Debates of Feb. 4th, 2020

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will pick up on a lot of this in my speech. I am happy to answer any questions from those members who will be taking notes during that time.

At the outset I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Mississauga—Erin Mills.

I rise today to join my colleagues in expressing my deepest sympathies to the family and friends of Marylène Levesque, following this heinous and reprehensible tragedy.

In the aftermath of events such as these it is imperative that an investigation occurs to provide the public with the trust and knowledge that these errors will be addressed. That way we can ensure changes are made to better prevent similar occurrences from happening again. As the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has said in the House, there will be an administrative review and investigative committee assembled by the Parole Board of Canada and the Correctional Service.

To ensure accountability, two co-chairs will act as external investigators to oversee the review. In addition, the Quebec City police service is currently in the midst of a criminal investigation. On both sides of the House, I have no doubt that we all want to see the results of these investigations. The minister has publicly committed to making the findings public once the administrative process is complete. With the findings, committee members will be able to review what went wrong and make recommendations.

Regarding the motion before us today, it is important to note that the Parole Board of Canada issued an order that Mr. Gallese not be permitted to visit massage parlours. With this investigation, we will find out whether the orders were followed and, if not, the reasons for disregarding them. A serious and tragic error was made.

However, I will caution my Conservative colleagues from trying to declare that there is a wide-ranging and systemic problem. Violent offences such as these are not common in Canada, more so in recent years. In 2013-14, there were 17 convictions for a violent offence committed by a person on day parole. In 2017-18, there were five. However, five is still too many.

I would also inform the members opposite that our commissioners are highly qualified, with many experts in legal, correctional and criminology fields. Once appointed, the new commissioners receive rigorous training in risk assessment, hearing management, decision-making and addressing the specific factors that apply to certain types of offenders. After this initial training, the new commissioners are paired with more experienced commissioners. If necessary, they return for additional training. It is only when the regional vice-president is satisfied that they are ready are they allowed to sit and make decisions. All commissioners receive annual training on risk assessment, so that they can refine their skills and remain in a continuous learning mode.

When the Conservatives question the merit of the Parole Board appointees, let us remember that 43 appointments made by the former Harper government had ties to the Conservative Party. A number of former Conservative candidates, Conservative donors, assistants to former Conservative ministers and deputy Conservative ministers were included.

This is not intended to question the qualifications of any of these members, but when Conservatives openly question the appointment process, it is interesting to remind Canadians about how they often referred people to prominent positions. This was considerably pronounced in Quebec, as I previously mentioned, where at the end of the former Conservative government, six of the nine full-time commissioners were Conservative Party supporters.

Since forming government we have placed value on expertise, experience and diversity. All must have the qualifications for such a demanding position. The main objective of the entire correctional and conditional release system is to promote public safety. It is the primary responsibility of any government and I am sure that all in the House would agree.

Since forming government we have also worked tirelessly to address and combat gender-based violence, which is particularly significant in this case, considering the tragic death of this young woman.

I therefore invite the members of opposite parties to support our strategy to prevent and counter gender-based violence, which puts in place preventative measures, supports for survivors and the facilities to develop research and the dissemination of knowledge. I invite my colleagues to support the increase in legal aid to help victims of sexual harassment at work. I invite them to support the increased funding for training, ethics and conduct of judges in the area of gender-based violence, sexual assault and family violence. I invite them to support the funding to prevent violence in dating relationships during adolescence, to fight against bullying and to combat sexual violence in post-secondary institutions.

I know we all want our communities to be safer. We want women like Marylène Levesque not to find themselves in vulnerable situations and to have the resources and supports they need. We want to shed light on what happened in this tragic case to prevent it from happening again, but our analysis and corrective measures should be based on facts.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, at the end, the member for Kingston and the Islands spoke about various initiatives to address violence against women and gender-based violence in general. He should know that all colleagues in the House are interested in working together with the government. We had a bill tabled in the House that addresses the issue of training for judges around sexual assault. This was a bill put forward by the Conservatives as a private member's bill in a previous Parliament.

