Bill C-28

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (self-induced extreme intoxication)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to provide for criminal liability for violent crimes of general intent committed by a person while in a state of negligent self-induced extreme intoxication.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you.

Ms. Hrick, earlier in this study—I think it was last week—we had some law professors here giving evidence, including Dr. Kerri Froc of the University of New Brunswick, who is the chair of the National Association of Women and the Law. That organization is critical of Bill C-28 and the revised section 33.1. In discussing Bill C-28, she talked about the “problematic aspects of the bill, which we fear will pose nearly impossible hurdles for prosecution of intoxicated perpetrators of violence against women.”

She then went on to say that there are other alternatives available that Parliament could have followed, rather than just necessarily one or the other of the two options that the Supreme Court of Canada gave us, including reversing the onus on the negligence aspect of the bill.

What do you say to that?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

We understood earlier that Ms. Hrick was consulted by representatives of the Minister of Justice before Bill C-28 became law. Were you also consulted, Ms. Khan?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Hrick and Ms. Khan, thank you for joining us today.

Ms. Khan, my colleague Mr. Naqvi has encroached a bit on the question I wanted to ask you. I am also interested in how people perceive Bill C-28, as well as the correction that the government intends to make with respect to the interpretation of what may constitute a defence against certain crimes when it comes to extreme voluntary intoxication.

How do people see this? You've talked a lot about TikTok. Based on the answer you just gave, I understand that there is a negative perception or at least a negative effect that makes victims of sex crimes less likely to report them, as they are afraid that they will not be believed and that the perpetrator will not be found guilty. I am interested in this aspect.

I assume that women come to talk to you about a crime committed against them, and you explain the situation to them. Once you explain to them the scope of section 33.1 of the Criminal Code, do they understand and recognize its merits? Or, on the other hand, despite all the explanations given, do the victims feel that there is never an excuse, if I may say so, for the crime committed against them? This reaction is certainly understandable. In any event, I would like to know what the reality is on the ground when victims understand the scope of section 33.1.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

What guidance did you impart when you were consulted in relation to Bill C-28?

[Pam Hrick]

I'll take the opportunity to reiterate that it was an incredibly small gap that the Brown decision created, and I will emphasize again that simply being drunk or being high is not a defence to crimes of general intent, including sexual assault.

What the Supreme Court did here was strike down an unconstitutional provision that prohibited, in all circumstances, people from raising the defence of extreme intoxication akin to automatism as a defence to crimes of general intent, including sexual assault.

What Bill C-28 did was take a look at what the Supreme Court said in its decision about what constitutional responses might look like, and it chose to implement one of those two options that would comply with constitutional rights, which are important. The rights of the accused are important and are to be respected, of course.

I think the implementation of the provisions in Bill C-28 strikes that balance between the rights of accused persons and the rights of women and girls and all those who experience gender-based violence to be free of violence. It provides that pathway where there is some more blameworthiness in conduct and also allows for individual circumstances to be taken into account in the adjudication of these cases, which is why we have found it to be a tailored and constitutional bill.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Khan and Ms. Hrick, it's really good to see you both. Thank you for the incredible work you do and for all the guidance that you've given me in the past in various ways when we have interacted on exactly the same issues. I feel like we continue to have the same conversation, unfortunately, again and again, which tells me that we have far more work to do.

I'll start with Ms. Hrick on the legal side of things, but I do want to pick up on the next steps that both of you articulated because I think it's an important conversation to get on the record as well.

Ms. Hrick, you mentioned that you were involved in this case. LEAF intervened. Thank you for that. Can you speak with regard to the gap the Brown decision created? In your view, how does Bill C-28 meet that gap? Could more have been done in that regard?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Ms. Khan.

That, I believe, is a good segue to an area that I want to focus on. I listened very carefully to your opening statement, and this is a question that I put to the previous panel in our first hour.

