So V ote

Context: House Hansard - 118 - Oct/26/22

Nov/24/22 10:53:46 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Madam Speaker, the hon. member raises a great point. I know that in her riding, as in my riding of Fundy Royal, Internet connectivity is an issue. We have all seen this over the last couple of years on Zoom, where someone's image is frozen or they are unable to participate from where they are. That is a concern with this bill as well. We are putting in place a tool, but the resources for victims and their families are not there in some cases to allow them to participate and use that tool. I have examples of that in my own riding. An individual attempting to participate in a parole hearing remotely does not have the equipment to do that. That is a resource issue. This is something we are raising with the government to make sure that tools are provided and that all Canadians have access to them, and not just those in urban centres but those in rural areas as well.

165 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 111 - Oct/17/22

Oct/26/22 4:50:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, the irony today, as we are now debating Bill C-9, is that we see the government invoking closure when this legislation could have already been in place. Had we not had an unnecessary pandemic election, it most certainly would have been in place. While the minister is here, I want to ask a question with respect to our justice system and the recent Supreme Court ruling dealing with consecutive periods of parole ineligibility. There are many victims and their families who have spoken out about the need to respond to the ruling that values each and every life that is taken when there is a case of mass murder in Canada. These cases are rare, but they do happen. The families of victims have said they do not want to go through the burden and retraumatization that is involved with parole hearings. Sharlene Bosma appeared at our justice committee and spoke eloquently about how she was grateful that her daughter would not have to attend parole hearings to keep her father's killer behind bars, where he belongs, having killed three individuals. I would ask the minister if he has consulted with the families of victims on a possible government response to this very unfortunate ruling.

209 words

All Topics

Oct/17/22 2:57:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, they could start by listening to victims of crime. Sharlene Bosma testified at our justice committee that the one bit of solace that she had after her husband, Tim Bosma, was brutally murdered was that her daughter would never have to face her father's killer at a parole hearing. Since the Liberal government has failed to respond to the Supreme Court's decision to allow mass murderers the opportunity for parole, that one shred of peace has been ripped away. Will the Liberal government act and end parole hearings for mass murderers?

95 words

Jun/7/22 7:17:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has listed some things, so I will note that we have a vacant position for a victims ombudsman. When the offenders ombudsman position was vacant, it was filled the next day. For the victims ombudsman position, it has been months since it should have been filled. In a very short period of time, we have had a Supreme Court decision that says if someone drinks enough, they might be found not guilty of a serious offence. We have had the striking down of a law that valued every life for consecutive periods of parole ineligibility. We have also had Bill C-5, which says that for serious gun crimes and serious offences against other individuals, a person can serve their sentence from the comfort of their own home. That is just in the last month that we have been dealing with these things. It is time for the government to reverse course, drop Bill C-5 and respond to these Supreme Court decisions.

168 words

Jun/7/22 7:16:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with the member. We have to do more. In fact, she mentioned a former ombudsman in her question. We do not even have an ombudsman for victims of crime and that is truly outrageous. The position has been vacant for some time. What we are trying to do is eliminate the revictimization of families for the case in Moncton where three RCMP officers were shot and killed. That individual is going to be up for parole at 47 years old. That means a lifetime of attending parole hearings for the families, whether the offender ever gets out or not, and that is not fair to those families.

112 words

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

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

Context: House Hansard - 79 - Jun/1/22

Jun/7/22 2:46:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court ruling means that the killer of three Mounties in Moncton, New Brunswick has had his parole ineligibility reduced from 75 years to 25. This will put the victims' families through future misery. Will the government respond?

41 words

Context: House Hansard - 77 - May/30/22

Jun/1/22 2:38:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, thoughts are not enough. This decision means that the person who killed three RCMP officers in Moncton will now be eligible for full parole at age 49. The Supreme Court ruling hands this issue back to Parliament for this Parliament and the current government to do something about it. Will the government and the Prime Minister act to ensure that families will not have to go through the retraumatization every two years of parole hearings to ensure that their loved one's killer remains behind bars?

88 words