Bill C-233

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to require a justice, before making a release order in respect of an accused who is charged with an offence against their intimate partner, to consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety and security of any person, to include as a condition of the order that the accused wear an electronic monitoring device.
The enactment also amends the Judges Act to provide for continuing education seminars for judges on matters related to intimate partner violence and coercive control in intimate partner and family relationships.

Keira's Law

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my eternal gratitude to my colleagues in this chamber who voted unanimously for Bill C- 233, also known as “Keira’s law”.

I express my heartfelt appreciation for Senator Dalphond, who sponsored my bill at the Senate, and senators, organizations and individuals who supported this fundamental change to the Criminal Code of Canada. This bill received royal assent last week.

We have all worked very hard to break the cycle of violence and empower those who are suffering. This legislation will strengthen laws surrounding domestic violence and coercive control.

For the very first time in the context of the Criminal Code, coercive control will be taken into account, because all judges will now be required to receive training on intimate partner violence and coercive control.

Electronic monitoring devices will also provide complainants with greater safety, security and peace of mind. This law sends an unmistakable message to violent intimate partners.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my eternal gratitude to my colleagues in this chamber, who voted unanimously for Bill C-233, also known as Keira’s law. I extend my heartfelt appreciation to Senator Dalphond, who sponsored the bill in the Senate, and the senators, organizations and individuals who supported this fundamental change to the Criminal Code of Canada.

Last week, the bill received royal assent. My colleagues have all worked together to help break the cycle of violence and empower those who are suffering. This legislation will strengthen laws surrounding domestic violence and coercive control.

For the first time ever under the Criminal Code, coercive control will have to be taken into consideration, since it is guaranteed that all judges will receive training on domestic violence and coercive control.

In addition, electronic bracelets will provide greater safety and peace of mind for complainants. This law sends a clear message to abusive spouses: Our justice system is equipped to monitor all aspects of their behaviour, even the subtle and devious ones.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

April 27, 2023

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that on behalf and at the request of the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, the Right Honourable Richard Wagner, Deputy to the Governor General, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 27th day of April, 2023, at 6:26 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Maia Welbourne

Assistant Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates the bills assented to were S-214, An Act to establish International Mother Language Day—Chapter 5; Bill C-228, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985—Chapter 6; Bill C-233, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner)—Chapter 7; and Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 8.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate what I have said time and time again during the precious time that I have in this debate. This is the power of collaborative work when it is done. I have seen it in my own work on Bill C-233, and I know that when there is the will of members of the House to get good work done on behalf of Canadians, lost Canadians in this case, it can be done.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will share with the member that I am quite familiar with the process, having successfully passed with my colleagues Keira's law, Bill C-233, and understanding the immense value of unanimous consent and when members work across party lines because issues are so important.

I do not think any of this is partisan. I think this issue affects many families, including my own, and many constituents in my riding of York Centre. As a matter of fact, the member for Thornhill would attest to that as well, as we share similar constituency demographics in that sense. She is a member on his benches, and I would encourage him to perhaps speak to her about the many families in similar situations.

There is always an opportunity to work collaboratively, and I certainly hope the member will consider it.

Justice and Human Rights

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her intervention. I know she has worked very hard on this issue with Bill C-233 for a number of years. I admire the depth to which she and her colleagues have gone to ensure that it not only passes but also brings everybody together. I think she has successfully managed to do that.

Of course, this is an important conversation starter, but it should not be the end. Back to the point that my friend from Kamloops made, it is one of the important tools to ensure that sentencing, for example, is appropriate and that judges are informed of the peculiarities, special circumstances and risks involved in intimate partner violence. Therefore, I think it is an important and smart first step, but of course, there is much more to do.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his hard work over the years on this issue. We have spoken extensively on the need to ensure that coercive behaviour and controlling behaviour is addressed.

I would ask the member's opinion on Bill C-233, which passed the House, in terms of how the bill would assist us in addressing coercive and controlling behaviour.

Criminal Code

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the speech he made today.

As a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I will also add my voice to that of my chair. This type of non-partisan bill that addresses the safety of our young women and our young girls is essential. As my colleague mentioned, we worked together on Bill C‑233. I will not elaborate on this, but I just wanted to say that, to me, it is essential to finish the year on this note, with no partisanship, to ensure the safety of our women and girls.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really would like to thank the member for putting the bill forward. Ensuring that our children are safe is probably the number one priority for all Canadians and for members in the House.

