- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Fundy Royal
- New Brunswick
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $124,175.10
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, I will take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election as Speaker. I would also like to say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Langley—Aldergrove.
The last eight years have not been kind to Canadians, since the Liberal government took power, when it comes to safe streets, safe communities and crime. One only needs to look at the recent StatsCan release to see the drastic increase in crime in this country since 2015. The numbers are absolutely staggering. Total violent crimes are up 39%; homicides are up 43%, up for the fourth year in a row; gang-related homicides are up 108%; violent gun crimes are up 101%, up for the eighth year in a row; aggravated assaults are up 24%; assaults with a weapon are up 61%; sexual assaults are up 71%; and sex crimes against children are up 126%.
That is the context when we look at Bill S-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act. That is the context by which we, as parliamentarians, addressing the fear in our communities around crime, around keeping Canadians safe, around protecting victims, look at Bill S-12.
Bill S-12 is due to be passed at all stages by October 28. This is a deadline that was put in place by the Supreme Court, when it gave the government 365 days to get this done, in response to a Supreme Court decision. Yet, here we are, with just 24 days left, to make sure that the national sex offender registry continues to be a critical resource for police to investigate and to prevent crime.
The last time the Liberal government had a court-imposed deadline to respond to decisions, around medical assistance in dying, we ended up, tragically, with a bill that would expand medical assistance in dying to Canadians living with mental illness. The government waited too long and rushed through legislation. That is, again, what is happening here.
I am going to focus my speech on amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act as opposed to changes in the publication bans that were brought forward by our Conservative-led justice committee study on the federal government's obligation to victims of crime.
What is the sex offender registry? Conservatives will always stand up for victims and victims' rights. That leads me to these amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act. The act was established in 2004 to help Canadian police authorities investigate crimes of a sexual nature by requiring the registration of certain information on sex offenders. To help police services investigate crimes of a sexual nature, the sex offender registry contains information such as the address and telephone numbers of offenders, a description of their physical appearance, the nature of the offence committed, and the age and gender of victims, and their relationship to the offender.
At the time, enrolment on the registry was up to the discretion of a judge. That discretion led to significant problems. The public safety committee review of the implementation of the sex offender registry in 2009 found glaring issues. The committee found that only 50% of sex offenders were required to register their information. This was happening for a number of reasons. An official from the Department of Public Safety told the committee at the time that with the pressure of time or workload, Crown attorneys would forget to ask for the order. The committee was also told that the order application rate varies widely by province and by territory. One witness stated that the absence of an automatic inclusion on the registry for all offenders convicted of sexual crimes has led to the inconsistent application of the law across the country.
The committee recommended to the government that the automatic registration of sex offenders would fix these holes in the legislation. In order to be effective, the national registry must be enforced consistently across the country.
I was proud to be part of the Conservative government that passed the Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act, introduced in 2010. That legislation passed with the support of all parties. The bill broadened the purpose of the sex offender registry by adding the purpose of helping police prevent crimes of a sexual nature in addition to enabling them to investigate those crimes.
We made sensible changes to strengthen the sex offender registry. For instance, we made registration automatic for convicted sex offenders. Our legislation also added the obligation to report any person ordered to serve an intermittent or conditional sentence. This is even more important today than it was then, because Liberal Bill C-5 now allows conditional sentences for crimes like sexual assault and Liberal Bill C-75 now allows bail to become more easily obtained by individuals charged with serious offences.
Conservatives also brought in the requirement of registered sex offenders to report the name of their employer or the person who engages them on a volunteer basis or retains them, and the type of work they do. Police should be aware if a sex offender is spending any amount of time with or in proximity to potential victims. We made these sensible amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act to protect victims and to prevent crime.
On October 28, 2022, a split decision, five to four, of the Supreme Court found that the mandatory and lifetime registration on the sex offender registry was unconstitutional. The Liberals have simply accepted this decision. We have urged them to respond as forcefully as possible, and Bill S-12 does fall short of that.
