- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Peterborough—Kawartha
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $106,196.43
- Government Page
- May/23/24 8:53:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, the man who took the woman's life in front of her children in an elementary schoolyard was previously charged with domestic violence offences, released under a no-contact order and had active warrants against him. The minister wants to bring up guns.
I will ask again: How was the woman murdered by a repeat offender who was out on warrants?
63 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 11:16:24 a.m.
- Watch
moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill S-205, in Clause 1, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 4 to 17 on page 1 with the following:
“1 (1) Section 515 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):
(3.1) Before making an order under subsection (2) in respect of an accused who is charged with an offence in the commission of which violence was used, threatened or attempted against the accused’s intimate partner, the justice must ask the prosecutor whether the intimate partner of the accused has been consulted about their safety and security needs.
(2) Subsection 515(4) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (e):
(e.1) wear an electronic monitoring device, if the Attorney General makes the request;
(2.1) Subsection 515(4.2) of the Act is amended by adding “or” at the end of paragraph (a.1) and by repealing paragraph (a.2).
(3) Paragraph 515(6)(b.1) of the Act is replaced by”; and
(b) by replacing line 1 on page 2 with the following:
“(4) The Act is amended by adding the following”
Motion No. 2
That Bill S-205, in Clause 2, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 9 to 12 on page 2 with the following:
“810.03 (1) A person who fears on reasonable grounds that their intimate partner will commit an offence that will cause personal injury to them, to their child or to a child of that intimate partner may lay an information”;
(b) by replacing lines 32 and 33 on page 2 with the following:
“(5) An order under either subsection (3) or (4) must be made in a timely manner.
(6) The provincial court judge may commit the defen-”;
(c) by replacing line 1 on page 3 with the following:
“(7) The provincial court judge may add any reasonable”;
(d) by replacing lines 4 and 5 on page 3 with the following:
“or to secure the safety and security of the informant, their child or a child of the defendant, including condi-”;
(e) by replacing line 20 on page 3 with the following:
“rectly, with the informant, a child of the informant or”;
(f) by replacing lines 1 to 5 on page 4 with the following:
“(8) The informant may provide submissions in writing on the conditions that the judge may add to the recognizance under subsection (7).
(9) The provincial court judge shall consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the informant’s safety or”;
(g) by replacing lines 14 and 15 on page 4 with the following:
“(10) If the provincial court judge adds a condition described in subsection (9) to a recognizance, the judge”;
(h) by replacing lines 22 and 23 on page 4 with the following:
“(11) If the provincial court judge does not add a condition described in subsection (9) to a recognizance, the”;
(i) by replacing lines 26 and 27 on page 4 with the following:
“(12) A provincial court judge may, on application of the informant or the defendant, vary the conditions fixed in”;
(j) by replacing lines 29 to 31 on page 4 with the following:
“(13) When the defendant makes an application under subsection (12), the provincial court judge must, before varying any conditions, consult the informant about their”; and
(k) by replacing line 33 on page 4 with the following:
“(14) A warrant of committal to prison for failure or re-”
...
...
...
...
