House of Commons Hansard #358 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was jobs.


Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

11:05 a.m.


Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB

moved that Bill S-215, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for violent offences against Aboriginal women), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker,

[Member spoke in Cree]


Bill S-215 has been meandering its way through Parliament. It has now come to this place. It has come to the House of Commons, the people's place. It has moved through the Senate through first reading, second reading, committee stage, report stage and third reading. It was proposed by Senator Lillian Dyck.

Bill S-215 would amend the Criminal Code to require a court to consider the fact that when a victim of an assault or murder is an aboriginal female it constitutes an aggravating circumstance for the purposes of sentencing. In doing so, it would add new sections immediately after sections 239 and 273 of the Criminal Code.

We know indigenous women are overrepresented in violence committed against women in Canada. We only need to think of cases like that of Tina Fontaine in Winnipeg. I remember all too well four years ago how a young girl had gone missing, but at first no one seemed to care. It was only upon her discovery at the bottom of the Red River wrapped in a plastic garbage bag that people actually took note. She was only discovered because people were looking for someone else in the Red River. They discovered her body there, and it galvanized the city of Winnipeg. For the next two days, thousands upon thousands of people came to walk the streets in protest, to raise awareness of the issue of violence against indigenous women and girls and to say enough was enough.

In fact, Tina Fontaine's death eventually led to the murdered and missing indigenous women's inquiry. It was one of those defining moments in Winnipeg, when people from all walks of life, whether indigenous, Caucasian, or from African or Asian heritage, all came together and really truly said that enough was enough.

However, this is not the only case we have of violence against indigenous women in Canada. There is the recent example of Cindy Gladue. Cindy Gladue was a 36-year-old Cree mother of three found bleeding to death in an Edmonton hotel bathtub in June of 2011. The accused in the case was a truck driver who had spent two days with Gladue. Gladue bled to death from an 11-centimetre tear to her vaginal wall, while the accused slept. The Crown later argued in court that the tear in her vagina was caused by a sharp object, and the defence argued that the tear was caused by consensual rough sex because she was a sex worker at the time. The jury found the accused was not guilty. This was last spring. The accused was found not guilty of murder, not even guilty of manslaughter.

Fortunately, the Attorney General of Alberta had common sense and appealed the decision, and it was just heard in the Supreme Court. In the last 20 years, there have only been three reported cases in Canada where the victim died as a result of rough sex. In all three of those cases, the defendant was convicted of at least manslaughter. As I said, the jury in the case did not even do that. There was no indigenous person on the jury. In an unprecedented move, the Crown actually entered into evidence the torn vagina of Cindy Gladue in the courtroom, and Gladue was reduced to a mutilated body part. This was not only highly offensive and extremely disrespectful to the victim and her family, it did not even result in a guilty verdict.

The second example is the case of Helen Betty Osborne. Osborne was 19 years old when she was abducted and brutally murdered near The Pas, Manitoba, on November 13, 1971. The RCMP eventually thought four men were responsible for the murder. However, charges against three of the men were not brought until 1986, 15 years after the murder. In the end, only one man was convicted to life in prison for the murder of Osborne, one man was acquitted and the third was given immunity and set free in exchange for testifying against the others.

It should be noted that Helen Betty's murder was extremely violent. She was badly beaten, assaulted and stabbed more than 50 times, apparently with a screwdriver. I remember this case, having read about it at the University of Winnipeg and the University of Manitoba, where it was taught to us in class. Imagine reading about something like this. Thankfully, there is a building named in her honour at the University of Winnipeg.

Helen Betty's case sparked the Aboriginal Justice Implementation Commission to conduct an investigation into the length of time it took to resolve the case. The commission concluded that the most significant factors that delayed and deterred the case were racism, sexism and indifference from the community right through to the criminal justice system. The report stated:

It is clear that Betty Osborne would not have been killed if she had not been Aboriginal. The four men who took her to her death from the streets of The Pas that night had gone looking for an Aboriginal girl with whom to “party”. They found Betty Osborne. When she refused to party she was driven out of town and murdered. Those who abducted her showed a total lack of regard for her person or her rights as an individual. Those who stood by while the physical assault took place, while sexual advances were made and while she was being beaten to death showed their own racism, sexism and indifference. Those who knew the story and remained silent must share their guilt.

The whole community protected these men, so for 15 years the family suffered.

There are numerous cases in Canada. I could continue to enumerate all of them, but we must also think about other cases, which go on continuously here in Canada, about why indigenous women need greater protection, why we need to rebalance the scales of justice. Let us think of the Highway of Tears; between 18 and 40 women have gone missing on the Highway of Tears in British Columbia near Prince George.

I was speaking with Paul Lacerte and his daughter Raven, who started the Moose Hide Campaign, a patch that many of us wear in the House of Commons and that many of my colleagues care about. The campaign tries to raise awareness of this issue of violence against indigenous women and girls, and it is for men to have this issue raised among ourselves because it is not an issue of women who conduct the violence, it is an issue of men.

The father and daughter were out shooting a moose over a decade ago and they managed to shoot one. The father at first did not want to keep the hide, but his young daughter Raven, who was only around 10 at the time, said, “Dad, we can't throw it away. We need to use the entire animal.” He said, “What do we need a hide for?” She said, “Let's raise awareness, because we are not far from the Highway of Tears, and do something about the missing indigenous women and girls.”