I recall the work we did on Bill C-233, which was called “Keira's Law”, and the importance of getting it through, because all parties recognized the importance of the bill. At committee, at all stages, we ensured that we allowed debate to collapse so that it could move forward. I really do hope that we will be able to get this bill through immediately so that we make a change to the Criminal Code and ensure that our children are safe.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am sure everybody in the lobby is surprised that I actually did that at the right time.

Tonight is one of our last evenings sitting in the House of Commons before we adjourn for the summer and return to our ridings. The speech that I am going to give tonight is truly based in what I am seeing all around us. It has become a culture of violence.

Tonight, we are speaking on Bill C-28. Although I support it in principle, we do have a lot further to go. Tonight, we have the opportunity to begin this discussion, which I hope becomes a much larger national discussion. We need to continue this conversation, especially with women's organizations, which have come out and cannot support this legislation.

A good ally of mine and friend, Megan Walker, discussed this legislation with me yesterday. She cannot support it and shared her concerns about the ability of the Crown to prove it. She feels that this legislation is tokenism

Women's organizations are stepping forward and asking us to halt this legislation, while other organizations are in full support of the legislation. To me, this is a clear yellow light that we have to be cautious and that we need to re-address this: that what we are doing today is just not enough. This needs to continue.

My last six months in my role as the shadow minister for women and gender equality and youth have given me the honour to work with people, especially in the committee on the status of women.

I can share with members that it seems like we are in a real mess, and I can tell us that we need change.

Let us start with this piece of legislation. I want to address it by sharing the letter that was received by the National Association of Women and the Law. It reads, and I quote:

Feminist organizations in Canada have long been concerned about the connection between men’s use of intoxicants, and violence against women. Study after study has shown that there is a direct link between so-called ‘drunkenness’ and sexual violence. There are studies that report an average of 50% of sexual assault perpetrators consumed alcohol at the time of the assault, with other studies showing a variance of between 30 and 75%.

Looking back to the 1994 Daviault decision, in which the Supreme Court ordered a new trial based on the accused’s extreme intoxication at the time of the incident, the ‘gap’ in the law quickly becomes apparent. Mr. Daviault had voluntarily consumed an excessive quantity of alcohol before forcing intercourse on the complainant, an elderly woman with a disability. In response, feminist groups like National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL) pressed the government to restrict the defence of extreme intoxication. The federal government enacted section 33.1 of the Criminal Code, closing the gap by preventing those who voluntarily consume intoxicants and then commit acts of violence from using the defence of extreme intoxication for general intent offences.

In May 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada’s unanimous decision in Brown struck down the law set out in s. 33.1, declaring it unconstitutional and stating that voluntarily taking intoxicating substances cannot replace the criminal intent required for a conviction. This decision re-opens the ‘gap’ left by the 1994 Daviault decision, once again leaving women vulnerable to crimes of violence when the accused can demonstrate that his intoxication put him into a state of automatism. Despite the assurances of some defence lawyers and their allies that reliance on extreme intoxication will be rare, research analyzing the extreme intoxication defence indicates that it will be raised with some regularity. Indeed, research shows that it will be used overwhelmingly by men, and that the majority of victims will be women.

I know that I shared a very lengthy part of that letter, but to me, this is what we are talking about. Yes, this legislation came out very quickly. That means we need to get it passed to stop the gap today, but that does not mean that the gap has fully been filled. That is why I am urging the government to say, yes, we have got Bill C-28 done but we need to do more. I am urging the government to get on the road and let us start doing those consultations. Let us start talking more.

I want to go back to stuff that we have also been hearing about Hockey Canada. We just heard that Hockey Canada receives one to two formal complaints annually and that there are investigations.

I want to talk about all of this, because one thing that I can indicate is that sexual violence and violence against children should never happen. We are seeing it more and more. In the past number of weeks, as I have been dealing with my role as the shadow minister for women and gender equality, and in chairing the committee on the status of women, we are talking about violence and more violence. Our one study on intimate partner violence was talking about domestic violence. Following that, we talked about Kyra's Law, named for a young girl, a young child, who was murdered by her father, basically to get back at the mother.