I want to read from the dissenting judgment. It was a very strong dissent, in which it says:
...the exercise of discretion was the very problem that prompted Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to provide for automatic registration of sex offenders under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act... The evidence is clear that even low risk sex offenders, relative to the general criminal population, pose a heightened risk to commit another sexual offence.
That heightened risk is, by some counts, eight times the likelihood of someone with a prior conviction to reoffend. That is why incorporating and improving as many offenders as possible in the sex offender registry is so very important. We have seen how this has played out before. When it was left simply to the judges to decide who needs to register with the registry, nearly 50% of offenders were never required to register. This is before we brought in mandatory registration.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. We can expect that individuals who certainly should be listed in the registry, even after the passage of Bill S-12, would be left out. We have to take every step to protect Canadians, to protect victims and to ensure that sex offenders are not given the opportunity to revictimize our communities.
After eight years of the Liberal government, the rate of violent crime is up 39%, police-reported sexual assaults are up 71% and sex crimes against children are up 126%. Canadians deserve so much better than this. I can think of no greater obligation for us as members of Parliament to enact laws that protect our communities and protect the safety of the most vulnerable. With legislation like Bill C-75 that has made bail so easy to get, legislation like Bill C-5 that has allowed for house arrest for sex offenders, Conservatives do not trust the government to take the necessary steps to protect Canadians. It has proven an inability to do that.
It is important that we pass Bill S-12, it is important that we respond to the Supreme Court decision and it is important that we go as far as possible to protect the most vulnerable. We look forward to the quick passage of this legislation. It is unfortunate that the government took so long to bring us to this point, but it is also important that we act expeditiously to protect Canadians.
1356 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/26/22 10:54:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak tonight to this very important topic. I want to mention at the outset that I will be splitting my time with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
Last week, people from across Atlantic Canada did what they could do to prepare for a storm that was being described as a severe threat and potentially historic. As we all know by now, those descriptions were accurate. Hurricane Fiona was indeed severe and historic. Sadly, it was also tragic.
I want to echo the sentiments that have been expressed in this House today. Those who have lost a loved one are in our thoughts at this terrible time. Our thoughts are also with those who have lost homes or businesses or experienced extensive damage to their property, and with anyone who feels as though the road to recovery right now looks too long to bear. I want to thank the firefighters, police and paramedics who answered calls for help, putting themselves oftentimes in harm's way. I also want to thank the mayors leading their local recovery responses, and the premiers of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador and New Brunswick, who responded swiftly following hurricane Fiona's impact.
Of course, I want to recognize every individual working on reconnecting families to power right across Atlantic Canada. These hard workers will be spending days away from their own families to help reconnect the thousands of homes that are still without power in the region. This includes the energy workers from Maine, who overcame the obstacles on their way to deliver much-needed aid to Nova Scotia.
As emergency crews work day and night to restore power to communities across the regions hit by the hurricane, we are learning more about the extensive damage and the personal stories of Maritimers and Newfoundlanders of how they rode out the storm and are trying to recover.
I want to give thanks as well to everyone who lends a hand to their neighbour and helps out. That is one of the things we have seen over and over again when we are met with challenging times. In Atlantic Canada, people look out for their neighbours and give them a hand. We have heard story after story of that taking place in the days that have followed.
Many of these stories follow along a theme that has become very familiar to Atlantic Canadians, and that is our strong sense of community. People have been coming together to help each other however they can. Anyone with a chainsaw quickly got to work to help clear fallen trees. Community centres opened their doors to welcome families needing to charge their phones, get warmed up or just have a hot cup of coffee.
Our strong sense of community is just one of the reasons I am proud to be from Atlantic Canada. That sense of community is also absolutely essential at times like these. Provinces like Nova Scotia are no stranger to this type of strengthened sense of community after experiencing a tragedy.
