- 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: 65%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $130,172.43
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for all the work he does with respect to justice for victims and with respect to criminal law reform in Canada.
Our children are our most precious resource. I am sure this is felt around the world, but it certainly is true here in Canada. If we cannot move to protect our children, then what is it exactly that we are accomplishing with any legislation in this place?
An amendment that would require registration of those who are convicted of sex offences against children is one of the few ways to protect them. I know that in my own case, I was lured away from the safety of my home and my family by older people, older teenagers, in fact. I was not even a teenager yet. Children are powerless against predators who would do them harm. If someone is accused of doing harm to a child in Canada, they should be on the registry.
161 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, after eight years of this Prime Minister's weak-on-crime policies, Canada has become a more dangerous place and he is not worth the cost.
Liberal law Bill C-75, the catch-and-release act, has unleashed a wave of violent criminals onto our streets and incidents of repeat and violent crime have predictably surged as a result. This increase in crime is particularly true when it comes to sexually based offences. Under this NDP-Liberal government's watch, sexual assaults have gone up 71%. Sex crimes against children have seen an astonishing 126% increase.
Thanks to extreme politicians weakening our laws, those who commit sexual assault can now serve their sentences at home in the same community as their victims.
According to Statistics Canada, only one in five cases of sexual assault reported to police result in a trial. Only 6% of sexual assaults are reported in the first place, due to fear and stigma, the lowest of all violent crime.
I know that when I was sexually assaulted, as a child of 12, by two perpetrators, I was too afraid to tell my parents, even. I did not tell my mother until I was 40 years old. That is the story for many women in Canada.
The Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter points out that only one in nine cases of sexual assault reported to police results in a conviction. Worse, only one in 15 reported cases results in the perpetrator being sentenced to jail. As a mother of three daughters, I find these statistics alarming. As a lawyer and member of the official opposition, I must hold the government presiding over this crime wave responsible. The lack of urgency of the NDP and Liberals to protect women and children is shocking. They must act now to fix the problems they created with this radical ideology that puts criminals first and victims last.
These stats only tell part of the story. The assault is traumatic enough for the victim to live once. The effects last a lifetime. To get justice, they are required to relive the trauma during the rigours of a criminal trial. They are often revictimized, forced to recount their assault through their own testimony and cross-examination. It is understandable that sex crimes and assaults are significantly under-reported, making it impossible to accurately quantify just how widespread this picture is.
It is not just sexual assault. Other forms of sexual violence are also on the rise. Online child exploitation has increased.
According, again, to StatsCan, my province of British Columbia accounted for 54% of Canada's reported incidents of making and distributing sexually explicit images. The RCMP in British Columbia dealt with 9,600 cases of child exploitation last year alone.
This is unacceptable in the extreme and speaks to the NDP-Liberal government's failure to protect the most vulnerable in our society, particularly women and children.
The House must acknowledge that Canada has a problem with sex crimes, as we debate legal changes to the sex offender registry.
In my family law practice, I handled a case where a woman was concerned for the safety of her child during a custody dispute. She expressed concern that unsupervised contact with extended family members on the father's side of the family could put her child at risk of sexual assault. I discovered, through a sex offender registry in the United States, that the family member in question was a known offender. We were able to secure conditions in the custody arrangements that kept the child safe and under supervision.
This underscores the need for a strong, effective sex offender registry, to help law enforcement keep the public safe.
The legislation before us today, Bill S-12, amends the Sex Offender Registration Information Act, following a Supreme Court ruling that determines that sections of this law were unconstitutional.
The court gave the Liberals one year to fix the unconstitutional provisions. That was on October 28, 2022. The so-called “feminist government” has dragged its feet yet again, and here we are today at the 11th hour debating the bill with a looming deadline just three days away.
Bill S-12 would change the Sex Offender Registry Information Act that was first passed in 2004 with the support of all parties. It was created to assist law enforcement agencies by requiring the registration of specific information about sex offenders, such as addresses, phone numbers, a description of their physical appearance, the nature of the offence committed, and the age and gender of the victims and their relationship to the offender. At the time it was up to the discretion of the judge as to whether a sexual offender should be on the registry.
However, this led to several issues. In 2009, the public safety committee found that only 50% of sex offenders were required to enrol in the sex offender registry. Conservatives recognized that to be effective and to actually protect women, children, victims and survivors, the national registry had to be enforced consistently across the country. Conservatives are the party of law and order. We support tough sentencing and enforcement against sexual crimes.