I am looking at what is happening with Hockey Canada. We talked about a young girl who was allegedly raped by eight hockey players, and there is no responsibility. Then we can talk about what we are talking about here today, Bill C-28. To me, it is really clear. We are talking about things that are a social issue. It is a sexual assault issue.

When I look back at that link between what I am talking about with Hockey Canada and the eight players, and what we are seeing here, the bottom line is that it should never be happening in the first place. In Hockey Canada, we are hearing about a civil law suit that went through. Hockey Canada actually paid out, rather than having this go through the criminal court system. Unfortunately, I understand why someone would choose a civil suit over our justice system right now. We know it is not perfect. With the help of Bill C-233 and other bills that have been put forward in the past, we need to ensure that there is proper training for judges, but it is not just judges. It is everybody involved.

When I look at this, I look at who is responsible. Ultimately, the perpetrator has to be responsible. Although this legislation closes that gap in which we are talking about the state of automatism, we also have to look at what is next.

Just weeks ago, we passed that important piece of legislation, Bill C-233 with unanimous support. It was an all-party effort. I believe it started a conversation, and I believe what we are doing here tonight is also starting that conversation. Just as the minister stated, I had the same conversation with my 18-year-old son. He called me the very next morning and asked me about it when I was in Ottawa. I said, “Son, I'm working on this.” We recognize that it does not mean that someone has to be drunk and this could happen, but there needs to be extreme intoxication. For a young woman, anything is a barrier, including the fact that somebody may use this defence. Everything like that is a barrier.

People are coming out and saying that this law is just window dressing and is not really tackling the real issues. I think what we have to tackle is the culture of sexual violence, because we seem to be ignoring it. I was thinking about it a lot over the past few days. Working on the Hockey Canada case has really brought things to light. These are our kids we are talking about. These are the kids that our kids go to public school with. These are the children, whether they are the perpetrators or the victims. These are just kids. Sometimes we get lost on our way and we confuse what is right and wrong. Is extreme intoxication good enough, or is because someone is an athlete or a politician good enough?

We know, from the recent Supreme Court ruling on May 13, that women's organizations have spoken up. Because of that, we know this needs to be addressed. The government has addressed it through this legislation as Bill C-28. I thank the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. We pushed on this and we asked for this to be done, so I thank him for doing so.

We need more transparency for victims, and we need to remember that victims have rights, too. This is the problem. We talk so much about the rights of our perpetrators, but our victims need to have rights too. This is what we are losing a lot of the time in these conversations, whether I am talking about Hockey Canada or extreme intoxication. No is no, and there must be consent.

Finally, I want to end this with a quote. I go back to the National Association of Women and the Law:

While they may not be successful in making out the defence – pleading the defence, in itself, will result in increased timelines and lengthy court processes for victims. Ultimately, C-28 is a missed opportunity to close the door on the use of the extreme intoxication defence where alcohol alone is used.

I am coming back and I am saying that this summer I will be working on this. I will be working on providing any information that I can to both the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth and the Minister of Justice, because we can do better, and we need to make sure that we listen to everybody. We need to be listening to the victims, and we need to be working to end sexual violence.

Judges Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to address the House virtually today.

There are a number of thoughts that I would like to share with respect to this piece of legislation. It is legislation that has been in the works for a considerable amount of time. As much as I have been enjoying some of the questions and answers, especially when the Conservatives are being pushed as to when they are going to look at it or whether they would consider the passage of the legislation. Just given the context of what the official opposition members are saying, I do not anticipate that the bill will be passing before summer. I think the Conservatives have some spin notes that they want to try to leave on this particular legislation.

The biggest one that comes to my mind is the issue of “soft on crime”. It is especially members of the Conservative hard-right element who like to say that they are much harder on crime, that government needs to be tough on crime and that if it is not a Conservative government, it is soft on crime. Whether it makes sense or not, that is the line that the Conservatives like to give because of public perception.

That said, the bill will pass when it will pass, ultimately. I am hopeful that, as we can sense, the majority of the House see the value in Bill C-9, because it is something that is needed.