This is an extremely important bill because it would rebalance the scales of justice. It is fair to say that being an aboriginal female is a unique circumstances. The combination of being aboriginal female and living in a colonial society has devalued and dehumanized our women, and they are seen as inherently less worthy than other women. Worse yet, the stereotype of aboriginal women as loose and sexually available still persists and makes them more vulnerable to unwanted and, unfortunately, more violent sexual assaults and more gruesome murders.

I heard from an elder in Quebec. He described where the word, the derogatory term, “kawish” comes from, which is used sometimes in Quebec to describe indigenous people. In fact its base is “awas”, “away” in Cree. According to the elder, it means to push someone away and it is from the sexual advances often made against indigenous women by non-indigenous men.

In addition, the so-called subtle discrimination against aboriginal women and girls in the justice system minimizes the grievous harm done to them, which can result in leniency in sentencing of the offenders. Bill S-215 would increase the likelihood that the consequences of assaulting or murdering an aboriginal woman or girl are appropriate and meaningful.

Bill S-215 obviously would not fix all of the complex issues of the criminal justice system, and that is not the goal, but this justice system has failed Cindy Gladue, Helen Betty Osborne and many other indigenous women and the bill is a step in the right direction toward reconciliation. By including aboriginal females as a specific aggravating circumstance—that is, a protected category of persons—we would acknowledge the historic roots that have led to their over-victimization and the systemic discrimination against them in the justice system.

Bill S-215 would amend the Criminal Code in two places. First, the bill inserts a new clause at the end of sections of the Criminal Code that outline the murder provisions. The new clause reads:

239.1 When a court imposes a sentence for an offence referred to in section 235, 236 or 239, it shall consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the victim of the offence is a female person who is Indian, Inuit or Métis.

Second, the bill inserts a new clause at the end of the sections of the Criminal Code that outline the assault and sexual assault provisions. This new clause reads:

273.01 When a court imposes a sentence for an offence referred to in paragraph 264.1(1)(a) or any of sections 265 to 269 or 271 to 273, it shall consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the victim of the offence is a female person who is Indian, Inuit or Métis.

The tragic phenomenon of the high numbers of missing aboriginal women and girls is undeniable. The homicide rate of aboriginal women is 4.8 times higher, or 4.8 per 100,000 people. The corresponding homicide rate is 3.2 for taxi drivers, 2.6 for police officers, and 0.8 for non-aboriginal women. Aboriginal women and girls are victims of more violent offences and go missing at far higher rates than other Canadian women. Bill C-215 would address this inequity by specific considerations of their greater vulnerabilities as an aggravating factor in sentencing.

Thus, if an aboriginal female is a victim of sexual assault or murder, her identity is an aggravating factor. Such a move would send a clear and strong message to the court system, to justices, judges, and the public at large, denouncing the violent targeting of aboriginal women and girls. Proclaiming the bill into law would demonstrate that we value indigenous women just as much as we value other women, taxi drivers, public transit operators, police officers, police dogs and other service animals.

The laws of our nation must reflect our values and the values of all our citizens. Terry Audla from the ITK stated, “we will be judged as a society on how we treat our most vulnerable.” We have an opportunity to truly make a great difference in the lives of more of our fellow citizens.

An eagle feather weighs not very much, but on the scales of inequality in Canada, it can help to readjust the scales of justice so that lady justice is not blind to the suffering of her fellow citizens. We all deserve justice in our country. We deserve justice because this is what we aspire to as a nation. We desire and deserve basic respect and indigenous women need our protection at this time. They need our protection at this time because no one else is giving it to them. Many in our society still consider them less than valuable, less than human. If we cannot protect our most vulnerable citizens, then how can we send a message around the world? How can we stand tall as a beacon of hope and democracy and proclaim our charter as protecting all of us?

It may be difficult to single out one group, but we have done this for taxi drivers, police service dogs and police officers. For a short time, until our society has caught up to what it truly means to have a charter of hope and true equality, it is time to protect our most vulnerable, indigenous women and girls and to take a stand in Parliament to complete the work that was done on behalf of all Canadians in the Senate, which has already looked at the bill and sees it of value. Now it is time for the House of Commons to consider it, weigh it and hopefully tip the scales of justice to a greater level of equality and justice.

[Member spoke in Cree]

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

11:15 a.m.


Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Winnipeg Centre about an issue that was raised when the bill was studied before the Senate legal and constitution affairs committee, and that was that there was a real risk that it would contravene section 15 of the charter.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

11:15 a.m.


Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, there was some discussion, obviously, about the constitutionality of the bill. At the same time, it still passed through the Senate.

I am not an expert in the justice system per se. I am not a lawyer; I am simply a gentleman with a PhD. I am sure there are people, who were at the justice committee, who are more qualified to answer that question. They would be able to look at the constitutionality. I am sure the Government of Canada will put out an advisory on the constitutionality of the bill.

At this time, I cannot answer that question. All I can simply say is that I hope my colleagues will take the time to study it in second reading, at committee stage and come up with whether it is a worthwhile bill and whether it meets the requirements of the charter.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

11:20 a.m.


Georgina Jolibois NDP Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK

Mr. Speaker, as an indigenous woman, I am thankful for this discussion in the House of Commons, working every day. On behalf of all indigenous women across Canada, this is a very significant point for all of us.