The previous Conservative government brought in the law that required convicted sex offenders to be automatically listed on the national sex offender registry to better protect the public, a measure that was also supported at the time by all parties. Conservatives remain supportive of legislation that would protect the public from sexual offenders, including Bill S-12. However, the bill is another missed opportunity to improve public safety.
At committee, the Liberals amended their own bill to further prioritize the interests of the accused in sexual assault cases. Frankly, accused sexual offenders do not need more support in the criminal justice system. It is the victims and survivors who need the support. This was a chance for the coalition government to stand with victims, but once again it abandoned them. Common-sense Conservatives believe all sex offenders must be listed on the national sex offender registry, and we will amend the legislation to ensure this is the case when we form government.
As a family lawyer, I often dealt with custody cases where the sex offender registry was especially used to protect the interests of children. It is an essential tool for police and law enforcement agencies. I am concerned that the court's decision will water down the effectiveness of the registry and make it harder for police to prevent and investigate sexual offences.
At committee, that soft-on-crime NDP-Liberal government opposed our common-sense amendments to strengthen the bill and opposed amendments to publication bans that key stakeholders, such as My Voice, My Choice, which was earlier praised by the member opposite, have advocated for. While the government claims it stands for women's rights and supports survivors of sexual violence, its actions say otherwise.
Victims and survivors welcome stronger penalties and protections like mandatory enrolment in the national sex offender registry. They have asked for increased flexibility and victim input regarding publication bans and access to case information. The Liberals had a year to get the legislation right. Their delayed response has opened the possibility of sex offenders escaping registration if Parliament does not comply with the court-imposed deadline looming close now, something Conservatives will not allow.
We will agree to pass the bill through the House today to avoid putting the registry at risk. However, make no mistake, there is only one party committed to ending the crime wave, keeping vulnerable Canadians safe and fixing the flawed legislation. Only common-sense Conservatives will act with the urgency and the specificity required to keep women and children in Canada safe.
1292 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/23 5:10:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, he did not adequately take responsibility for his actions. He should apologize to me, the Chair and the House.
In the circumstances, and upon some reflection on the matter, now that we are out of the heat of the moment, I truly believe that with his misogynistic bullying and insults, the parliamentary secretary was trying to obstruct me from making and completing my speech.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 107, states:
In order to fulfill their parliamentary duties, Members should be able to go about their parliamentary business undisturbed. Assaulting, threatening, or insulting a Member during a proceeding of Parliament...is a violation of the rights of Parliament.
Continuing at page 108, it states:
Speakers have consistently upheld the right of the House to the services of its Members free from intimidation, obstruction and interference.
This is a long-standing and well-established principle in the law of parliamentary privilege, tracing its roots back to the April 12, 1733, resolution of the British House of Commons, which states, “That the assaulting, insulting or menacing any member of this House, in his coming to or going from the House, or upon the account of his behaviour in Parliament, is a high infringement of the privilege of this House, a most outrageous and dangerous violation of the rights of Parliament and an high crime and misdemeanour.”
Bosc and Gagnon observe the following at page 109:
In order to find a prima facie breach of privilege, the Speaker must be satisfied that there is evidence to support the Member’s claim that he or she has been impeded in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions and that the matter is directly related to a proceeding in Parliament.
On May 1, 1986, at page 12847 of the Debates, Speaker Bosley held:
If an Hon. Member is impeded or obstructed in the performance of his or her parliamentary duties through threats, intimidation, bribery attempts or other improper behaviour, such a case would fall within the limits of parliamentary privilege.
While I did complete my speech, I have to say it is very disturbing, distracting and disruptive to have to finish a speech after being put through that escalating ordeal by the member for Kingston and the Islands. I say that as someone who has spent a career as a litigator.
Certainly, the giving of the finger is improper behaviour at the least, and with the context it was given in last evening, it was intended to be of a threatening or intimidating nature. In fact, the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, second edition, defines giving the finger, at page 555, as “mak[ing] an obscene gesture with the middle finger raised as a sign of contempt.” A “sign of contempt” is the literal definition. It is certainly unparliamentary, and I would argue that it is contemptuous, behaviour. No matter how we cut it, it is unacceptable conduct in any professional setting. I must say, I have never experienced this in my professional career to date.