I want to start by making a couple of observations from some of the stakeholders. I want to do that this time around because I really do respect our judicial system as one of the fundamental pillars of our democracy. Our rule of law, our judicial system and the idea of independence are held dear by, I would like to think, all members of the House.

For that reason, I thought it was important to start off with a quote. It is from the Right Hon. Richard Wagner, Chief Justice of Canada and chairperson of the Canadian Judicial Council. He stated:

Over the past few years, the Council has consistently called for new legislation to be tabled in order to improve the process by which concerns about judicial conduct are reviewed. The efforts of members of Council to develop proposals in this regard have been fruitful, and we appreciate the openness with which the Minister of Justice has engaged the Council in his consultations.

I will go to another quote from the Canadian Judicial Council. It states:

While the Council will take some time to carefully review the proposed amendments, we are confident that these reforms will bring about much needed efficiency and transparency to the judicial conduct review process.

I wanted to start with those opening quotes because of the respect that I have for judicial independence. I also recognize that there has been a great deal of work, whether by the minister or by administration or by civil servants. They have worked very closely with the many different stakeholders while at the same time respecting the importance of judicial independence. That is why, when I look at the legislation—and I concur with some of the comments being made by my New Democratic Party colleagues and Green Party members, who seem to support the legislation and its speedy passage—I would like to think that the bill itself should not be controversial. It is actually fairly straightforward. There will be other opportunities for the opposition members to try to score their political points, if I could put it that way.

I do think there would have been a great deal of value in seeing Bill C-9 at least pass through second reading so that it could go to committee stage, possibly during the summer, when feedback could be heard from the public and experts, with the idea of coming back in the fall for report stage and third reading.

The Conservative members who spoke before me were interesting. I picked up on two comments; one was the issue of “soft on crime”, which I have already referenced and maybe will go into a little more later, but they also brought up the issue of appointments of judges. I was somewhat taken aback by some of the comments that were put on the record.

We were being criticized because we did not make appointments shortly after being elected into government, as we were reviewing and establishing a more independent, apolitical, transparent appointment process to ensure that our judicial system would be that much more transparent. Yes, there might have been some delays in those appointments, but they were taking the extreme position that murderers went free because of some delays in appointments. I would welcome and challenge the Conservative members to cite specific examples of someone who not only allegedly murdered but did murder an individual and ultimately, because they could not get a day in court, were let go without any charges being laid in that situation. I would be very much interested in a name. If they could provide me with one, they can always send it to my P9 email or raise it inside the House.

The member went on to talk about Jody Wilson-Raybould, being very critical of her for not making appointments and implying in the comments that she would only make an appointment if the person donated to the party. Again, those were very extreme statements being made by the Conservative Party. It is not fair. It is interesting how they seem to have forgiven the past—at least, most of the Conservative caucus has—in regard to Jody Wilson-Raybould, but I remember the allegations a number of years ago on that front.

It is important to look at the appointments that have actually been made. The government has made somewhere in the neighbourhood of 400 appointments since 2016. If we do the comparison, I would love to hear the numbers from the previous administration. When it comes to this administration, out of the hundreds of appointments to our judicial system, 55% have been women. I would love to hear a comparison with the previous 10 years under Stephen Harper.

About 3% of our appointments, or marginally just above that, were indigenous. That is important to recognize. Over 10% are visible minorities. The LGBTQ2 appointments are over 5%. Not only are we identifying ideal, competent, incredible individuals, but as a result of a more transparent, depoliticized appointment process, I believe that overall the appointments are more effective in better reflecting what our society looks like today.

On both of those points, whether it is judges and the appointment of judges or the issue of the Conservatives being soft on crime and saying the government is not tough enough on crime, I would challenge the Conservatives to prove their points, not necessarily on this legislation, but on other pieces of legislation so we can ultimately see Bill C-9 pass.

It is important to recognize that we do need to see a balance. We have the fundamental pillar of our judicial independence and it is important there be a high level of confidence held by the public in the administration of justice. I believe the legislation we are looking at deals with that in a very fair fashion.

The amendments will ultimately allow for the Canadian Judicial Council to continue to preside over the process proposed in the legislation. This would start with a three-person review panel ultimately deciding to investigate a complaint of misconduct. In some situations, if the complaint is serious enough, it might even warrant dismissal or removal from the bench. In situations like that, it could be referred to a separate five-person panel.