I want to ask my friend across the way a question. I understand he is supporting this discussion personally. I would like to seek clarification on the position of the federal government. Where does it stand on this very important discussion?

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

11:20 a.m.


Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I do not know about the government position. I do know there has been great discussion among members of the caucus here.

If members of the opposition, the loyal opposition, as well as the third party, decided to support the bill, I suspect there might be enough members on this side of the House, whether the government supports it or not, to move it forward. That is something for each member to determine. It is a private member's bill, and it should be a free vote.

I would like to respond to the previous member who asked a question. In 1999, in R. v. Gladue, the Supreme Court stated that a section of the Criminal Code was enacted to respond to the disproportionate incarceration of aboriginals compared to non-aboriginal Canadians. It stressed that the section of the Criminal Code was a remedial response. It was referring to the Gladue decisions in the sense that there already were provisions for specific remedial measures concerning aboriginal offenders within the Criminal Code, which also meet the charter requirements.

In this case, we are also talking about the victims. Instead of always discussing offenders, we are trying to protect more victims in Canadian society, ensuring they have adequate protection in the court. Often no one is specifically out there fighting for them. This would ensure that judges take into consideration the victims in sentencing.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

11:20 a.m.


Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, because of his great experience, I am sure the member has a lot more to say, so I will let him say it.

I will not ask a question, but I do want to make a comment on the constitutionality aspect that came up twice now. Just so members and the public know, when a government bill comes before Parliament, there are constitutional experts who have reviewed it and determined, in their opinion, whether they believe it is constitutional. It is not a shot in the dark, whether things that come before Parliament are constitutional.

With private members' bills, hopefully private members will take their bills to a constitutional expert before they present their it to Parliament, so we do not have this discussion on motions and bills so often because they have already been reviewed for constitutionality.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

11:20 a.m.


Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to mention that the bill also has the support of the Assembly of First Nations, as well as the FSIN from Saskatchewan, in resolutions that were passed in 2016 on the Niagara Falls Annual General Assembly of the Assembly of First Nations. Perry Bellegarde signed resolution, 26/2016, concerning his support for Bill S-215.

Also, when we talk about how we protect individuals, it is extremely important that we not only take into consideration the idea of offenders. We also need to take into consideration the whole idea surrounding victims in our justice system. I know the members from the Conservative Party moved quite extensively to try to put more victims rights into our justice system, and that is to be applauded.

This goes a little further in trying to ensure that one specific group, or a specific period of time, at least receives additional protection to ensure that we hold them in high esteem, that we hold them up and do not continue to debase them in popular culture, as well as in how we view them in general Canadian society.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

11:20 a.m.


Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill S-215, introduced by Senator Dyck and sponsored in this place by the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

The bill seeks to amend section 718.2 of the Criminal Code, whereby it would provide that where a judge would impose a sentence for certain violent offences, including murder and sexual assault, that the judge would be required to consider as an aggravating factor the fact that the victim was a Indian, Inuit or Métis woman.

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre is a strong advocate in this place for indigenous peoples. There is no question that the rate of victimization among indigenous Canadians is disproportionate. That is particularly so with respect to indigenous women. Indeed, indigenous women are three times more like to be victimized than non-indigenous women.

There is no question that the intentions relating to the bill are good. However, good intentions do not always make good laws. It is on that basis that I regretfully will be unable to support Bill S-215.

There are three reasons why I believe the bill unfortunately falls short. First, it is partially redundant. Second, there are serious constitutional questions about whether it would run afoul of section 15 of the charter, which guarantees equality before the law without discrimination. Third, there are questions about whether it is inconsistent with the Gladue principle in sentencing, which is enshrined in section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code.

With respect to the issue of partial redundancy, in the Criminal Code the fact that a victim is a woman who is indigenous is already considered to be an aggravating factor to the degree that the offence was committed on the basis that the individual victim was a female indigenous person. The key, though, is motive, the fact that it was motivated by prejudice or hate toward an individual on the basis of his or her gender or race.

That brings me to the second point, which is the question of whether the bill would violate section 15 of the charter, which guarantees that all Canadians are entitled to equal protection and equal benefit under the law without discrimination. What the bill would do with respect to the Criminal Code is quite novel from the standpoint of aggravating circumstances. It is novel because it would create a special class of victim, namely indigenous women.

As I mentioned, race and gender can be considered aggravating factors, but the basis upon which that would occur is if the offence were motivated because the victim was of a certain race or gender. Similarly, there are other aggravating circumstances that relate to the connection between the offender and the victim. For example, if the victim were vulnerable, and many indigenous women are vulnerable and in vulnerable circumstances, then that could be considered an aggravating factor.

In his speech, my friend from Winnipeg Centre alluded to the fact that there are aggravating circumstances in the Criminal Code with respect to service dogs and transit workers. Again, those aggravating factors arise from the fact that the individuals are performing certain duties, such as a transit worker who is attacked. Again, there is a connection between the offender and the victim based on the offence at hand.

By contrast, the bill would say that it would not matter whether the offence was motivated by the fact that the victim was an indigenous woman. Indeed, it would not even matter if the offender knew that the victim was an indigenous woman. Simply because the victim was an indigenous woman, it would constitute an aggravating factor. This is unique, it is novel and it does not exist in the Criminal Code. Many lawyers who appeared before the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee flagged the constitutionality of the bill in respect of it running afoul of section 15 of the charter.