In 1917, another historic event happened in the province when a cargo ship carrying explosives collided with a steamship in Halifax Harbour. At the time, the world had never known a man-made explosion of that magnitude, and the devastation was immense. However, it only took a couple of hours after the Halifax explosion before trains started making their way toward the city to deliver supplies and people willing to lend a hand at the city's darkest moment. The speed at which neighbouring communities and provinces mobilized to provide relief all those many years ago is a testament to the strength of Atlantic Canadians, and it is the same strength we are seeing today.
Another tradition we are still seeing today is the willingness of our neighbours to the south to lend a hand when things get tough. Even 106 years after the Halifax explosion, the Province of Nova Scotia still sends a Christmas tree to the City of Boston every year to express its gratitude for Boston's contributions to the relief efforts in 1917.
In 2022, our American neighbours once again answered the call for help, but this time around, those efforts were stalled by red tape and bureaucratic hoops to jump through just to enter Canada to lend a hand. The ArriveCAN app has been a disaster since it was first launched. Border crossings with little or no cell service rendered the app useless, and there was no consideration for seniors or individuals who simply did not have a smart phone. Travellers were mistakenly told to quarantine when they were not required to. With all the confusion created by ArriveCAN, there has been an untold amount of fraud, as innocent Canadians fell victim to scams in their attempts to accommodate the complex and inconsistent rules imposed by the federal government.
Entire industries, including the tourism industries in my own riding of Fundy Royal, have been negatively impacted by the ArriveCAN app, but even as this bad border policy hurt communities and businesses that depend on cross-border travel, the Liberal government doubled down on its policies. On Sunday, we saw the most egregious example of just how bad the ArriveCAN app was when the Liberal border policy led to Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston indicating that U.S. power crews had been delayed at the border while trying to enter Canada to join recovery efforts.
The hurricane recovery is time-sensitive. When families are disconnected from one another or cannot call for help or cannot heat up food for their children, every minute matters. Any delay in support to help Atlantic Canadians trying to recover after the storm is completely unacceptable.
The Minister of Emergency Preparedness said yesterday that any delay that may have taken place at the border was inconsequential. It was a pretty bold statement to make from his home, which has power, to families who do not yet know when they will have power.
I use this one impediment that could stand in the way of this recovery as an example of a policy that does not make sense, because we know that the ArriveCAN app will no longer be required starting this weekend. I would urge the government to drop it immediately. We can see the damage that a policy that is not well thought out can do.
That leads me to other issues around recovery. There are agreements between the federal government and the provinces for compensation for those who need it for rebuilding homes, farms and businesses. We have to make sure we do not allow red tape, bureaucratic excuses or delays to impede Atlantic Canadians from getting the help they so desperately will need after this storm.
Members of the government continue to say they are standing with everyone affected by this storm, but they also must be careful not to stand in the way. The federal government's disaster financial assistance arrangements have been put in place to provide financial assistance to provincial and territorial governments in the event of a large-scale natural disaster. However, this assistance does not flow immediately for Canadians who are suffering now, so I ask that we all work together to reduce bureaucracy that stands between Canadians and the help they need as quickly as possible.
While the intention of many of these programs is good, we need to make sure that accessibility remains paramount. We have seen over and over in the last few years that the government can turn on a dime if it wants to, and there is no excuse not to put that same focus and energy into supporting Atlantic Canadians in their time of need.
This hurricane has caused extensive damage throughout the Maritimes and Newfoundland and Labrador, but together we stand committed to doing everything we can to once again get Atlantic Canadians through this. I want to thank everyone who has pulled together, in big ways or small, to help their neighbour and to help their community. Together, we are going to build once again for a brighter future. We need everyone pulling together to make that happen, at the municipal level and the provincial level and, indeed, at the federal level.
I would urge the federal government to make sure we break down every barrier that would prevent Atlantic Canadians and the provinces of Atlantic Canada from receiving the help they need in this time that is so crucial.
1420 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
