SoVote

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

Context: House Hansard - 83 - Jun/7/22

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

Context: House Hansard - 83 - Jun/7/22

Mrs. Karen Vecchio

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

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

189 words

Context: House Hansard - 83 - Jun/7/22

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)

Jun/7/22 9:17:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, that may be a first. It is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the citizens of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, especially on such an important night in this Parliament. Every day is obviously important, but when we discuss important motions, when we talk about money and confidence votes, it is an extremely important day. Today we are talking about Department of Justice estimates. One thing I want to discuss from the get-go, to lay the groundwork for what I am about to say, and this will likely build upon some of what my colleagues have had to say, is about justice versus criticizing the judiciary. I believe that all of us here want the same thing. All of us obviously want a safe Canada. I cannot look at any member here and think that anyone does not want a safe Canada. That would be nonsense. There are times, though, when I look at the Supreme Court and some court decisions, and I may not agree. There are times when I could look at the court's decisions and I understand how it got to the decision, and while I respect that, I may not agree with the ultimate conclusion. There are times when I look at the court's decision and the logic is unassailable, and it is clear that the right decision was made. Then there are obviously going to be times when we look at a decision and we say to ourselves, “I just do not understand how we got to that decision.” Our role as parliamentarians is unique, because we have this separation of the legislative branch and the judicial branch, but the two go hand in hand. When I was doing my first law degree, one thing I was taught, and I know that some judges do reject this, was that Parliament and the judiciary are in a dialogue, so to speak. The way that this dialogue typically happens is between the courts and Parliament. Generally what will happen is that there is impugned legislation, that legislation is challenged, and if that legislation is challenged and upheld, then there is no dialogue to be had because the courts have said that Parliament got it right. Then there are situations where the court strikes down the legislation, sometimes with a sunset clause, saying there is one year to fix it, or other times when the legislation is simply struck down, saying why the legislation did not meet the constitutional bar. That is where that dialogue frequently happens. Parliament acts, the court interprets the laws, and then it is incumbent on Parliament to act again. The distinction that we are talking about, though, is Parliament acting. How should Parliament act? Some people may say that is criticizing a decision. My respectful view is that it is not, because what we are doing here is that we are actually part of that dialogue, part of that law-making component that is so special and so central to this place. This is my recollection, and I think I'm going back to 1994 here, when I was still in high school, but that is how section 33.1, which was struck down a little while ago, actually came to be in its form that was, again, struck down. Again, we are going back 15 or 20 years, so please do not quote me on that law. I am also mindful of the Chief Justice's recent comments about the politicization of the courts. We need to be able to have a candid discussion about what legislation should flow from the Supreme Court's decision, perhaps not about the merits of the case but whether we are comfortable with the outcomes of a decision that is predicated on the legislation. I gave an intervention a week ago and that intervention was about the fact that I thought Parliament should be acting because there was a decision that offended my sensibilities when a seven- or eight-year-old was abused by a parent. That mother avoided jail and was given a community-based sentence. In doing that, my goal was not to necessarily say what this judge should have done, and I did not name the judge for a reason. I do not think that is the way we should be doing it. The point was to ask whether we should be looking at the legislation that led to this outcome. This outcome is based on legislation. There is a question, and a very live question in my mind, about whether we should be questioning that. That is one of the issues I have today. The point is this: How should Parliament respond to these decisions that some may agree with and some may not agree with? The cases I am going to look at are the Sullivan and Brown grouping of decisions. Those are the extreme intoxication decisions. There is a case about consecutive sentences for parole eligibility, although I think the extreme intoxication cases are a little different from my view. Right now, we do not have a law in place because it has been struck down, but the upshot is that, based on the court's decision, a person can avoid criminal liability based on extreme intoxication. This was always the case for murder because a person has to specifically intend to kill somebody or cause grievous bodily harm and be reckless as to the outcome. That is a specific-intent offence. The point is that a person who voluntarily consumed drugs no longer in this case could have the intent to kill or intent to have any criminality. This is what I find interesting and this is what I want to focus on. The courts have acted. How should Parliament respond? In my view, the court, at paragraph 12, laid out a road map for us, and it said: Parliament did not enact a new offence of dangerous intoxication, nor did it adopt a new mode of liability for existing violent offences based on a proper standard of criminal negligence. With the utmost respect, I am bound to conclude the path Parliament chose in enacting s. 33.1 was not, from the point of view of ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter, constitutionally compliant. What I found interesting on my reading of that, and others may disagree and that is fine, is that it is almost as though the court is giving us a road map here of criminal negligence. That is what it seems to me. I have not watched the debate, but it is something I want to do and I was recently encouraged to do it. This very point, from what I can gather, was hit on about the foreseeability of these consequences of self-induced intoxication, followed by subsequent violence. I hope we all agree in this place that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. The problem is that it has not yet been addressed. I was one of four signatories on a letter to the government saying we will work with the government to address this and to address it as soon as possible. Frankly, I would have liked to see legislation tabled within a week or two of this. I am mindful of the justice minister's comments saying that they are looking at it, but this is critical. A lot of victims groups and women's groups have sounded the alarm, and for good reason. This is an important issue that really needs to be dealt with. Sometimes we talk about virtue signalling. This is one case where we, as a united House, should be signalling to the public and to potential victims that we are prepared to cover this legislative gap. I will close with this. If the government does wish to act, I will be prepared to help in a non-partisan way. I believe the other three signatories would be prepared to act in a non-partisan way. We are expending hundreds of millions of dollars when it comes to the administration of justice. This is one area that I have chosen to focus on that, in my view, has a gap. There are other gaps that we can get into, like Bill C-5 and things like that. However, this is one of the areas that I invite the government to consider when it is considering its spending and what it is doing in its legislative agenda.

1423 words

Context: House Hansard - 83 - Jun/7/22

Mr. Frank Caputo

Jun/7/22 9:28:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I had no idea that my hon. colleague was going in that direction with that preamble. Obviously, I come from a legal background, and I do agree with my colleague that the courts are sacrosanct and that we have arm's-length relationships. However, what the member is getting at is something that has been an issue in an active leadership race and, frankly, it would be imprudent for me to weigh in on this.

77 words

Context: House Hansard - 83 - Jun/7/22

Mr. Frank Caputo

Jun/7/22 9:29:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is an incredibly important question. My colleague raises the point about the court decision being the end of it. It is not the end of it. It is the end of the beginning, because now we move on to the next phase. The next phase is how Parliament should intervene. Parliament creates the laws, and the courts interpret them. The courts interpret law A a certain way. Now we move to law B. Law A was the beginning, and law B is the next step. It is fundamentally important that we not only understand where we were, but where we are going. Where we need to go on the issue of self-induced intoxication is with a constitutionally compliant law, perhaps rooted in criminal negligence, that ultimately protects victims and vulnerable people from situations of which we are obliged to protect them.

145 words