In the first case, it would be strictly a three-person review panel made up of CJC members. A judge and a layperson could impose sanctions such as public apologies and continuing education.

The current process has turned out, in many ways, to be exceptionally costly at times, and equally as important, it is not very timely. We have seen situations where it could take years before anything is actually concluded.

That is the reason our judicial system is saying that we need to make changes. Today, judges facing possible removal from office because of serious allegations of misconduct have several opportunities throughout the process to launch these judicial reviews. However, as I indicated, the process in some cases can be too long and can be at a fairly significant cost.

Replacing the process through which the Canadian Judicial Council reviews the conduct of a federally appointed judge is the essence of what the legislation is proposing to do. It establishes a new process for reviewing allegations of misconduct that are not serious enough to warrant a judge's removal from office and makes changes to the process by which recommendations regarding removal from office can be made by the Minister of Justice.

The new process would allow for the imposition of sanctions for misconduct which, while not serious enough to warrant removal, may warrant sanctions that are quite different. The current process does not allow for such sanctions. The member for Mount Royal highlighted some examples. Where a judge's actions have been deemed to have offended something and there needs to be a consequence for the actions, there are more opportunities for different types of consequences.

We could see anything ranging from verbal warnings to written warnings, to suspensions or public apologies. We could even see additional training being required, and ultimately, of course, judges being released. This legislation enables a suite of actions that could be imposed on a judge, given a certain behaviour or comment that is made publicly.

Not only have we heard today, but we have also heard it in the past. We have had private members' bills. I think of Rona Ambrose. She talked about educating judges, particularly in the area of rape victims. Her piece of legislation ultimately received support from all areas of the House. Parliamentarians from all political stripes recognized the need to have some form of educational programming for newly appointed judges to take things into consideration. In fact, my daughter, who is a local representative in the province of Manitoba, had also taken that particular initiative after hearing about what Rona Ambrose had done.

Ultimately, the government pushed that legislation through in the years that followed after Ms. Ambrose left the House of Commons, but we attribute it to Rona and we attribute it to the fact that there is a universal desire for that training.

It was not that long ago when we had another private member's bill, one from one of my colleagues from Montreal. There was a great deal of effort by members on all sides of the House to see that legislation, Bill C-233, which is still before the House today, pass second reading and go to committee. It came out of third reading because of that desire.

For those who are not familiar, Ms. Ambrose's piece of legislation is recognized as Keira's law for good reason. I will quote from an article, “When I brought forward the evidence about abuse of Mr. Brown, we had a judge, for example, who said that domestic violence is not relevant to parenting and, 'I'm going to ignore it.'”

Periodically statements come out of our judicial system that call into question the public confidence. That is one of the reasons it is so important that we pass this legislation. It recognizes that our independent judicial system and our judges, who we do need to respect, can make mistakes. Obviously, a vast majority of judgments are done in a way in which they meet the expectations of Canadians, but on occasion, when that does not happen, there needs to be a more effective mechanism to ensure there is an appropriate consequence. This legislation would enable some variation of consequences for judges, at times, who cross the line.

I have appreciated the opportunity to share a few thoughts and will be more than happy to answer any questions.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Justice

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honour to stand here as we discuss the business of supply and the main estimates for 2023. I would like to begin by thanking a lot of people who have been talking to me over the last three weeks about the Supreme Court ruling that was made on May 13. I would like to thank the member who just spoke earlier, the hon. member representing New Brunswick. I would like to thank people from the London Abused Women's Centre, especially Jennifer Dunn and Megan Walker, and all those who have connected with me to ask if this is really the truth, if this is really happening.

I want to go to what happened on May 13 and the discussions that started following a Supreme Court ruling. On May 13, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a major decision indicating that criminal defence in cases involving assault, including sexual assault, would be able to use a defence known as self-induced extreme intoxication.

It is really hard for me to look at this. I am not a lawyer. I am just a normal human being who has children, who has family and who loves her community. I want to ensure that things like this do not exist in a court of law. I have reached out to some of these lawyers, to some Crown attorneys, and we have amazing support here from the member for Brantford—Brant and the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, just the work they have done to share with me what is going on here. These are the things we need to talk about. I am not going to blither anymore. I am going to talk about what has actually happened.

