SoVote

Jun/7/22 6:57:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for disability inclusion actually made an incredible effort a couple of years ago in terms of bringing in some legislation and ultimately having it passed. I thought she gave a brilliant speech in terms of why we need to focus more attention and build the proper database in order to support people with disabilities. She went on to ensure that during the pandemic there would be a payment going out to people with disabilities. Also, it is really encouraging that, just recently, the minister has once again brought forward disability legislation. This has been a high priority for this particular minister specifically, but I know that the government as a whole has been very supportive of the minister, recognizing how important it is to support people with disabilities.

133 words

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.)

Jun/7/22 6:58:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his intervention and for repeating the concerns we all have around inflation. I also thank him for pointing out the comparison of Canada to other countries and the complexity of the problem we are dealing with in trying to get support to the Canadians who really need it, rather than just everybody getting some kind of a handout. Could the hon. member talk about the expenditures that we are putting forward to target the people who need help the most?

88 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/7/22 6:59:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will take this opportunity to talk about something that I know the member is very proud of, as am I, which is the national child care program. The national child care program is now going to make day care affordable for hundreds of thousands of people from coast to coast to coast. It is going to enable people to enter into the workforce, and it will have a profound impact. I am very proud of the fact that this administration and the minister responsible were able to get the provinces and territories onside. We have, for the very first time, a very progressive, national program in regard to child care. If members want to get a sense of just how well it is going to work into the future, they can look at the positive impact it had when it was brought in by the Province of Quebec.

151 words

Mrs. Anna Roberts (King—Vaughan, CPC)

Jun/7/22 6:59:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Winnipeg North if he could explain to seniors in my community who are living below the poverty line, who have had to take a line of credit on their property in order to stay in their home, why they were, in effect, told by the previous minister of seniors, “Why do you not just sell your house and move on?” What kind of a response is that to someone who has lived in their home, raised their children, paid their taxes and taken care of a dying husband, who had no choice but to leave, and who at 72 years old does not get the $500 and has to go and get another job?

126 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/7/22 7:00:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I know the member was not here when Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister, but I was, and if she wants to talk about dishing out zip for our seniors, we can take a look at what Stephen Harper did not do for our seniors. I would love to compare how we have been there in a very real and tangible way for our seniors. Any day of the week, I would debate the member in any type of forum in regard to what we have done in comparison to what Stephen Harper did, and we have been in for only six or seven years, whereas Stephen Harper was there for 10 years. I can talk, right from the very beginning, of lifting hundreds of thousands of seniors out of poverty with the immediate increase that was made to GIS back in 2016; I can talk about the grants that were given via direct payments to seniors, both OAS and GIS, during the pandemic; I can talk about the 10% increase for seniors over 75; and I can talk about the hundreds of millions of dollars invested into non-profit organizations to support seniors. It is an endless list. The member cannot try to tell me that Stephen Harper was sympathetic to seniors. This is a government that is not only sympathetic but has taken action after action to support the seniors of Canada, because they deserve that support.

241 words

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

Jun/7/22 7:01:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North mentioned the Infrastructure Bank, and I have to say that some of the early spending by the Infrastructure Bank was very encouraging, but I am devastated that budget 2022 does not promote the continued building of interties to connect our electricity grid so that we can have a functional, robust electricity grid working east-west and north-south to move renewable energy from one province to another. As the member will know, I am very disappointed in his government's climate plans, but I do not understand why it is ignoring the urgent need to build a strong electricity grid to meet our needs to decarbonize energy.

115 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/7/22 7:02:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that if we take a look at the voting record, we will probably find that the former leader of the Green Party voted against having a Canada Infrastructure Bank. Now, if we take a look, anyone can google the Canada Infrastructure Bank and take a look at the projects that are there. Many of those projects are green projects. I made reference to what is happening in Brampton: the conversion of fuel buses into electric buses. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. That is happening, in good part, because we created, a number of years ago, the Canada Infrastructure Bank, something that many members of this House did not support and that many other members continue to criticize today. They need to check out the website, at the very least, and take a look at what the Canada Infrastructure Bank has been doing. That is without even mentioning the many other initiatives the Government of Canada has taken by working with partners, whether they are provincial or other stakeholders in the private sector and so forth.