I accept that across this great nation there is an erosion of trust. When we look at sexual assault victims and their responses to the criminal justice system, we see that they don't see a fair system. They see a system that is rigged against them right from the outset. They see...the statistics alone, the under-reporting, a mistrust in police investigations, mistrust in the relationship with Crown prosecutors, a mistrust of the judiciary and a mistrust of the probationary system. It's small wonder that the small portion of cases that we, as prosecutors, would have the privilege of prosecuting would still have those difficulties in terms of securing convictions, because of a number of issues. Largely, it's a result of individuals—victims—who just did not feel they were equal participants in the process.

When we take a look at Bill C-28 and take a look at the number of fears and concerns that victims have across this country, I totally agree with you that misinformation is eroding that public trust. It is up to the government, in my view—and I think you both share this—to engage in a public education system to reassure victims of crime, particularly in this area, that Bill C-28 does not open the floodgates. With regard to Ms. Hrick's commentary, this is a narrow gap. We, as lawyers, as parliamentarians, as academics, understand that, but the vast majority of Canadians do not.

I'm going to ask both of you specifically what more your organizations can do. What more can other agencies across this country do, in addition to the government response of educating the public?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Hrick and Ms. Khan, for your attendance today and your participation in this important review of Bill C-28.

I'm going to offer an opportunity for you, Ms. Khan. You had much more to say, I believe, in your opening statement, so I'm going to cede some of my time and allow you to complete your thoughts.

[Pam Hrick, Executive Director and General Counsel, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund]

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Pam Hrick. I'm the executive director and general counsel of the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, also known as LEAF.

I am grateful to appear before you today from Toronto or Tkaronto, which is within the lands protected by the Dish With One Spoon Wampum Belt Covenant. I'd like to thank my colleagues Jen Gammad and Kat Owens for helping me prepare for this appearance today.

Founded in 1985, LEAF is a national charitable organization that advocates for the substantive equality of all women, girls and trans and non-binary people. We do this through litigation, law reform and public legal education that is feminist and intersectional.

LEAF was an intervenor in the Supreme Court case of R. v. Brown, which struck down the former section 33.1 of the Criminal Code. We intervened in that case to advocate for the equality of survivors of sexual and intimate partner violence, who are overwhelmingly women. When the Supreme Court released its decision, we were glad to see that it reiterated that intoxication alone is not a defence in sexual assault cases.

We were, however, deeply concerned to hear the confusion and misinformation circulating online after the decision was released, particularly among young people. People were worried about whether saying “I was drunk” was now a legitimate defence to sexual assault. The Supreme Court clearly said it was not.

LEAF was at the forefront of efforts to stem this tide of misinformation, alongside other gender justice advocates like Ms. Khan. Accurate information about what this decision meant was tremendously important, as is accurate information about what Bill C-28 means.

The Supreme Court's decision created a very narrow gap in the law, something that would not be relevant to the overwhelming majority of cases where an accused person was drunk or otherwise intoxicated. The court laid out constitutionally compliant options for Parliament to consider if it wanted to address this very small gap. Bill C-28 was intended to fill this gap. As we said when it was introduced earlier this year, LEAF supports the amendments in Bill C-28. The changes to the Criminal Code represent a tailored and constitutional response in line with the Supreme Court of Canada's guidance in R v. Brown.

Education and training for justice system participants will be needed to ensure the law's proper application. Moving forward, however, we encourage committee members and all parliamentarians to resist focusing on the criminal law as an effective response to gender-based violence, including sexual violence. Canada's criminal legal system is a site of systemic discrimination. It disproportionately criminalizes Black, indigenous and racialized people while at the same time failing to effectively respond to the high levels of violence faced by members of these same communities.

In addition, the criminal legal system too often fails and retraumatizes survivors of gender-based violence. We urgently need a fully funded intersectional national action plan to end gender-based violence and violence against women. As part of that plan, we need survivor-centred approaches to addressing and ending gender-based violence and violence against women. Survivors must have agency and choice in every step of the process.

It is imperative to study, develop and implement survivor-centred alternatives that move beyond existing legal systems. Alternatives like restorative and transformative justice models broaden the possibilities for justice, accountability and healing. LEAF is committed to supporting this work through our own alternative justice mechanisms project, which will identify legal barriers to alternative justice mechanisms for sexual violence and propose law reform measures to address those barriers.