Motion No. 3
That Bill S-205, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 15 and 16 on page 2 with the following:
“under subsection (1) may cause the informant and the person who is the subject of the information to appear”
Motion No. 4
That Bill S-205, in Clause 2, be amended
(a) by replacing line 23 on page 2 with the following:
“not more than two years.”;
(b) by replacing line 30 on page 2 with the following:
“into the recognizance for a period of not more than three”; and
(c) by replacing line 35 on page 2 with the following:
“dant to prison for a term not exceeding two years if the”
Motion No. 5
That Bill S-205, in Clause 2, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 24 and 25 on page 3 with the following:
“(f) to refrain from using social media;
(g) to abstain from the consumption of drugs — ex-”;
(b) by replacing line 28 on page 3 with the following:
“(h) to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of”; and
c) by replacing line 38 on page 3 with the following:
“(i) to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of”
Motion No. 6
That Bill S-205, in Clause 3, be amended
(a) by replacing line 10 on page 5 with the following:
“810.01(4.1)(f), 810.011(6)(e), 810.03(7)(h),”;
(b) by replacing line 15 on page 5 with the following:
“810.01(4.1)(g), 810.011(6)(f), 810.03(7)(i), 810.1(3.02)(i)”; and
(c) by replacing line 2 on page 6 with the following:
“810.01(4.1)(g), 810.011(6)(f), 810.03(7)(i), 810.1(3.02)(i) or”
Motion No. 7
That Bill S-205, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 34 and 35 on page 7 with the following:
“directly, with the informant, the informant’s child or any relative or close friend of the informant,”
Motion No. 8
That Bill S-205, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 39 and 40 on page 7 with the following:
“(e.3) refrains from using social media (section 801.03 of the Criminal Code);”
Motion No. 9
That Bill S-205, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 8 with the following:
“810.01(4.1)(g), 810.03(7)(i), 810.011(6)(f), 810.1(3.02)(i) and”
Motion No. 10
That Bill S-205, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 18 to 21 on page 8 with the following:
“fears on reasonable grounds that their intimate partner will commit an offence that will cause personal injury to them, to their child or to a child of that intimate partner, and a provincial”
Motion No. 11
That Bill S-205, in Clause 10.1, be amended by replacing, in subclause (2), the word “810.03(7)“ with the following:
“810.03(9)”
Motion No. 12
That Bill S-205, in Clause 10.1, be amended by replacing, in subclause (2), the words “the intimate partner’s safety” with the following:
“the informant’s safety”
1189 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, this is a really important bill, and it is always a true honour to stand in the House and represent the people from Peterborough—Kawartha who elected me.
I have been here for two years now, and the slowness of this place is frustrating. People are suffering, and a lot of people reach out to us, as members of Parliament, who are often in the depths or at their worst by the time they get to us. We have seen an increase in victims' rights' being eroded. Victims are really suffering, and we need change. The bill before us is a very positive movement on something that can be done, and I am very honoured to stand to speak to it.
The member for Victoria, who brought the bill forward, also shared a very personal experience as to why she created this private member's bill. It is very motivating to see that it comes from a place of humanity, to make the world a better place. Bill C-332 is an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to controlling or coercive conduct. I am going to do a little bit of housekeeping stuff, and then I will get into some personal stories about this, because I think most people, especially women members of the House, have a lot of experience or know somebody who has experienced this.
The private member's bill would amend the Criminal Code, in particular section 264, by adding the following offence:
Everyone commits an offence who repeatedly or continuously engages in controlling or coercive conduct towards a person with whom they are connected that they know or ought to know could, in all the circumstances, reasonably be expected to have a significant impact on that person and that has such an impact on that person.
Basically, the bill would be giving language to coercive control, which is relatively new in the Criminal Code. We have seen it happen in a couple of other places. In 2015, we saw it happen in England. Scotland and Ireland, I believe, were in 2019. This is the first time this has happened.
What is coercive control? Some people may actually know what this is, but they might not know the name of it. Many people would probably know it from Hollywood movies actually. Alice, Darling is a fairly new movie that really delves into this. From my era, people may remember the movie Sleeping with the Enemy, and there was a great Netflix series called Maid.
I am going to tell a story about my friend, what happened to her and what she had to do to get out of her relationship. I remember being on the phone with her many times, and she said, “Well, he's not hitting me, so it's not that bad.” I said, “Okay, but you don't have any money in your bank account, you're not allowed to go where you want to go, you don't have your own phone and you're afraid to leave your house.” That is abuse. That is where coercive control comes into this, and that is ultimately what it is. For women and men watching this, anybody who slowly takes away a person's finances, does not let them share a credit card or does not allow them to buy things on their own, and it is like a slow and steady kind of thing, that is coercive control, and the bill before us would build that into the Criminal Code to make it a criminal offence.
I talked to a couple of people before I rose to speak today, in order to get their thoughts on this, and I will share their feedback. However, before I do, I want to share what happened to my friend whom I spoke of.
