- Member of Parliament
- Member of the Board of Internal Economy
Chief opposition whip
Member of the panel of chairs for the legislative committees
- Conservative
- South Surrey—White Rock
- British Columbia
- Voting Attendance: 66%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $130,172.43
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, I am honoured to stand today in support of Bill C-311, the violence against pregnant women act, because I thought that is what we would be debating tonight. However, what I have been listening to is far from that. The speakers have gone far afield in their discussion of a bill that is squarely before them.
I want to thank the member for Yorkton—Melville for bringing forward this important legislation. It is my honour to second it at this stage of debate. I will speak to this bill, not some other bill or bills, or a history of bills. We are talking about Bill C-311, which would amend the Criminal Code to specify that knowingly assaulting a pregnant woman and causing physical or emotional harm to a pregnant woman would be considered aggravating circumstances for sentencing purposes.
I support this bill because mothers who have faced and are facing violent assaults need to know that they are heard and that the pain and depression caused by harm to their babies are not left unseen by others. I have fought for women's rights all my career as a lawyer, especially during my career as a family lawyer, and now as a politician. This bill is about the rights of pregnant women, no more and no less.
I am the mother of four children who I have been fortunate to raise into adulthood, but I was pregnant five times. My last child, a boy named Mackenzie, or little Mack for short, never got the chance to know his family, work, speak, go to school, play with friends or grow up. His waiting family, which was me, his dad, his brother and three sisters, never got to meet him. We lost little Mack halfway through my pregnancy because of the negligence of an interning doctor who wrongly handled an amniocentesis procedure and suffocated him in utero.
At the time, his loss sent me into a deep situational depression for months. I was off work for the first time in my adult life, and I grieved his passing desperately. I still do many years later. Because of this tragic event in my own life, I know and understand how the deliberate act of a person who knows that someone is pregnant and does harm to them and their baby impacts a mother and her family.
It is well documented that pregnant women in Canada are easy targets for violent assaults, yet the consequences of these offences have not increased. Just this year, the Court of Appeal for Ontario overturned a seven-year sentence for an offender who stabbed the pregnant mother of his unborn child in the neck and left her for dead. The mother lived, but the baby did not. This violent attacker's sentence was upped to 15 years when an appeal judge pointed out that the initial sentence did not address the issue of domestic violence or that the victim was pregnant with his baby. A violent crime against a pregnant woman needs to be treated as the serious crime that it is. Right now, criminal sentences in Canada do not consider harm done to a pregnant woman when an assault is committed.
Nelson Mandela said, “Safety and security don't just happen. They are the result of collective consensus and public investment.” Violence against women, especially pregnant women, is not a private family issue. It is a public safety and security issue, and it needs the urgent attention of this House.
Among Canadian women who have reported being abused by an intimate partner during pregnancy, 40% said that the abuse began during pregnancy. In recent years, there have been more than 70 cases in which pregnant women have been murdered, and the effect of the death of the unborn child was not a factor at sentencing.
The story of Tashina General from Brantford is particularly disheartening. In 2008, a Brantford man strangled Tashina to death. She was his 21-year-old pregnant girlfriend. He then attempted to hide Tashina's body by burying her in a shallow grave. He committed this gruesome and horrific crime against Tashina, as the evidence came out, simply because he did not want to bear the responsibility of being a father, despite Tashina's choice to be a mother.
Only eight years later, this murderer was set free. Tashina's grandmother, Norma General, still wonders what her great-grandson would have looked like and what kind of personality he would have had. She never had the opportunity to hold her first great-grandchild because of the despicable actions of a misogynistic killer.
It is not only intimate partner violence to which pregnant women are vulnerable. Pregnant women are also the target of unprovoked attacks by strangers. Last year on Vancouver Island, a pregnant woman walking down the street with her four-year-old daughter had a brick thrown at her stomach in a random attack. The fact that the victim was pregnant was not seen as an aggravating factor. I will let that sink in.
In another case, a pregnant woman in Surrey was attacked at a bank. An unknown man approached her from behind and violently threw her to the ground. Women who are pregnant are vulnerable, and they should be treated as vulnerable when it comes to sentencing. Offenders will often cite an unplanned pregnancy or the stress caused by having to potentially financially support the baby as excuses for these crimes.
The uncaring government has turned its back on women who choose to have a child. Its members are blinded by differences with the member for Yorkton—Melville on other matters, and that is blinding them to this bill. A vote against this bill is a vote against choice and women, and it would be misogynistic. They say that they are for choice, but only if we agree with that choice, and that is no choice at all.
996 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/16/22 4:31:57 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-9
Mr. Speaker, like some others in the House and like my colleague who was just speaking, I am a lawyer, and the practice of law has been a large part of my life. My son and two of my daughters followed me into the legal profession, and it is a source of pride to me as they pursue their professional careers.
I continue to be grateful to have been appointed a Queen’s Counsel some 23 years ago, and to have been elected president of the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association the year previous. I have a deep appreciation and passion for the law and its unbiased application.