Today, we have highlighted that, in light of this specific case, it would be worthwhile to include training for parole officers on these issues as well. We want to work with the government not only to support these types of initiatives but to improve them to ensure they have a greater impact.

When it comes to the issue of appointments, members can talk about their policy, but personnel is policy as well. Whatever one says about the political background of individuals, it is the government that chooses to appoint people. It makes that choice and we have its decision.

Does the member think there should be some reconsideration of the appointment decisions they made, especially replacing experienced people with inexperienced people and the result of that decision?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am so glad the member brought up that former bill that was introduced into the House by Ms. Ambrose.

Let us be honest about why it did not make it through in the dying days of Parliament. If my memory serves me correctly, there were about 12 to 13 private members' bills that were sitting in the Senate, but unfortunately, for partisan reasons, the Conservative senators decided to hold up those bills. That is why Ms. Ambrose's bill, which the member referenced, did not get through the Senate.

I hope that bill is reintroduced, and I saw somewhere that it is or might be, so that legislation like that can be adopted. It is incredibly important to make sure the resources and supports and proper training are in place so that we can move forward and make sure that people are able to deal with potential situations when they are in front of them.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Kingston and the Islands and also the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. At lunch today, we had a brief conversation about the independence of the Senate, the independence of the judiciary and the Supreme Court. This is another case where we need a separation of politics from correctional services through the order in council process, and the independence of that process, so that we are not getting political people put in the place to make decisions relating to the treatment of people under judicial care.

Could the hon. member discuss the importance of the separation of the political process from the judicial process?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, what I would really like to pick up on is the member for Guelph's comment with respect to the need for independence as it exists out there. It is not easy to create an independent Senate. It is not easy to not want to pick from political affiliations, as the Conservatives did last time.

I am from a riding that used to have seven but now has six correctional institutions, thanks to the former Conservative government, in the surrounding area. We have a lot of people who are involved in the Parole Board in my riding. Never once have I been contacted and asked which Liberals we could fill into the slots. It does not work like that. The process we set up wants people to have the skills and qualifications to fulfill the roles they are appointed to. It is not based on who they support during an election or who they decide to support financially in terms of donations to political parties.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, we know why the member for Kingston and the Islands is not asked. It is because the Liberals keep a good database. The Liberal list provides them the information they need to be able to make those appointments, as we found out during the last session.

To the matter at hand, with this specific case, can the member tell us what other instructions or conditions were a part of the accused's release plan in this tragic circumstance?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, naturally, it would take a Conservative to connect a political database back to the functions of government and Parliament. It takes a Conservative to do that because Conservatives were used to doing that. Theirs was called CIMS or something like that. Maybe when they needed to make an appointment, they would just go back to their program and dig somebody up.

I am not surprised that a Conservative was so quick to jump to his feet to say that we go to the Liberal list, because that is what they are used to doing. I am sorry; that is just not the way that it works here, despite the fact that the member would like to set it up a different way.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, once again let me express my deepest sympathies for the family and friends of Marylène Levesque for this terrible tragedy that took place in Quebec on January 22.

As members across the way are aware, we have called for an investigation into the circumstances that led to this horrible incident. It will be a joint board of investigation that will draw its members from the Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board of Canada, including external members.

The Correctional Service of Canada must conduct an investigation under a variety of circumstances, including when the presumed perpetrator of a murder is a federal offender. As the House may be aware, a criminal investigation is also being carried out by the local police. This will protect the integrity of the investigations so that all facts can come to the surface and be properly examined by experts.

This board of investigation will assess and report on the incident so that where required, actions can be taken to prevent similar incidents from happening in the future. This board will have five members, two who are external and independent of the government, two from the Correctional Service of Canada and one from the Parole Board of Canada. All members are skilled and experienced, bringing various perspectives to this process. The two external members are experienced criminologists who have never been employed by either the Correctional Service of Canada or the Parole Board of Canada. In the spirit of openness and transparency, these external members will co-chair the board.