My friend knew that she needed to get out of that relationship, but she could not. She could not leave him. She and her children were hostages in their own home. She had no money and no way to get out, and he would take her car keys. She could not leave. She literally had to get a burner phone. She had to stash away money that she got somewhere else. She had to leave when he went to work. It was like a Hollywood movie in real life. However, I want to tell members that today, she is doing amazing. She got her master's in education and built herself up from nothing.
It is possible to escape for anybody who is living in this reality. Most victims often do not even know they are victims, because it happens so slowly and the abusers make them feel like they are nothing.
Some people wrote to me with their stories, and I will share them shortly.
I asked a former prosecutor what he thought of this bill. He said that any time we can improve access to justice for victims, that is a win. Coercive control is an element of other offences, and this bill would be really helpful in preventing the often, sadly, inevitable escalation that happens in domestic violence. What is so great about the bill is that it is a prevention end, because people often cannot go to the police or do not want to go to the police until there is a physical assault. That is the slow progression of coercive control. It can start with not being allowed to wear what one wants to wear, and it progresses. This bill would help victims feel empowered to come forward.
I will read what the chief of the Peterborough Police Service wrote to me when I asked for his thoughts on this bill. The message from Chief Stu Betts is, “It would mean that there would be recognition of the fact that many crimes are only reported after a long history of coercive control and victims of those crimes may feel a greater sense of vindication and that someone recognizes that the history has caused increased harm. It also recognizes that some of those engaged in this type of behaviour essentially operate with the knowledge that their victims are likely not to report, if ever. I believe it may also go a long way toward the work we do to assist victims of crime.”
There was a horrific story out of Pembroke. I do not even like to say the murderer's name because I feel it gives him the attention that he feeds off of, so I will only refer to the victims. There were three women killed, point-blank shotgun killings: 36-year-old Anastasia Kuzyk, 48-year-old Nathalie Warmerdam and Carol Culleton. They were all murdered within the space of less than an hour by a man who everybody, including the police, knew was dangerous, yet nobody could do anything.
This bill would be a very simple, tangible solution to put into the Criminal Code to help victims.
I asked folks at home if they wanted to write to me to share any experiences and contribute to my speech today. One woman wrote to me. I am not going to use her name to protect her, but she gave me permission to share her story with everyone. It is important that I read this into the record.
She said, “As a mom who's been separated four years now and someone who has gone through hell with an ex-spouse, I feel this bill will hopefully help people who go through these types of situations. I left a 13-year marriage because of emotional, verbal and psychological abuse four years ago, which took me a lot of strength and courage to do. My mental state was drastically going downhill and I knew I had to finally leave, which was the hardest decision I ever had to make. I was having unpleasant thoughts. With support and help, I managed. I thought I was breaking free and things would get better, but as you are probably aware, the post-separation abuse escalated and got worse.” That is just what I spoke of. She said, “After four years, I am still dealing with coercive control and emotional and verbal abuse.”
The next part is so profound. It is emotional. She said, “I would rather be punched in the face than have to go through years of emotional, verbal and psychological abuse. I have talked to the police in the past a couple of times about situations, but all they could do was talk to him and warn him. They told me there is nothing they can do until he actually physically hurts me. The effects and damage of emotional and psychological abuse is horrible and exhausting, mentally and physically. After four years of being separated, I am still trying to find peace and build myself back up. It is very hard to do when you are still being abused, but with time and a lot of help and support, it is possible. Putting this in place would help.”
Members can obviously see that Conservatives fully support this bill. It has been put forward before. The former justice minister agreed with it, but nothing was done. Victims have repeatedly taken a back seat in the last eight years under the Prime Minister. This bill solidly states that yes, we will do something; yes, we see victims; yes, we recognize the implications and dangers of coercive control.
I hope everyone in the House supports this bill.
1603 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a great privilege to stand in the House of Commons on behalf of my community of Peterborough—Kawartha.
I would like to thank my colleague from Yorkton—Melville for putting forth Bill C-311, which I will be speaking to this evening.