Finally, there is the issue of the Gladue sentencing principles, which provide that when imposing a sentence on an indigenous offender, the judge is to consider all reasonable alternatives to incarceration. We know that a disproportionate number of victims are indigenous women, but at the same time, there is, regretfully, an overrepresentation of primarily indigenous male offenders. In these cases, we have subsection 718.2(e) that says that a judge is to look at all reasonable alternatives to incarceration. At the same time, it would be treated as an aggravating factor that the victim was an indigenous woman. There would certainly be some litigation and some degree of uncertainty around sentencing. From the standpoint of backlogs and delays in our courts, which is a very real issue today, it would be problematic.

Therefore, while this bill is well intentioned, and while there is no question that indigenous women are disproportionately victimized in this country, and while there is no question that we as members of Parliament in this place have a duty to do what is necessary to bring about necessary changes to protect vulnerable persons, including indigenous women, this bill misses the mark for the aforementioned three reasons I enunciated.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

11:30 a.m.


Georgina Jolibois NDP Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of, and in solidarity with, the generations of first nations, Métis and Inuit women who have come before me and will come after me. Today I would like to add my voice to the apparent silence that exists for indigenous women in Canada's justice system and speak in support of Bill S-215.

Within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, all individuals are guaranteed equality before and under the law. All individuals have the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. However, it is clear that this is not the case for first nation, Métis or Inuit women.

If indigenous women had equal protection under the law, we would not have an ongoing inquiry into the 1,200 missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. All those women and girls had names, are loved and have families and communities that continue to search for justice in a system that does not view them as equals.

If indigenous women were viewed as equals in Canadian society, we would not mourn with the families of young indigenous women lost in child and family care. We would not have to continue to fight for an inquiry into the systemic oppression indigenous women face. We would not have a Highway of Tears, and in 2018, we would not have to call for justice for the indigenous women forced into sterilization.

When first nation, Métis and Inuit women and the organizations that support them call for justice and propose changes to the justice system, we should be listening. Not only should we be listening, we should do everything in our power to bring those changes and reforms into effect.

Canada has a long history of oppressing and excluding indigenous women from systems of justice, but surely Canada's future is one that includes the voices of indigenous women. For this reason, I am proud to support this bill my friend in Saskatchewan, who serves our province in the other place, has brought forward, which is now being considered here. Bill S-215 would amend the Criminal Code to require a court to consider that when a victim of assault or murder was a first nation, Métis or Inuit female person, this fact would constitute an aggravating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing.

It is not without precedent that consideration of aggravating circumstances has been given to other groups in society. Among others, police officers, transit workers and animals have been identified as vulnerable within the Canadian justice system by virtue of the line of work and social position they are in when they are the victims of a crime.

The evidence exists for indigenous women to be given similar status. A 2014 RCMP report, reports from the Native Women's Association of Canada and reports from Amnesty International all affirm that indigenous women are three to four times more likely than other Canadian women to be murdered, sexually assaulted or made missing. Aboriginal women are seven times more likely to be targeted by serial killers. Statistics Canada has reported that being indigenous is a significant risk factor for women to experience violence, but that is not the case for indigenous men.

I myself am an indigenous woman from northern Saskatchewan, and I repeat these statistics here not for my benefit but for the benefit of my colleagues present in the House today. My family and community are Dene. Most of the constituents in my riding are first nation or Métis. My constituents know how difficult life is for indigenous people in Canada, because they see and experience Canada as indigenous people.

Our families suffered and survived residential schools. We feel the pain of colonialism every time young indigenous persons lose their lives, either from suicide or the violent actions of others. We feel the isolation of the north when we have to hitchhike for medical care. We know the danger of what it is like to be indigenous, because in virtually every way, our lives are governed by a colonial system that puts our communities at a lower status than those of non-indigenous Canadians.

Like many indigenous women, I am personally affected by the injustice of violence against women. My auntie Janet Sylvestre and my friend Myrna Montgrand are among the 1,200 women and girls who were murdered and made missing. To this day, their killers are not known. Happy Charles, from La Ronge, has been missing for a year and a half, and her family remains determined, despite a lack of answers.

I understand that we do not make policies or decisions as a government from the stories of individuals or from the anecdotes of history. However, at certain points in history, the stories of individuals become the narratives of a country if those stories are told again and again. This story of violence against indigenous women has been repeated far too often for us to think of it as a footnote.

Our stories exist to teach us lessons and guide our future. If we learn nothing from the continued story of violence against indigenous women from the stories of Happy, Janet and Myrna, among so many others, we do nothing but silence those who bravely step forward to speak. This narrative of violence must be accounted for in Canada's laws so that indigenous women are no longer targeted and overwhelmingly the victims of violence in Canada.

Of course, the bill is not without concerns. I have heard and read the debates about how Bill S-215 would be unfair to aboriginal offenders who could be sentenced to more time in prison, and as a result, would be more likely to reoffend in the future. In particular, the bill, if implemented, could potentially negatively interfere with the section of the Criminal Code known as the Gladue provisions. To this I have two responses.

First, as my colleague from Manitoba has said, the Gladue provisions of the Criminal Code are not meant to reduce prison time. The Gladue provisions are intended to ask the court to consider alternatives to prison, such as restorative justice and rehabilitation programs. Programs like these retrain and heal offenders and thereby decrease the likelihood that they will reoffend.