While I do not believe we have ever had a Speaker's Ruling on a member giving another the finger, Bosc and Gagnon explain, at page 112:
It is impossible to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation and, as such, constitute prima facie cases of [contempt].
At page 81, they state:
There are, however, other affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges. Thus, the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege: tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of the House in the discharge of their duties; or is an offence against the authority or dignity of the House, such as disobedience of its legitimate commands or libels upon itself, its Members, or its officers.
They continue:
The House of Commons enjoys very wide latitude in maintaining its dignity and authority through the exercise of its contempt power. In other words, the House may consider any misconduct to be contempt and may deal with it accordingly.
Indeed, on June 7, 2021, at page 8034 of the Debates, the Speaker found a prima facie contempt concerning our former colleague, Will Amos, who, while attending the House virtually, urinated into a coffee cup.
I would note the wording from that ruling. It states:
In response, the member for Kingston and the Islands agreed that it was a deplorable and unacceptable incident, while also pointing out that the member for Pontiac had accepted full responsibility and that he had stepped aside from his parliamentary secretary responsibilities and from his committee responsibilities in order to obtain the appropriate assistance. For that reason, he was again apologizing on his behalf.
Further in the ruling, it states:
I obviously take note of the apology from the member for Pontiac. He recognized that his behaviour was completely inappropriate and confirms his commitment to obtain the necessary assistance. Nevertheless, the Chair is required to determine whether the alleged facts are a breach of the rules governing contempt and thus merit priority consideration.
That is the case here.
Just as in those circumstances two years ago, I believe that the misogynistic bullying and offensive gestures by the member for Kingston and the Islands must absolutely be called out. They rise to the threshold requiring your intervention, Mr. Speaker, and this House's disposition through a privilege motion.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, should you agree, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.
954 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise to bring a British Columbian perspective to the debate on Bill C-20, the public complaints and review commission act. This legislation would create a framework for reviewing complaints against Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers and Canada Border Services agents.
These law enforcement professionals work tirelessly to keep our communities safe, and they deserve the respect and support of this House. Unfortunately, the federal government is complacent about protecting Canadians, making a difficult job even harder for border agents and RCMP officers. B.C. cities, including my home of Surrey, are facing an onslaught of crime, including gang activity, property damage and violence.
It is no wonder. In 2019, the Liberals passed legislation that directed a principle of restraint when imposing bail conditions. Under this soft-on-crime policy, police are often forced to release known criminals on a promise that they will show up in court, a practice known as catch and release.
This approach is not working in B.C. Last December, in Surrey, a man with a criminal record of 23 convictions of assault attacked a mother and her 11-month-old child. Also last year, another man stole a ferry vessel from Victoria harbour. He was arrested, released and later caught shattering the windows and doors of local businesses. In Kelowna, one man is responsible for 346 complaints to local police in the last six years, leading to 29 convictions for assault and property crime. This is not unusual.
The BC Urban Mayors' Caucus has sounded the alarm bells, calling for action to prevent this cycle of crime. The Surrey Board of Trade, an organization normally associated with economic development in my region, is expressing its concern with crime on the streets. It recently said:
The economic development of any community relies upon its reputation as a safe, viable region in which to locate and do business, with supporting infrastructure, community assets and, most importantly, customers willing to walk in the door. However, if customers feel unsafe, they won't come. If the reputation of a region is suspect, businesses won't come.
The breakdown of public safety has hit my community of South Surrey—White Rock and nearby areas hard, but the problem extends far beyond B.C. It is a national mess. We all watched with horror this summer the mass killing on James Smith Cree First Nation in Saskatchewan. The perpetrator had been charged with over 120 crimes and convicted 59 times, but none of that prevented him from taking 10 indigenous lives.
To make matters worse, the Liberals have rewritten sentencing for serious crimes, putting criminals back on the street sooner than they ought to be. They lowered sentences for crimes like assault with a weapon, abduction of a minor and participation in the activities of a criminal organization, making these crimes eligible for summary convictions. The Prime Minister expanded house arrest for other serious offences, including sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, motor vehicle theft and arson.
The government is also failing when it comes to gang prevention. Just yesterday, a prominent member of the Indo-Canadian community in Surrey—
524 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