It is a government priority to better understand the circumstances that led to this tragedy to ensure that all established protocols were followed and that lessons are learned. Once the board concludes its investigation and provides its report, we will respond accordingly. We are committed to conducting the investigation swiftly and communicating the results with the public. We want answers, as does everyone affected by this, including the members in this House.

We cannot lose the perspective that our system is built on evidence-based approaches. The work of the Correctional Service of Canada is guided by research and long-standing experience of what works best to assist in the rehabilitation of individuals while ensuring that the public is safe. Public safety is the main consideration in all parole decisions. These decisions are made independently by the Parole Board, based on criteria that have been in place for many years and under many governments.

I want to assure Canadians that violent offences by people on day parole are incredibly rare. In 2017-2018, out of over 3,836 people on day parole, only two had their day parole revoked for a violent offence. This means that 99.95% of people successfully completed day parole. Additionally, research shows that the recidivism rate in Canada is declining.

Day parole is part of a process of gradual, supervised release. This is a far safer process for Canadians than releasing offenders cold turkey, straight from prison, without monitoring or supervision of any kind. In fact, research tells us that a gradual, structured and supervised release is the best way to protect the public. Conditional releases like day parole contribute to the protection of society by facilitating the reintegration of the offender into society as a law-abiding citizen.

In this specific case, which is very tragic, every angle around day parole will be examined to determine whether established policies and procedures were followed.

In closing, I thank the member across the way for raising this important issue and assure the member that the government is committed to getting to the bottom of what caused this to happen. With this investigation, I want to reiterate that the protection and safety of our communities is of paramount consideration in all decisions relating to the management of federal offenders.

However, we also must talk about the systemic nature of violence against women. We must go above and beyond to ensure that we are combatting the gender-based challenges that women and vulnerable gender communities within our society face on a daily basis, whether it is through human trafficking, gender-based violence in the home, domestic abuse or workplace discrimination. In continuing to develop and grow our communities to become safer for each and every one of us, we have to take into account all of these different factors. Our approach to combatting these challenges must be thorough and comprehensive, taking into account all of the different angles and perspectives that cause tragedies like these to occur.

In the past four years, our government has really gone above and beyond in how we are combatting gender-based violence, in how we are reforming our justice system so that there is more access for vulnerable communities. That is work that will continue within this government, within our ministry and with the members across the way on issues that they raise as well.

Again, I want to express my deepest sympathies to the family of Marylène Levesque. May she rest in peace.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make a point regarding the statement that was just made about how rare it is for crimes to be committed during parole and how things are getting better. The Liberals' own records, which the minister has provided, contradict the member's statements.

For example, the rate for convictions resulting in death in 2015-16 was 0.48% per 1,000 offenders under supervision. Then it went to 1% the following year, and the Liberals have increased the target now to 0.64%. They are actually making it easier. They are reducing their standards. They are making it so that there is less control.

The rate of convictions for serious violent offences for per 1,000 offenders under supervision in 2017-18 was 20.7%. The target is currently 35.8%. It is quite different from what the member is saying. I would like her to respond to that.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, numbers do not lie, and as I said in my statement, statistics show that recidivism has decreased. The 2017-18 numbers are significantly lower than they were, for example, in the Harper government era.

As I also said in my remarks, we have to continue to take a comprehensive approach to combatting issues like these. We have to make sure that there is enough support for the public to feel safe and that there is enough support for offenders to be able to transition into society so that the public is safe.

If we are talking just about black and white numbers, I do not think that is the right approach. We have to take those numbers in the context of the whole. We have to make sure that we are using evidence from the past years and establishing and growing our communities and our policies and our reforms based on what we see happening in society and what is in the best interests of our communities.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her very logical presentation. This is a heinous crime and it should not be politicized. I am sad to see so much political bantering from the party that has put forward this motion. We should all show leadership. We should ensure that violence against women is curtailed.