On that date, there was a ruling saying that extreme intoxication could be used, because otherwise it goes against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sections 7 and 11. I started looking at this, what it actually means and how it happened, and I went back to the history of why section 33.1 exists in the Criminal Code in the first place. This had to do with the fact that someone had been charged and there was a problem because at the end of the day, they were allowed to use this type of defence, the fact that this person was totally intoxicated and yet sexually assaulted someone.

I started looking at some of the different cases and asking why this is such an important thing to Canada and how we can ensure that this would never happen again. How can we ensure that someone would never be able to use extreme intoxication, especially when it is an offence on another individual, especially when it has to do with sexual assault, bodily harm, or any type of violence against a person? This is why I am so concerned with this.

When this Supreme Court ruling came out, I asked my colleagues about three key issues: What needs to be addressed in the Criminal Code? What are the specific loopholes? What can we do to address this issue immediately? The first thing we did as a group, and there were four of us who signed on, was to send a letter to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada explaining that we wanted to talk about this and that we knew there was an issue. We indicated that these decisions imperil the safety of sexual assault victims by permitting the dubious defence of non-insane automatism due to self-induced intoxication. Sexual offences disproportionately affect women and vulnerable people. The Attorney General has had sufficient time to study this ruling. The ruling clearly implores the government to act. The government has not. We have only heard silence from the government.

That is why I am here today. This judgment was made on May 13. Today is June 7. We already know that when it comes to victims of sexual abuse and exploitation, the chances of people coming forward are already very slim, going into the criminal justice system. We just finished Bill C-233 last week, where we talked about judges' training and we talked about the fact that there is such a disconnect there. Understanding domestic violence, understanding criminal law, understanding what it is like to be a victim is so important. That is why l will continue to ask and continue to advocate for judges having training on domestic abuse, on sexual exploitation, on rape, all of these things, and how important it is. Although Bill C-233 is expected to pass through the Senate, we still need to make sure that judges are taking this.

That is why, when we look at this decision, we say, oh my gosh, the victim is lost throughout the entire discussion. That is why I have so many issues with this. We sent this letter over two weeks ago, and we are still waiting for a response. I recognize that the minister has spoken to us in question period, but we are waiting for action, and that is what I am calling for today. We want action.

We have people like Jennifer Dunn, the executive director of the London Abused Women's Centre, who said, “Women are already disproportionately affected when it comes to assault and sexual assault so this will affect them tenfold.... To be able to use that as an excuse and potentially not be convicted for their crimes is absolutely absurd.”

That is why I want to continue to have this discussion. We are talking about a person and the fact that if people are violated, there is a fear of coming forward after everything. Whether it is the judge's training, or whatever it may be, the fact is that someone could even use extreme intoxication as a defence. I am sorry, but if it were my daughter who was raped and someone used extreme intoxication, as a mother watching my child, I would ask, how could anyone let that happen? I ask every person out there to reflect on this: If this was a member of their family or a member of their community, how would they feel if they knew that they did nothing?

It has been three weeks now. Let us get this done. I am just going to ask the minister to get this done. We know that section 33.1 is unconstitutional, based on the nine Supreme Court judges saying it is unconstitutional, and they have come back to the government and indicated, even in their decision, that the government could do something, so I am asking where the government is on this. Why have the Liberals not done anything?

I know that on an issue just a month ago, they had an immediate response. At that moment they were talking about oil and gas. That day, they talked about the fact that they were going to appeal that decision. We are talking three weeks later, and we still have not heard from the government what it is planning on doing.

I want to go back and talk about why section 33.1 was put there in the first place, so that members have an idea of what can happen and why this is so important. I am looking through these notes, and there were two cases that involved men who were high on drugs when they killed and injured family members. The extreme intoxication was used to acquit one man and order a new trial for the other. Right there, we have people high on drugs who killed and injured family members.

With the case that just came up here recently, I know there has been lots of discussion on that one. It is not up to me as a parliamentarian to judge what is right and wrong, but it is to fill in those holes. We sit here and ask if this is fair. This is where the rights of the victims are lost and the rights of the criminals are talked about as being charter rights under sections 7 and 11.