In the plainest of terms, Bill C-9 amends the Judges Act to replace the process through which the conduct of federally appointed judges is reviewed by the Canadian Judicial Council. It establishes a new streamlined process for reviewing allegations of misconduct that do not reach the threshold for a judge’s removal from office, and the process by which recommendations regarding removal from office can be made to the Minister of Justice.
These provisions also apply to persons other than judges who are appointed under an act of Parliament to hold office during good behaviour. This bill was previously tabled in the Senate as Bill S-5 on May 25, 2021. The legislation before us is the result of consultations conducted by the federal government in 2016 on reforming this process. That is six years ago.
It is incredibly important that the judicial system be just and fair, holding accountable those who are both behind and in front of the bench. Increasing public confidence in the judicial system, while ensuring the independence of the judiciary, is necessary for the foundations of our justice system to continue to function as intended.
Many will recall that in response to comments from Justice Robin Camp at a sexual assault trial in 2014, former interim Conservative leader Rona Ambrose introduced a bill to require seminars on sexual assault be taken by federally appointed justices
At the time, the Alberta Court of Appeal panel ruled that Justice Camp seemed not to understand laws on consent and an alleged rape victim’s sexual activity, and that his acquittal of the man may have been coloured by “sexual stereotypes and stereotypical myths, which have long since been discredited.” Justice Camp’s ruling was thrown out and a new trial date set. Justice Camp went on to resign from the bench in 2017, after the Canadian Judicial Council ruled he should be removed from office.
Before this case, there were volumes of case law and newspaper columns about jurists who misapprehended sexual consent or post-assault behaviour, who then went on to preside in court and rule again on other such cases.
An earlier version of the bill received royal assent on May 6, 2021. This bill can be viewed as an attempt to increase confidence in the judicial system, which had been shaken by the words and actions of Justice Camp and others.
Fairly representing victims' rights is an integral aspect of the proper functioning of the judicial system. One important aspect of the court process is the submission of victim impact statements: written statements from a victim or victims that describe the physical or emotional harm, property damage or economic loss that the victim of an offence has suffered. Our courts take these statements into account when an offender is sentenced. This gives victims of crime a voice in the criminal justice system.
The government has not been prioritizing victims' rights, and it is failing Canadians and the integrity of our judicial system as a result. Inexcusably, the role of the federal ombudsman for victims of crime has been vacant since October 1, 2021, with the justice minister’s office saying it will be filled “in due course.”
The ombudsperson has a critical role in highlighting and reviewing systemic issues that negatively affect victims and emerging issues. This vacancy is simply unacceptable, and sends a message to survivors and Canadians alike that they will not necessarily be represented fairly in the justice system. Adding to concerns that victims of crime are not being heard is Parliament’s failure to complete a review of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. The review was supposed to happen in 2020.
Canadians’ perspective of the judicial system reflects, in part, these failures. According to the Justice Canada studies, regardless of whether their cases did or did not go to trial, participants were asked to rate their level of confidence in the police, the court process and the criminal justice system in general.
Few stated that they were very confident. Indeed, approximately two-thirds of the responders stated that they were not confident in the administration of justice in general. This data is not coincidental. It is imperative that our judiciary system continues to adapt to effectively represent Canadians fairly.
A Department of Justice report stated that:
For the 2016/2017 fiscal year, 42% of all sexual assault case decisions (levels 1, 2, and 3) in adult criminal court resulted in a finding of guilt.
According to StatsCan, statistical evidence classified 14% of level 1 sexual assault incidents as unfounded in 2017. In comparison, the more serious levels of sexual and physical assault were classified as unfounded in only 9% of level 3 sexual assaults, 7% of level 2 sexual assaults, 3% of level 2 physical assaults and 1% of level 3 physical assaults. Why is there a difference?
This bill would modify the existing judicial review process and allow for sanctions such as counselling, continuing education and reprimands. Improvements in the administration of justice will result.
The bill states that the reasons a judge could be removed from office include:
(a) infirmity; (b) misconduct; (c) failure in the due execution of judicial office; (d) the judge is in a position that a reasonable, fair-minded and informed observer would consider to be incompatible with the due execution of judicial office.
In the case of a complaint that alleges sexual harassment or discrimination, it would not be dismissed. The full screening criteria would be published by the Canadian Judicial Council. The minister and Attorney General may request that the Canadian Judicial Council establish a full hearing panel to determine whether the removal of a judge from the office of a superior court is justified.
The council would submit a report within three months after the end of each calendar year with respect to the number of complaints received and actions taken. This is a prudent measure that would ensure transparency and accountability from a senior group of jurists exercising quasi-constitutional duties.
Such provisions in this bill would enhance and strengthen the Canadian legal system as a whole. As a former parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice, I welcome this legislation. Bill C-9 is a move in the right direction. It is not the end of the journey, but the start of the journey.
1182 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