Furthermore, the Gladue principles do not call for sentences outside the range of legally available penalties. A court cannot substitute a sentence just because someone is indigenous. The practitioners of violence would still get the punishment the law calls for, even with the aggravating circumstances the bill would put in place. It is even questionable whether the Gladue principles could be applied to violent crimes, with the Supreme Court ruling that for serious offences, there may not be any reduction in imprisonment for aboriginal offenders.

Second, I want to speak about the balance of rights for indigenous women in the justice system. It says a lot in a debate about how we can help indigenous women and their families get the justice they are owed when we put the concerns of the offender over the concerns of the victim. Do not get me wrong. I am not trying to say that perpetrators of violence do not have rights, because those rights are important, but where we have protections for aboriginal offenders in Gladue reports, our courts must not fail to consider the situations and circumstances of the victims.

Indigenous women who are the victims of violent crime are affected by the same historical factors and upheaval of economic development experienced by their communities. Not only are indigenous women victimized by the accused, they are victims of systemic discrimination and are economically and socially disadvantaged to a greater degree than the accused.

Bill S-215 is not a catch-all solution for the problems indigenous women face in the justice system. The justice system is not destined to stay the same forever. It changes just as society does. It is a living, breathing system full of individuals who are constantly challenging it. Bill S-215 is an opportunity for us to examine and question the belief systems judges, lawyers, police officers and court workers have and calls on them to see indigenous women from a new perspective.

For these reasons, I am proud to support this bill that works to create a safer world and a more equitable justice system for first nation, Métis and Inuit women.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

11:40 a.m.


Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill S-215, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for violent crimes against aboriginal women), introduced in the Senate on December 11, 2015, by the Honourable Senator Lillian Dyck.

First of all, I would like to commend Senator Dyck for her advocacy on the critical issue of violence against indigenous women and girls. Our government shares the view that the unacceptable rates of violence against indigenous women and girls is a matter of urgency and national concern.

Bill S-215's objective is outlined in its preamble, which states the importance of denouncing and deterring violent crimes against indigenous women, given that indigenous women have been, for many decades, and still are, far more likely than non-indigenous women to be victims of violence.

Bill S-215 proposes to create two new Criminal Code provisions, sections 239.1 and 273.01, which would require the fact that a victim is an indigenous woman to be considered an aggravating factor when sentencing an offender for certain violent offences. These offences are murder, manslaughter and attempted murder; uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm; assault, assault with a weapon, or causing bodily harm and aggravated assault; unlawfully causing bodily harm and sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm and aggravated sexual assault.

While I know that all of us support this bill's objective, these proposed reforms may have unintended consequences in the application of sentencing. The purpose of aggravating factors is to signal to sentencing judges that lengthier sentences are warranted in cases where the aggravating factor is present. I will note that the Criminal Code already establishes that it is an aggravating factor for the purpose of sentencing where an offence is motivated by hate, for instance, because of the victim's gender or race. It is also already an aggravating factor where the victim of a crime is a spouse, common law partner or child. In that regard, the proposed aggravating factor in Bill S-215 duplicates these provisions. Furthermore, Bill S-215 might have the unintended consequence of contradicting the application of the Gladue principle.

Section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code requires sentencing judges to consider “all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances”, and mandates judges to pay "particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders" in conducting this analysis. This provision requires sentencing judges to consider the background and unique circumstances of an indigenous offender, usually with the assistance of a Gladue report, and to consider alternatives to incarceration wherever possible. Where the offender is indigenous, combined with Bill S-215 , a judge could be under contradictory obligations both to lengthen the sentence for an indigenous offender's criminal conduct against an indigenous woman and, at the same time, to consider alternatives to incarceration and reduce the sentence because the offender themself has an indigenous background.

Beyond these concerns, it is imperative to also consider the societal context in which this bill's proposed reforms are situated. This includes the lived realities of indigenous persons in Canada. This broader context highlights the importance not only of Bill S-215's objectives, but also the need for multifaceted responses outside the criminal justice system to meaningfully address this complex issue. Statistics indicate that indigenous persons are overrepresented among both victims and offenders of violent crimes.

Indigenous women experience dramatically higher rates of sexual assault, intimate partner violence, and homicide than their non-indigenous counterparts. Specifically, indigenous females recorded a sexual assault rate of 113 incidents per 1,000 people, which is significantly higher than the rate of 35 per 1,000 recorded for their non-indigenous counterparts. Also, according to the 2014 general social survey on victimization, indigenous women had an overall rate of violent victimization double that of indigenous males, with 220 violent incidents per 1,000 people compared with 110 per 1,000; close to triple that of non-indigenous females, with 81 violent incidents per 1,000 people; and more than triple that of non-indigenous males, with 66 violent incidents per 1,000 people.

At the same time, indigenous persons are also overrepresented in Canada's correctional institutions. In 2016-17, indigenous adults represented 28% of the total provincial-territorial offender population and 27% of the federal offender population, but only 4.1% of the Canadian adult population. In particular, indigenous women accounted for 43% of admissions to provincial or territorial custody and 31% to federal custody, while indigenous men accounted for 28% of admissions to provincial or territorial custody and 23% of admissions to federal custody, according to the Statistics Canada's adult and youth correctional statistics for 2016-17.