I ask members, what if they were the ones violated and every single right was gone because the violator took those rights away from them? What if their rights were taken away and all we were worrying about were the criminal's rights? I sit here and think that the criminal's rights are outweighing the victim's rights. Something is absolutely wrong there.

The case that brought this all up, and the reason we are having this discussion, was the May 13 decision. It was about a case that involved a man who had consumed alcohol and magic mushrooms. He broke into the home of a female victim and violently assaulted her with a broom handle, leaving permanent injuries. He was declared by the courts to have been in a psychotic state and to have had no will to control his actions.

I sit here and wonder how we define extreme intoxication. How many times have people gone to somebody's Facebook and seen that somebody had written “I was extremely intoxicated”? I have spoken to friends and different people who will talk about not remembering what happened that night. What we are doing here is actually saying that if people are not able to make that choice, although they voluntarily consumed the alcohol or the drugs, they are involuntarily doing the thing, because they do not have the state of mind to make the right judgment.

I go back to point one: They had the choice to drink, and they had the choice to take drugs. There are some cases where awful things have happened when people have been given drugs. We understand that this happens as well, so we have to look at that, but when people are voluntarily doing something and then the next time they are actually victimizing somebody else, why are we sitting back and allowing that to be the case? Why are we sitting there and saying extreme intoxication can be used? We know that it is very minute, because we know that there is a threshold, but my problem is that one is too many. That could be somebody's daughter. That could be anything like this. We have to look at the victims first. We have to look at the violators first, and that is what we are not doing.

I think the decision made by the Supreme Court, whether it is right or wrong, gave direction to the government to do something, and I am asking the government where it is at making this decision.

We know that, as I said, people are not going to come forward if they think this can be used, so I am very concerned as we are moving forward. There is a lot of work we need to do here. When it comes to intimate partner violence, when it comes to violence and when it comes to offences on other victims, I believe we can all agree that the victims matter and that they should come first, so I urge the government to do something now, not three weeks from now, but now.

Status of Women

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women in relation to Bill C-233, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner).

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, entitled “Recommendations following the study of Bill C-233, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner)”. It states:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee has considered Bill C-233, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner), and wishes to make the following recommendations to the Government:

That the committee considered issues and consequences around the availability of cell service in the use of e-monitoring and recommends the Government of Canada move as soon as possible to ensure access to cell service is available across Canada, and that the committee feels strongly and recommends that when developing training for new judges, the issues of intimate partner violence, coercive control in intimate partner and family relationships, and social context be included.

Domestic Violence

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Keira Kagan was going to change the world.

I wish I had met Keira. She was a bright and beautiful four-year-old whose life was stolen by an angry father who killed himself and Keira two years ago today. Keira should be playing with her brother and making her mom, Jennifer, and stepdad, Philip, laugh and smile. Instead, Jennifer has had to become an advocate for changes to the court system to educate judges on domestic violence and coercive control. I cannot begin to imagine the heartbreak that Jennifer faces every day, but I can support her advocacy work to ensure that no other child is killed because our judicial system does not recognize that domestic violence and coercive control are real, and must be taken in to account. I can continue to work with Jennifer to see Keira’s Law, which is part of the member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle's private member's bill, Bill C-233, become a reality in Canada.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, two years ago today, we were horrified to learn of four-year-old Keira Kagan’s death at her father’s hands. Despite her mother, Dr. Jennifer Kagan’s pleas for Keira’s safety and providing ample evidence of a history of coercive control and abuse, the court system failed her and a bright little girl was lost.

Dr. Kagan’s cry for action as a mother resonated across Canada. For victims of domestic abuse and coercive control, their struggle to protect themselves and their children is a real and terrifying challenge played out in mediations and family courts across the country.

On Monday, I joined my colleagues from Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle and Oakville North—Burlington in tabling Bill C-233 to ensure training and education of judges on the warning signs and dangers of domestic violence and coercive control.

I want to thank the many families who joined Dr. Kagan not only in her pain but in her courageous advocacy to protect our most vulnerable. We hear Jennifer. We hold her in her pain, and we will work to protect others from this harm and abuse. Keira’s light shines bright and her memory is forever a blessing.