Bill C-311, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to violence against pregnant women, is a simple and straightforward piece of legislation. If passed, it will create accountability for those who commit violence against pregnant women.
Here is the bill summary, which comes right out of the legislation itself:
This enactment amends the Criminal Code to specify that knowingly assaulting a pregnant woman and that causing physical or emotional harm to a pregnant woman are to be considered aggravating circumstances for sentencing purposes.
That is the entire bill summary. The bill is less than one page long.
Let me quote it:
Whereas Parliament wishes to denounce and deter violence against pregnant women by explicitly including pregnancy as an aggravating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing....
It does exactly one thing. It adds longer prison sentences where there is:
evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person whom the offender knew to be pregnant...evidence that the offence caused physical or emotional harm to [the] pregnant victim
Violence against women has been recognized as a global public health problem since 2010. Violence during pregnancy is of special concern due to the adverse effects on not only the mother but also the developing child. Violence during pregnancy has been associated with negative lifestyle behaviours, compromised prenatal care and poor maternal physical and mental health.
When a perpetrator has been identified and found guilty, the sentence must be required to match the crime. This is something all of us in the House of Commons can agree on. What we know and what my colleague has brought to light is that the Criminal Code sentencing provisions are insufficient. It is well established that the risk of violence against women increases when they are pregnant, yet consequences for their attackers do not.
According to Statistics Canada, intimate partner violence has steadily increased each year for the past seven years, and eight in 10 victims of crime are women. The Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System reported that women abused during pregnancy were four times as likely as other abused women to report having experienced very serious violence, and this is a little graphic for people watching at home, including being beaten, choked, threatened with a gun or knife, or sexually assaulted.
Furthermore, there are more than 80 cases in recent Canadian history of women who have been killed while pregnant. Each of these women was killed by a man who knew they were pregnant, yet sentencing judges are not mandated to take these actions into account under the current law.
Each and every one of us in the House, regardless of party lines, carries the responsibility to do everything we can to make public safety a priority, to ensure that everyone is safe, including our most vulnerable. In existing criminal law, if a pregnant woman is assaulted, depending on her injuries, the offender could face a maximum penalty of 14 years if they were charged with aggravated assault. With this new legislation, that person could be liable to a harsher sentence.
This is a bill designed to increase public safety. This is a bill designed to show Canadians that we care about public safety. Who can argue with that?
When one hears the facts, it seems like a no-brainer bill that would get the support of all members, but sadly that is not the case. So often, it takes a tragedy to change laws. As we have heard, there have been almost 100 tragedies of pregnant women being murdered, and the law still has not changed. Today, we have a chance to do that.
I spoke with Jeff Durham, who I know is watching right now. Jeff was the husband of Cassie and the father of Molly. Cassie and Molly were brutally murdered by someone known to them. Jeff has tried for years to get this law passed, and he expressed his deep frustration with me on the phone, in a very private conversation that he allowed me to share with the House, that he cannot believe how politics continue to hijack this bill.
This country is failing victims, survivors and their families. This country is soft on crime, and public safety is eroding rapidly. Canada's worst criminal in history has been moved to a medium-security prison. What message are we sending to Canadians?
There is no longer an incentive to be a good human, because there are no consequences. It is time we stood with survivors, victims and their families. It is time we showed our support with action.
This bill is concrete action. It puts in place a sentence that matches the horror of killing or assaulting a pregnant woman. We are Canadians. We should be protecting our most vulnerable, and that includes pregnant women. I ask every member in this house to stand up for victims, survivors and their families.
I ask every member in this House, every mother, to think about Jeff Durham when they cast their vote for this bill. I ask them to think about their sisters, their aunts, their daughters or their own mothers, and how they would feel if someone attacked them, or worse, if someone attacked them while they were pregnant. The time should match the crime, and attacking or murdering a pregnant women is among the most heinous of crimes. The mother is the most sacred of people in our society.
Let us do something to fix it. Let us send a message that it will not be tolerated. Let us remove the politics from this bill. Let us stand with public safety. Let us implement a law that says we will not tolerate this, and let us vote in favour of Bill C-311.
1009 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