As we can all agree, these findings paint a stark reality. In thinking about both the overrepresentation of indigenous persons in prison, as well as women and girls' unacceptably high vulnerability to violence, we must acknowledge and act on the understanding that these realities are inseparable from the historic and contemporary impacts of colonialism.

As explained in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's final report entitled “Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future”, violence and criminal offending are not inherent to aboriginal people, but rather emanate from very specific experiences that indigenous people have endured, including but not limited to, first-hand victimization and experience with physical and sexual violence in residential schools, poverty, and substance abuse. These factors have contributed to the overrepresentation of indigenous persons in all stages of the Canadian criminal justice process, both as offenders and as victims.

While we are all committed to addressing the pressing issue of violence against indigenous women and girls, Bill S-215 cannot respond to these lived realities to which the bill's proposed reforms would apply. These concerns lead me to the conclusion that the proposed reforms are unlikely to achieve their important objective.

Such a complex issue requires comprehensive approaches to ensure that the proposed solutions have their desired effect. I note that the results of the ongoing National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls will be instructive in this regard. The inquiry is studying relevant issues, such as identifying the root causes of violence and abuse and finding ways to them, and addressing the impacts of poverty, marginalization, cycles of violence and disempowerment. Our government looks forward to receiving the recommendations of the national inquiry.

While the commissioners complete their important work, we are taking immediate action by investing in a commemoration fund that will support local and national commemoration activities; in organizations with expertise in law enforcement and policing to lead a review of police practices; in housing and shelters; in education and reform of child and family services; in programs to prevent and address violence against indigenous women and girls; and in increasing health support and victim services for families and survivors.

A broad-based, holistic approach is the best way to ensure better protection for indigenous women and girls from violence. Our government is committed to ensuring tangible and systemic changes that will ensure improved outcomes for indigenous people, including indigenous women and girls.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

11:50 a.m.


Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Mr. Speaker, I too am happy to lend my voice to the debate. The purpose of the bill is to require a court, when imposing sentences for very serious crimes, to consider it to be an aggravating circumstance when the victim is an aboriginal woman.

Like many of the speakers before me, I agree that we all must acknowledge the unacceptable and tragic reality that aboriginal women are more likely than non-aboriginal women to be victims of violent crime. There are many actions the government must and should take as part of the solution. Part of the solution lies within all of us, whether it be as communities, municipalities, provinces, or the federal government and first nations alike. We have to tackle this issue seriously. However I do have some concerns, like the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, that this legislation would not move us in the direction we need to go.

I also want to note the very difficult stories, the poignant examples, that the member for Winnipeg Centre shared with us.

It is important to ask certain questions. Would this legislation have made a difference in those particular circumstances the member talked about? Would it act as a deterrent? Is it constitutional? Would it result in fairer treatment of victims?

Our justice system is about protecting rights and punishing wrongs. Our laws are intended to provide order in society and a peaceful way to settle disputes and to express the values and beliefs of Canadians.

The preamble of the bill talks about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees to all individuals equality before and under the law and the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. That is part of the essence of the issue when people wonder whether the bill is charter compliant. It talks about equality for individuals under the law and equal protection.

The bill has also been discussed in terms of the Criminal Code and its sentencing provisions. A court that imposes sentences must take into account evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or any other similar factor. Those are aggravating circumstances that are already in the Criminal Code.

We heard about the horrific murder of Betty Osborne. From what I gathered, it was racially motivated and therefore the aggravating circumstances should have applied in that case.

Another important fact is that the bill states that sentences should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders in similar circumstances. Would this change be perceived as fair by all women who are impacted by violent offences? This is one of the areas in the bill that I do have a concerns about. When an individual who has suffered a horrific assault such as sexual assault goes to court, she expects the justice system to treat her fairly, whether she is non-indigenous or indigenous. This is going to be at the root of the issue here.

Both an offender and the family of a murder victim have the right to expect the full force of the law to be applied when someone is found guilty. They should not feel that the offence against their loved ones, against themselves, meant less if they were either indigenous or non-indigenous. Every victim must matter.

The government talked about transit drivers and policemen. As I said, I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it, the difference is that a transit driver or member of the police, or health care workers for that matter, is providing a service for the public. That should be considered when an offence is perpetrated against them. That is perhaps a different circumstance than saying that the sexual assault an individual experienced is less or more of an offence depending on their ethnicity. That is where the principles of sentencing will be a challenge. That is an issue on which I think we might end up with some charter challenges.

I will go back to my original comments. Would this legislation act as a deterrent? No person who perpetrates these offences is going to say it was an aggravating offence and therefore choose his or her victims differently.

I do not believe that is going to happen, so I do not think there will be any deterrence as a result of this legislation. Of course, we all want prevention, so hopefully, out of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, we will get some solid suggestions and an action plan for going forward.

Will the legislation act as a deterrent? I do not believe so. I do not think it will help us on the path to solving this problem. We talked about whether it is constitutional. We need to check the constitutionality of this piece of legislation. Would it result in increased fairness in the treatment of victims of these horrific crimes? I suggest that perhaps it would not add to increased fairness and treatment.

Everyone in the House is committed to dealing with the overrepresentation of indigenous women and girls in these murders, assaults and sexual violence, but we also need to make sure the actions we take will have an impact with respect to the intended outcome.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

11:55 a.m.


The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Before we resume debate, I will let the hon. parliamentary secretary know there are only three minutes remaining in the time for debate on the motion that is before the House, and I will interrupt him at about the three-minute mark.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

11:55 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba


Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for bringing forward a very important issue that merits more debate in the chamber.