While this committee's current review serves an important purpose, I want to reiterate that the Supreme Court decision preceding Bill C-28 created only a very narrow gap in the law. Bill C-28 implemented a minor, constitutionally compliant response that follows the Supreme Court's guidance.

The bigger issue is what this committee, this government and this Parliament must do to more meaningfully address violence against women and gender-based violence. More criminal law is not the answer. The answer is properly supporting and funding education, prevention, frontline services and alternative accountability mechanisms that respond to the needs of survivors while working to end gender-based violence and violence against women entirely.

[Farrah Khan, Executive Director, Possibility Seeds]

I'd like to begin by acknowledging that this conversation takes place across the traditional territories of many indigenous nations. I'm currently on the traditional territory of many nations, including the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, the Anishinabe, the Chippewa, the Haudenosaunee, the Wendat peoples, and now home to many diverse first nations, Inuit and Métis people.

Thank you to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for inviting me to appear as a witness for its study on the subject matter of Bill C-28, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding self-induced extreme intoxication.

I'd like to thank Rebecca Akong and Grace Baric for helping me prepare for today's presentation.

My name is Farrah Khan. I have been raising awareness about gender-based violence, specifically sexual violence, for 25 years. I have been working in the field as a frontline worker for sexual assault survivors, and now run a sexual assault centre at Toronto Metropolitan University. This is an issue that is near and dear to me. Sexual assault continues to be the most under-reported crime in Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada's recent judgment on the defence of self-induced extreme intoxication and the resulting Bill C-28 have been grossly misunderstood by the public—from people in my field to policy experts alike. Public and community-centred responses are rooted in a lack of fundamental understanding of the decision and the proposed new law. We can do better.

Members of the public, including me, were scared when they first heard the appeal and the decision. We were scared that this would allow self-induced extreme intoxication to be a valid defence for sexual assault, giving people who do harm carte blanche to commit sexual violence without repercussions.

I know now, from reading and understanding the bill and understanding the decision, that it's not true. But as sexual assault and alcohol consumption have often been co-related, it's reasonable to have this initial fear. About one in three respondents to a gender-based violence and unwanted sexual behaviour study in Canada stated that most incidents of unwanted sexual behaviour they were subjected to were related to alcohol or drug use by the perpetrator, with this being slightly more common among men than women. This view allows intoxicated people to get the idea that perpetuating sexual violence is okay—but it's not. I worry that organizations, sexual assault centres and survivors are getting the idea that this somehow is giving carte blanche when it's not.

Survivors may be less likely to report their cases if they're misinformed in their understanding of this defence and believe it will be invoked easily where people are drinking or doing drugs. In 2019, the general social survey reported that only 6% of sexual violence was reported to the police. I worry that the misinformation on this new defence may further reduce this already low statistic.

To understand why this matter has been taken up the way it has, we have to understand what the decisions actually say and why section 33.1 of the Criminal Code was deemed unconstitutional. In essence, section 33.1, as it was, breached an accused person's right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right to presumption of innocence by holding them criminally responsible for actions committed while in a state similar to automatism. This is when mind and body stop talking to each other. Think, for example, of sleepwalking, another form of automatism. This prevented anyone from raising the state of automatism as a defence in cases, general intent to violent offences, even when they could not reasonably predict they would reach this state when they were choosing to self-intoxicate.

The holding is actually progressive, as it safeguards the well-being of those potentially suffering from addiction issues, many of whom come from marginalized identities that are already overrepresented and over-criminalized in the so-called criminal justice system.

Contrary to what many people are saying online, on TikTok and social media...and that part worries me the most, as someone who works with survivors. I work with 16- to 24-year-olds. They were terrified about this. They were spreading misinformation. We need to do better about that conversation.

The thing was that the SCC was clear that drunkenness on its own would rarely result in a state similar to automatism. Therefore, the crux of the issue is the extent to which the consumption of drugs or alcohol prevents the user from having voluntary control over their actions. An accused would need to prove that they were in a state of extreme intoxication, drawing on expert advice. It would not be sufficient to show that they were really high or drunk. In other words, the accused would need to prove that they had no real control of their actions at the time of the offence.