As she is the chair of the Liberal women's caucus, I would like the member's thoughts on how we can implement some policies that will alleviate these problems.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's very well-informed question. She is absolutely right that we must do so much more to combat violence against women and that the tragic nature of this crime is very systemic in how we tackle this issue.

It is very unfortunate that members across the way are politicizing this tragic death of Marylène Levesque. This is not something to be politicized. This is something that we use as an example to bring us all together and move forward to find ways to make sure that these kinds of tragedies do not happen again. One of the ways we can do that is to focus on how we combat violence against women and on how we rehabilitate offenders in making them part of our community and our society.

Over the past four years, we have made historic investments in combatting gender-based violence. We have provided more support for front-line workers so that shelters have more support and are able to take in more women fleeing violence. We have provided a human trafficking initiative and the national task force, and we created the hotline for human trafficking to ensure that women have the support they require so that we can work together and combat this issue.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this motion. I would have preferred never to have to rise on a motion like this, and I believe everyone in the House is of the same opinion.

I will start with some statistics by way of background. Police data from Quebec for 2012 show that women accounted for 80% of victims of offences committed in a domestic context, 96% of sexual assault victims and 93% of spousal homicide victims. These data come from the Fédération des femmes du Québec.

According to the Canadian Women's Foundation, the cost of domestic violence against women was approximately $7.4 billion in 2009. This figure includes unexpected costs such as emergency room visits and loss of income, tangible costs such as funeral expenses, and intangible costs such as pain and suffering.

It has also been reported that half of all women have experienced at least one incident of physical or sexual violence since the age of 16. In addition, 67% of Canadians say that they have personally known at least one woman who has experienced physical or sexual violence.

According to 2014 figures, on any given night in Canada, 3,491 women and their 2,724 children sleep in shelters because it is not safe at home. On any given night, about 300 women and children are turned away because shelters are already full.

I should mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

According to the RCMP, there were 1,181 cases of missing or murdered indigenous women between 1980 and 2012. However, according to grassroots organizations, the real figures are much higher. Indigenous women are killed at six times the rate of non-indigenous women.

Among seniors, women are at greater risk than men of experiencing violence from a family member. Women account for 60% of senior survivors of domestic violence.

Saskatchewan and Manitoba, which consistently record the highest provincial rates of police-reported violent crime, had rates of violence against women in 2011 that were double the national average.

Ontario and Quebec have the lowest rates of violence against women.

Cyber-violence, which includes online threats, harassment and stalking, has emerged as an extension of violence against women. Young women between the ages of 18 and 24 are most likely to experience online harassment in all its forms.

The Fédération des maisons d’hébergement pour femmes reports that 25% of female victims have been beaten, 20% have been choked, 13% have been threatened with a weapon and 20% have been sexually assaulted.

There is a very big difference for men, for whom the percentages are 10%, 4%, 8% and 3% respectively. This means that three times more women have been beaten than men, five times more women have been choked, twice as many women have been threatened with a weapon, and seven times more women have been forced into sexual relations.

Why am I giving all of these statistics? Today, it is more important than ever that women who are victims of violence have full confidence in the justice system. Women must not be afraid to go to the police to file a report. Women need to have confidence that their assailants will be tried.

The word “confidence” is very important. If we want to eliminate this scourge, women need to have confidence in the justice system. That brings me to today's motion.

That the House: (a) condemn the decision of the Parole Board of Canada that led to a young woman's death by an inmate during day parole in January of this year; and (b) instruct the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to conduct hearings into this matter, including a review of the changes made by the government in 2017 to the board's nomination process, with the view to recommend measures to be taken to ensure another tragedy such as this never happens again.

Changes were made to the appointment process. The confidence I mentioned earlier was destroyed. Why anyone decided to appoint people with no experience to the board is beyond me, but the fact remains that a mistake was made in 2017 and, sadly, a woman has now paid the ultimate price for that mistake.