183 words

Hon. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC)

Jun/7/22 7:04:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, tonight I will be splitting my time with the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, who is a great MP and doing a great job for her constituents. On Friday, May 27 of this year, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the punishment of life without parole in cases concerning mass murderers. There had been a change in the law that allowed consecutive periods of parole ineligibility, which meant that mass murderers would not receive a discount for the extra lives they had taken. The case at the core of this ruling is with regard to the 2017 killing of worshippers at a Quebec City mosque. Shortly after 8 p.m. on January 29, 2017, an armed 27-year-old man entered the mosque and began to shoot at the people inside. Six people were killed and at least five others were wounded. He was charged with six counts of murder, convicted, and sentenced to 40 years without the possibility of parole. Following this ruling by the Supreme Court, this killer will now be eligible to apply for full parole after only 25 years. It is now the case in Canada that, regardless of whether mass murderers kill three people or 20, they will be eligible to apply for parole after 25 years. The message that this decision sends to Canadians is that every life does not in fact matter. I do not agree with that sentiment, and I know that most Canadians would not agree with it either. Just yesterday, MPs from all parties stood in this House in a moment of silence to remember the victims of the hate-motivated killing of a Muslim family in London, Ontario, on June 6, 2021. Every single member of that family who was killed in that attack mattered, but right now, sentencing law in Canada will not reflect that fact. The killer responsible for the attack in London, Ontario, was 20 years old at the time. As a result of the Supreme Court decision, he will not even be 50 years old when he is eligible to apply for full parole. The Canadian justice system must be fair and balanced, but it is becoming increasingly imbalanced, with the scales too often tipped toward the perpetrators of violent crime and away from the victims, who are left to pick up the pieces of their lives. In the court ruling on life sentences for mass murderers, the provision struck down by the court was originally introduced in 2011 under the previous Conservative government. The bill was entitled “Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act”. It is worth noting that this bill was passed with the support of all parties in the House. The bill made sure that an offender was held responsible for each and every life taken when these horrific mass murders occur, and they do, unfortunately, occur. It ensured that the length of offenders' sentences reflected the severity of their crimes. This decision of the Supreme Court effectively repealed this act. To provide some background, the Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act addressed two specific concerns that victims of crime raised again and again. These concerns were, one, the need for accountability for each life taken and, two, the mental and emotional turmoil that victims face when an offender is granted a parole hearing and family members have to relive the worst day of their lives every two years at repeat parole hearings for the rest of their lives. The act actually expanded judicial discretion by allowing judges, if they deemed it appropriate, to impose consecutive periods of parole ineligibility. In the years after this legislation was passed, that is exactly what many judges across the country did. They used their discretion to impose consecutive periods of parole ineligibility when they thought it was appropriate. Specifically, since 2011, when this act was introduced, the law has been used in at least 18 cases. These were the worst of the worst, cases that many Canadians would be familiar with as the news of these horrific crimes shocked communities right across our country. The law was used to sentence the killer who ended the lives of three RCMP officers in Moncton, New Brunswick, and wounded two others in 2014. He was handed a 75-year sentence without parole. The law was used to sentence the notorious killer who took the lives of Tim Bosma, Laura Babcock and Wayne Millard. He was handed a 75-year sentence without parole. The law was used to sentence the killer of two grandparents and their five-year-old grandson in Calgary. He was handed a 75-year sentence without parole. These murderers, all of them relatively young, will now be able to seek full parole 25 years after they were first sentenced. When the president of the organization Victims of Violence, Sharon Rosenfeldt, testified at the justice committee, she made an important point that I would like to share, as I believe it is just as relevant to the discussions we are having today as it was then. She stated: We understand, in following the discussion on other bills, that there has been concern expressed by some members of Parliament over mandatory minimum sentences because they reduce judicial discretion. As you know, murder already has a mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment, although, with parole eligibility, the “life” part of the sentence does not necessarily mean being imprisoned. [This bill] would actually give judges more discretion at sentencing, so hopefully those MPs who have taken the position opposing a reduction in judicial discretion will support this bill, because it actually increases it. Susan O'Sullivan was the federal ombudsman for victims of crime at the time, and she also appeared at the justice committee study on the bill. She stated: Providing judges with the discretion to apply consecutive, rather than concurrent parole ineligibility will help ensure accountability for each life lost, and, where appropriate, will delay and in some cases prevent the trauma and devastation victims experience when faced with [repeated] parole hearings. The former victims ombudsman makes a really important point here regarding the retraumatization inflicted on families throughout the parole process. When confronted with the impact of the Supreme Court's recent ruling, the Liberals are determined to stick to their talking points, telling Parliament and concerned Canadians that we should not worry about mass killers actually receiving parole because that possible outcome is, in their words, extremely rare.

1089 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/7/22 7:10:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London made a really good point earlier on when she said that the discussion happening in the House really did not have anything to do with the main estimates. I am wondering if the member will bring his speech back to the estimates or if he is going to continue with justice policy and legislation.

69 words

The Deputy Speaker

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

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

45 words

Mr. Richard Bragdon

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

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

59 words

The Deputy Speaker

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

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

53 words

Hon. Rob Moore

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

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

489 words

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

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

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

152 words

Hon. Rob Moore

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

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

112 words

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.)

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

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

120 words

Hon. Rob Moore

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

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

168 words

Mr. Richard Bragdon (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC)

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

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

121 words

Hon. Rob Moore

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

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

103 words

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

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

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

1881 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 83