The reasons for finding it unconstitutional lie in the fact that the old section 33.1 would lead to convictions even when someone is completely lacking intention, guilty mind or voluntariness to commit a crime. If one's intoxication is extreme to the point of automatism, they may negate the requirement of both mens rea—the guilty mind—and the voluntary wrongful act of the offence.

The new section 33.1 allows individuals to raise a defence under very limited circumstances consistent with the Supreme Court decision. While the onus remains with the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the act, the burden is on the defendant to establish the defence of extreme intoxication and the balance of probabilities using expert advice.

The Crown—

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Kotler.

Do you think that Bill C-28's requirement that the accused present expert evidence on the state of extreme intoxication has raised the bar for establishing, in that particular case, that we are dealing with extreme intoxication?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Thanks very much.

I want to turn to Manitoba Prosecution Service—either Ms. Jules or Mr. Kotler.

I want to be very clear before the committee. You are saying that the changes made in Bill C-28 do close the gap and that you will be able to use this law to successfully prosecute, in your opinion.

[Holly Foxall, Program Director, Action Now Atlantic]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much for having me here today. My name is Holly Foxall, and my pronouns are she/her. Today I am joining you from Mi’kma’ki, the ancestral and unceded territory of the Mi'kmaq people.

I'm the program director of Action Now Atlantic, which is an initiative and campaign to end sexual and gender-based violence at universities in Atlantic Canada through education, advocacy and community engagement. We've been fortunate enough to receive funding through Women and Gender Equality Canada to launch this project.

Our mission is to promote a culture of consent on campus through virtual workshops, the development of educational material and resources, and our own youth advocacy network. A big part of our work is connecting and collaborating with other organizations and individuals and taking a cross-provincial approach to addressing the issue of sexual violence on campus in Atlantic Canada.

The inspiration for Action Now Atlantic grew out of my personal frustrations around my own experiences and the experiences of my friends and peers while attending post-secondary education. I completed my undergraduate degree at Queen's University. I remember feeling a culture, both on and off campus, where sexual violence was normalized and many people didn't understand or respect consent. When I graduated and moved home to Nova Scotia, I remember seeing news stories about similar campus cultures and attitudes here. I read of many instances of sexual violence on campus where universities mishandled the cases and caused even greater harm to survivors.

Unfortunately, sexual violence is still a prevalent issue within post-secondary communities. We know that one in four women experiences sexual assault while attending a post-secondary institution, and 71% of Canadian post-secondary students have witnessed or experienced unwanted sexualized behaviour during their time at post-secondary institutions.

The first semester of university is meant to be an exciting time for students returning to school, but it's a notable time when it comes to sexual violence on campus. The first eight weeks of each fall semester are referred to as the “red zone”, when 50% of all sexual assaults on campus will occur. This is a time of increased vulnerability on campus, when there are many new students who are often away from home for the first time and without their usual support systems. It's critical that information around sexual violence and the laws relating to intoxication and assault are understood correctly by all members of our society, but especially those who may be engaging in sexual activity, drugs and alcohol.

When the news of the Supreme Court ruling on extreme intoxication was announced, there was serious concern about what the ruling would mean for campus communities and all survivors of sexual and gender-based violence. In our society, intoxication is often used as an excuse for those who cause harm, and a way to delegitimize survivors who do come forward.

I, along with so many Canadians, had many initial questions about this ruling. Would it provide more protection for those who sexually assault people and create even greater barriers for survivors to come forward? Would the ruling impact the ability and willingness of survivors to report cases of sexual violence? Do people who cause harm know that drunkenness alone is not a defence in sexual assault cases?

While the initial ruling got a lot of press, Bill C-28 and what it actually means received far less interest or time in the media. How people understand laws can greatly impact behaviours and cultures within our communities, so it's essential to have clear and easy-to-interpret information around these laws. This will build greater trust in our government and legal institutions.