For many years, particularly when I was on the opposition benches, I had the opportunity to hear about the 1,200-plus murdered and missing aboriginal women and girls. The numbers I have heard over the years have ranged from 1,000 to 1,600 murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. It is a really important issue for a number of reasons and strikes the hearts of many of the constituents I represent.

My friend referred to the very sad story of Tina Fontaine. Her body was discovered on the boundary of my riding, along the Red River constituency. It opened a great deal of dialogue not just among indigenous community members but the community as a whole. It is one of the reasons this government acted on many of the things we talked about when we were in opposition, one being how important it was to get into the issue. Members of the House will appreciate that one of the first actions the Prime Minister and the government took was to call for the inquiry into the 1,200-plus murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. We are still waiting for the report and recommendations.

A few weeks back, I had the opportunity to walk with a fantastic group of volunteers in Winnipeg North, known as the Bear Clan. I was inspired by a couple of individuals in particular. One was Vanessa. I saw her again over the weekend. She attended a Christmas open house hosted by my daughter, who is a local MLA. Vanessa has a wonderful story that would encapsulate not only the tragedy of what we are talking about but gives us a sense of hope for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I see the time has already expired. I hope to provide more comments when the debate comes forward again.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business



The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

The time does go by very quickly, especially when members are on their feet.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-86, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker's RulingBudget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2Government Orders



The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

There are 23 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-86.

Motion No. 5 will not be selected by the Chair as it was defeated in committee.

With respect to Motion No. 9, the Chair has received a letter from the member for Banff—Airdrie about why his motion should be selected even though it was rejected in committee. However, I am not convinced that the circumstances surrounding his motion are so exceptional that it deserves to be considered again at report stage as provided for in Standing Order 76.1(5). Motion No. 5 will therefore not be selected.

All remaining motions have been examined, and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at report stage.

Motions Nos. 1 to 4, 6 to 8, and 10 to 23 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions No. 1 to 4, 6 to 8, and 10 to 23 to the House.

Motions in amendmentBudget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2Government Orders



The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

The hon. member for Winnipeg North has informed the Chair that he does not wish to proceed with Motion No. 1. The other members who have also given notice of the same motion are not present to move this motion at report stage. Therefore, Motion No. 1 will not be proceeded with.

Motions in amendmentBudget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2Government Orders



Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON


Motion No. 2

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 17.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 247.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 352.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 444.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 445.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 454.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 514.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 591.

Motions in amendmentBudget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2Government Orders



Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC


Motion No. 12

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 675.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 676.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 677.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 678.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 679.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 680.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 681.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 682.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 683.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 684.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 685.

Motions in amendmentBudget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2Government Orders

12:05 p.m.


Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON


Motion No. 23

That Bill C-86 be amended by deleting Clause 692.

Motions in amendmentBudget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2Government Orders

12:05 p.m.


Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Mr. Speaker, often we say we are honoured to stand up in this House. However, today I am actually very disappointed to have to stand up in the House and talk to the amendments I have proposed, why I proposed these amendments, and how the current government has failed to live up to both its promises with respect to the 2015 election and its commitments regarding engagement with indigenous people before it puts proposed legislation on the table.

Members will recall that back in 2015 the government said there would be no omnibus legislation and that it would never table omnibus bills. It also said that if something was not in the budget it would not be in any budget implementation act. Those were commitments it made to Canadians across this country and it has repeated. However, what we have learned, like with its promises for a balanced budget and democratic reform, is that it is simply not following through on its promises. For some reason, it has managed to get away with people not calling it on that. However, I think it is time that Canadians realize that many of the things the government has said it is not following through on.

What has happened? We had the budget implementation act, Bill C-86, land on our tables and it was 802 pages. That is a significant size for a bill. I guess I should not have said, “land on our tables”, because the bills are not printed anymore and there are very few copies. However, it is really quite a massive implementation act.

We do not get a paper copy anymore. Therefore, as we try to look through and understand what is in this massive bill with the tools we are given, like we often do in this House, the government did not even bother to use a format in the budget implementation act that would link us to the sections we wanted to read. In the case that I am talking about, there were three particular areas that related to indigenous legislation, and I could not even get to read what was in the act in a reasonable manner. I had to scroll for minutes and minutes to get to where I needed to be. Therefore, not only do we not have a hard copy, but the government has made it virtually impossible to try and get to the sections of the bill that we need to get to without going through a very onerous process. Quite simply, it should be ashamed of itself because that is not acceptable.

What do we have in this particular bill? As I indicated, there were three sections, division 11, division 12 and division 19, that were specifically related to the indigenous changes.

I am going to focus on division 19, which enacts the addition of lands to reserves and reserve creation act. That was not in the budget of 2017. It was not in the budget of 2018. It was almost impossible to find, but is a significant change the government is proposing, and should be a stand-alone piece of legislation. I hope when people vote for the report stage amendments that the government will reintroduce it in the way it should have introduced it in the first place, as a stand-alone piece of legislation that will go to the indigenous affairs committee to review further.

The next thing that we spot is that it is in the budget implementation act, but it was not referred to the indigenous affairs committee. A motion was brought forward at the indigenous affairs committee saying that we should at least look at this so that we understand what the intentions are, what the government is trying to do, so that we could determine if there were any suggestions we needed to make through amendments. The Liberal majority on the committee voted that down. Therefore, division 19 has had virtually no scrutiny in Parliament. The second reading debate was cut so short that there was no time to even have a conversation about division 19.

