ourselves in where we have to choose between time allocation and putting up with obstructionist delays?
97 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague's question highlights what the Conservatives have been doing for weeks and months in trying to jam the work of Parliament in the chamber and in committees. Who benefits from that? No one does. The Conservatives think that they benefit from it, but Canadians do not benefit from what they are doing now.
Now we are talking about Bill C-18, which is fundamental for a strong, free, independent press. I said before that 450 media outlets have closed their doors in the last 15 years, and 64 or 65 have closed in the last two years. This makes our democracy weaker, not stronger.
We have to reinforce it. We have to be able to answer the tough questions, and I want to thank NDP members who are taking this extremely seriously in committees, in their ridings and in meeting with the media. They are bringing back good feedback. They want to collaborate, which is the difference between them and the Conservatives. The NDP wants to collaborate, but they do not.
175 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, again, it is troubling the way that this Liberal-NDP government is contributing to the decline of democracy here. There are signs that this government simply does not want to hear from Canadians, and does not want to hear from the opposition parties, so it is shutting down debate again. It is shameful that the NDP is siding with it on these time allocation motions.
The heritage committee is already backed up with the legislation it is dealing with already. We have only had one speaker from the Conservative Party on the opposition side on this important debate. This is a debate that is important to all Canadians so that all Canadian voices can be heard.
Is this stifling of debate necessary because the Liberal government does not want to work? The Liberals have set an example. In 2019, the House only sat for 75 days. In 2020, we only sat for 86 days. In 2021, we only sat for 95 days. Prior to that, the House sat for an average of 122 days.
We know that this Liberal government does not like to be in the House and be held accountable. Why are they pushing to further shut down debate from the opposition parties on this motion?
210 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have been in this House for a few years now. I have sat on that side for many years, and I know how important the work of the opposition is. However, at that time, as with other members, we respected the House and Canadians.
I think that there is a way to work together respectfully, and I want to commend my official opposition critic who does exactly that. We may disagree on a lot of things, but he is very respectful. He respects the work of committees and the House, and he respects the bill too. I would love the Conservatives to be a little more respectful of the whole process, and we have seen what they have done on Bill C-11 and others.
Now it is time to work for democracy, not against it. A strong, free and independent press reinforces democracy, and that is exactly what Bill C-18 is all about.
158 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, at times in the past, I have supported time allocation when there has been reasonable debate on a particular bill. For government to function, it is important for respectful debate to take place. I agree with the minister about the importance of Bill C-18. In fact, I was looking forward to hearing various perspectives in this place on the legislation.
In this case, as others have shared, we have had a total of two hours of debate on a Friday afternoon before moving to time allocation. Can the minister share why he feels this is so necessary, and why this is the only option available to the governing party to move ahead with respectful debate in this place?
121 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, debate happens here in this beautiful House, it happens in committees and it happens in the Senate. Those debates will take place.
We all know how important committee work is. This is where the thorough questions are asked and where we hear from witnesses. I go to committee and appear with great pleasure. A big chunk of the work is done there. What the Conservatives have been doing is trying to jam this place. It is very sad for someone who ran to come here to see what is being done. I am sad when I look at them and even more when I listen to them.
I know they do not like me to be sad, so I ask them to maybe change a little how they do things. Maybe they can participate a bit more in the debates or maybe be bit more constructive and make suggestions instead of trying to jam everything in the House.
Bill C-18 is about democracy and journalism, and Conservatives should support it.
173 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