I'm not a legal expert, so I will not try to comment on the technicalities of the initial Supreme Court ruling and Bill C-28 and what it means from a legal perspective, but I do hope to bring a youth perspective to this conversation. I can share why many survivors don't trust legal institutions and why rates of reporting sexual violence are so low, as well as what the initial reaction was within campus communities to this ruling and how it may impact campus cultures even with the implementation of Bill C-28.

I am someone who cares deeply about the safety and well-being of young people, and especially survivors of sexual violence. Anything that has the potential to create opportunity for people to cause harm and to build further barriers for survivors is something that we need to think critically about. How our legal institutions and governments share this information with the general public is important for community safety and overall trust within our institutions.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Randeep Sarai]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 35 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108 and the motion adopted on September 22, the committee is meeting to begin its study on the subject matter of Bill C-28, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding self-induced extreme intoxication.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking. For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

All comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will attempt to do our best to put you in the speaking order.

For your information, all sound tests have been successfully performed with our witnesses.

I have a couple of cue cards. When you have 30 seconds left in your time, whether you're a witnesses or a member, I'll raise the cue card. When you're out of time, I'll raise the red, out-of-time cue card. Please be mindful of that so I don't interrupt your thoughts. Please wrap up when I raise the 30-second cue card.

I'd like to welcome our first witnesses. Appearing today, we will have Holly Foxall, program director from Action Now Atlantic, via video conference. Professor Hugues Parent from the University of Montreal is also via video conference. From Manitoba Prosecution Service, we have Ami Kotler and Michele Jules, executive director.

Each organization will have five minutes.

We'll begin with Manitoba Prosecution Service.

Judges Act

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and pleasure to speak in this House on behalf of the citizens of Saskatoon West. Of course, I am rising today to speak to the bill before us, Bill C-9, which makes changes to the way federally appointed judges can be removed for misconduct.

My approach today will be a bit different. I am not a lawyer, so I am not well versed in how law works and all the details and technicalities of it. The best example of that was from yesterday when I was privileged to attend the justice committee. I was listening to witnesses on the subject of Bill C-28, the extreme intoxication law. It is unbelievable that in this country, a person who gets so drunk that they commit a crime that results in great harm to a person can get off for it and there are no consequences. That is exactly what happened. That is why the government brought in Bill C-28 earlier. It was supposedly to fix this.

As a layperson at the committee yesterday, I was listening to all my learned colleagues ask very intelligent questions that were going over my head. I was listening to professors explain the legal technicalities of everything. However, one thing that did come out clear was that it is absolutely wrong that if a person commits a crime, they do not face consequences simply because they were too drunk. Clearly, that needs to be fixed.

The more troubling thing that came across to me was that the government attempted to fix this law in a very hurried way earlier this year. Essentially, it rammed through legislation to supposedly close a loophole. What I heard yesterday was that what the Liberals rammed through in a hurry, without proper consultation and without actually talking to people, has not solved the problem. In fact, it may have made it worse. We need to be very careful in the House when we propose solutions and ram them through the House without proper due diligence, because we can actually make things worse. That was the main thing I took away from yesterday.

I also want to note another piece of legislation going through the House right now. It is Bill S-4. It amends the process for peace officers to apply for and obtain a warrant using telecommunications rather than appearing in person. It expands the abilities for accused and offenders to appear remotely by audio conference and video conference. It also allows prospective jurors in a jury selection process to appear by video conference.

This is a bill that came about because of COVID. There were some changes needed in our system to accommodate more remote appearances, as members can see. What I find interesting is that these changes were due to the COVID epidemic we have, which started two years ago. It has taken two years for the Liberal government to get this to second reading in this House.

I find it odd that on one hand, some legislation gets rammed through almost instantaneously, like Bill C-28, while in the case of Bill S-4, it lollygags along for a while. Maybe COVID will be in the rear-view mirror when it finally gets passed. I find it quite rich when the government talks about those on the Conservative side obstructing things, when we are trying to do the proper due diligence and trying to make sure that we do not get bad laws.