One of the interesting things is this. The government has said there is no relationship more important to it than that with indigenous peoples in Canada. It has also committed to a consultation process before it introduces legislation. It committed to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which ensures that, when laws are going to impact indigenous peoples in this country, the government will have a robust consultation process before it introduces any legislation.

I will talk about what happened as the Senate was doing a pre-study on this particular division.

Susan Waters, the director general, lands and environmental management branch in INAC said, “The Treaty Land Entitlement Committee was part of our outreach and engagement. We work closely with them. We are working with them to address the issues that were identified in the arbitration.... The Treaty Land Entitlement Committee are very much aware; we have spoken with them personally, and we continue to speak with them about this proposal.”

Chris Henderson, the executive director of Treaty Land Entitlement Committee of Manitoba, said:

We are concerned about this proposed legislation simply by the fact that nobody from the government ever asked us if we want the act, and also in terms of how will this act improve the land conversion process under the 1997 TLE framework agreement.... Now, with this proposed new ATR legislation, nobody from the Government of Canada ever came to us or our member First Nations to ask us, first, do you want this ATR legislation; and, second, what impacts will there be if we do propose legislation? We were never asked those questions. So out of nowhere, we have this new proposed ATR legislation before the House of Commons. At this point, it's somewhat premature to ask us if we want it because, again, we were never asked to begin with if it's something we asked for.

What we have in division 19 is a change, and it could be a significant change. However, we do not know how significant it is, because we have not had the opportunity to have it referred to committee to do our due diligence in terms of bringing witnesses forward. There is no question that the government has absolutely failed. I bet if I went across this country and asked chiefs if they knew about the new addition to reserve legislation that was hidden in the budget implementation act, they would be very puzzled and very concerned.

Really, how does that meet the government's commitment? It is another case of the government continuing to stand up and say the nice words but when it comes to doing the work, it just does not get it done. This is why it was such a mistake to put this into the budget implementation act.

We looked at Bill S-3, which was a stand-alone piece of proposed legislation. The government said not to worry, it had it all right, it was a response to a court case, we heard from the officials and it looked like it might be a reasonable path forward. What we found when it got to committee was that it was actually a mess. People who came to us in committee said that it was a problem and that it was a mess.

I hope the other two divisions are fine, but they have not had the scrutiny of divisions 11 and 12. There is the First Nations Land Management Act, which is very significant, the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, which is again pretty significant, on organizations and operations. However, nothing has been done.

I think it would be important for the Liberals especially and all members of the House to say that we promised we would not do this, but we did it. We have some testimony over in the Senate, and it should lead us to be a little concerned about what we have done. We need to actually support the amendments proposed by the Conservatives and do some proper process in terms of making sure that we are going to move forward with a piece of legislation that is going to get the job done. Otherwise, again, it is another broken promise and another failure of the Liberals.

Motions in amendmentBudget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2Government Orders

12:15 p.m.


Fayçal El-Khoury Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

This bill will implement key measures from our 2018 budget, including measures aimed at reducing poverty, improving equality and fighting tax evasion.

Can my colleague tell us how much money pollution pricing will put back in Canadians' pockets?

I would be very happy if she could answer that simple question.

Motions in amendmentBudget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2Government Orders

12:20 p.m.


Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Mr. Speaker, I will quickly answer that question. Only Liberals could talk about imposing a tax that takes money out of people's pockets and about how much it is going to raise. It is going to be taking money out of people's pockets.

What I really want to focus on, and it was the focus of my speech, is the report stage amendment that talked about the government's commitment to first nations and its commitment to Canadians to not introduce omnibus legislation, not put into budget implementation bills anything that was not in the budget, and its commitment, again, to have full consultation with first nations before it introduced a piece of legislation that impacted first nations.

The government has allowed for none of that, and it should be ashamed of itself.

Motions in amendmentBudget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2Government Orders

November 26th, 2018 / 12:20 p.m.


Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave an excellent speech that really highlights the profound dissonance between the things we see happening in this House every day and the kinds of rhetoric we heard from the government on the campaign trail, the things Liberals say when they are out and about that are totally different from the actions taken here.

We have important changes that affect first nations, and yet very little discussion is happening on those issues in this House. I think my colleague's speech was the first one we heard that really focuses and drills into those issues. Even the questions from the government side do not reflect those issues.

I wonder if the member could speak further about the implications for indigenous Canadians when big changes are made, not only without consultation but without anything resembling a proper debate here in this House.

Motions in amendmentBudget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2Government Orders

12:20 p.m.


Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Mr. Speaker, with the time allocation on second reading, there was no opportunity to look at this issue at all. The finance committee had very minimal opportunity.

More importantly, we learned from the Senate pre-hearings that the communities that are impacted had no idea that this was coming down and that this was going to be tabled. That was absolutely in direct opposition to what the Liberals committed to doing, which is proper consultation. To be quite frank, I could see us ending up in court again, because the Liberals did not do their job and they did not talk to the people who are going to be impacted by this particular piece of legislation.

The Liberals are now trying to sneak it through in an 802-page bill without anyone paying attention, and this is completely contradictory to anything the Liberals ever promised Canadians.