This brings me to Bill C-9. This bill was originally introduced as a Senate bill, Bill S-5, in 2021. The bill modifies the existing judicial review process by establishing a process for complaints serious enough to warrant removal from office and another for offences that would warrant other sanctions, such as counselling, continuing education and reprimands. Currently, if the misconduct is less serious, one Canadian Judicial Council member who conducts the initial review may negotiate with the judge for an appropriate remedy.

The bill states that the reasons a judge could be removed from office include:

(a) infirmity;

(b) misconduct;

(c) failure in the due execution of judicial office;

(d) the judge is in a position that a reasonable, fair-minded and informed observer would consider to be incompatible with the due execution of judicial office.

Also, a screening officer can dismiss complaints rather than referring them to the review panel should they seem frivolous or improper.

Federal judges are appointed for life, and it is absolutely critical that they are free of political inference. It is important that we have mechanisms in place to deal with them and remove them from office if that extreme point is necessary. Parliament sets laws, though, and judges need to respect the will of Parliament. A good example is the mandatory minimum sentences that the previous Conservative government brought in.

Any violent criminal, regardless of race, gender and sexual orientation, should be treated as equal. The offender should face a jury of their peers and if convicted should get the appropriate punishment. Prison time will keep that person off the streets so they cannot engage in further criminal activity.

Mental health issues, as well as drug and alcohol abuse, need to be addressed and monitored by trained personnel. Therapy and 12-step programs that are offered in prisons must be made mandatory for prisoners. Under house arrest, there is no way to ensure that these offenders get the help they need.

We also need to consider victim safety when we are sentencing offenders. A sad but real truth is that violent crime is often committed within a family. It can be spousal abuse, sexual exploitation of a child, custodial kidnapping or robbery for the purposes of illicit substances. The people in closest proximity are always the most accessible victims. If a judge is required to sentence a spousal abuser to live at home rather than go to prison, what happens to the abused spouse and children? Do they flee to a crisis centre, or will they will get revictimized?

I want to talk a bit about Saskatoon and my riding of Saskatoon West. It is an awesome and beautiful place to live and work. My wife and I call it home. For years before I became a member of Parliament, I was a home builder. I built new homes for families moving into the riding.

First as a candidate and now as an MP, I can say that I have knocked on almost every door in Saskatoon West. As I have walked through those neighbourhoods, I have seen some of the areas of highest crime. In the past year, there have been 389 cases of reported sexual violations in Saskatoon, 2,303 reported cases of assault, 65 reported cases of kidnapping and abduction and 759 cases of violation under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Saskatoon is well above the national crime severity index of 73.4 in Canada's largest cities and has a crime severity index of 118, and it was ranked fourth behind Lethbridge, Winnipeg and Kelowna in 2020. Much of this crime is in the areas right around my constituency office. My constituency office is on the convergence of these neighbourhoods, and according to the Saskatoon Police Service, it is in the highest crime area of Saskatoon. As a result, we have to be very diligent in our office. We have gotten to know many of the people who live in the neighbourhood. They frequent our office and frequent the area by our office, and we have developed relationships with them.

My staff have a security door and a buzzer system in place to screen people before they come into the office. Still, my office has been broken into and I have had my House of Commons computer stolen. An employee of mine had the window on his car broken just because somebody wanted a few quarters that were sitting in there. A lot of this is because of addicts. We have a lot of addiction issues that drive many of the crime problems we have.

This is something that I agree with the government on. The approach on how to fix it, though, is where we differ. I believe in the miracles of alcohol and drug treatment through 12-step programs and abstention. The NDP-Liberals believe in what is called harm reduction.

What I think needs to happen is that addicts need to be treated with love and compassion, which is offered through 12-step programs. These programs offer alcoholics and addicts a way to get clean and help others get clean at no cost to the individual or taxpayer. Unfortunately, there are two things that the government does not like. First, these are programs of spirituality. They require the addict to “turn their will and lives over to the care of God”. Second, as I explained, this does not require big government intervention. These programs deliver miracles; I know that for a fact. I know people who have been through them and care about them.

As I wrap up, I just want to say that there are so many areas that we need to be working on in this House to improve our criminal justice system. Bill C-9 is a good step forward. We need to make sure that our judges are independent and that they are worthy of the positions they hold.