Is it partisan to say that a mistake needs to be fixed today? The answer is no.

That is far from being partisan. We must fix the mistake that has resulted in board members not having the necessary training to make a decision like the one that was made. That is the real issue.

Once again, I will repeat that it is a matter of confidence. How can we address this problematic situation, which affects all of us directly or indirectly, if women who experience any form of violence do not have confidence in the system?

That is the reality, and that is why we are having this debate today. We believe that it is important to investigate this matter and this mistake so that this never happens again. We want parliamentarians to be able to put the right questions to all the people directly affected by this decision.

We cannot respond to this type of situation as we would respond to a simple theft of paper and pencils. Had we caught an official stealing paper and pencils, we would have asked his manager to look into it and find out why he did it. That is what is known as an administrative review. Paper and pencils can be replaced. A life cannot.

A serious mistake was made by the system. The system did not work, because it did not protect Marylène Levesque, and that is incomprehensible.

It is normal for parliamentarians on this side of the House, and from all parties, to want to ask questions. We should all want to know what happened so that we can do everything we can to ensure it never happens again. There is nothing partisan about asking questions.

We cannot ask people who are part of the system that created the mistake to investigate their own mistake. Certain questions will not be asked. That is human nature. Humans are bound to protect themselves and their sector, their office and their department. They will inevitably turn a blind eye to certain things. They will not see all the mistakes that have been made. That is where it differs from an external, independent inquiry conducted by a parliamentary committee. Such an inquiry will allow us to ask the questions that these people may not want us to ask.

We are here today to request the support of all parties in the House in order to shed light on these events.

We have talked a lot about the case of 51-year-old Mr. Gallese. In 2006, he was convicted of murdering his wife with a hammer after stabbing her repeatedly. He was granted day parole with conditions that I never thought I would see in my entire political career. He was given permission to use the services of an individual to have his sexual needs met in exchange for money, even though his record indicated he was likely to reoffend. He was given permission to do something illegal. The absurdity of the situation is unbelievable.

I have heard from many people who simply cannot understand what happened. They do not understand how the Parole Board members could have made a decision that put a woman in danger, when most ordinary people would have been capable of understanding that this man had a problem with women and that there was a risk that something could happen. Women, Canadians and parliamentarians put their trust in the two board members who allowed this tragedy to happen.

I would like to offer my condolences to all the victim's family and friends, as well as to all sex workers in this country who do a job that no one here would want to do. Whether they do it by choice or not is their business. Today we owe them respect and answers.

The government must adopt this motion to shed light on this situation to ensure it never happens again.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, I have a simple question for the hon. member across the way.

In his speech he mentioned that board members had not received adequate training to take on the role of board member. Can he describe the training that board members are currently getting and tell me whether it has changed since we came to power?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, the answer to that question is so obvious I do not understand how my colleague across the way does not see it.

The board members made that decision because they did not get the necessary training. They did not have the necessary means, experience and skills to fulfill this role. That is the reality. Enough with the nitpicking. The reality is that those two individuals should no longer hold that position. They were poorly trained. They were incompetent and should be dismissed.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Conservatives for bringing this opposition day motion forward today. It gives us an opportunity to rightfully condemn this decision and to ensure that we take measures to prevent it from happening again.

Would the hon. member care to comment on the fact that this individual was attending a massage parlour that he had been banned from for violence against the women there, and it was impossible for them to report that violence because operating that place was, in fact, a crime brought in by the current government? This individual's parole could have easily been revoked because of this, but that did not happen.

Does he not agree that something needs to be done about that law?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, here is an excerpt from the Parole Board's report: “During the hearing, your parole officer underlined a strategy that was developed with the goal that would allow you to meet women in order to meet your sexual needs. Your case management team gave permission for such meetings provided that you were transparent.”

How can somebody be transparent when they are committing a crime? How can somebody report a crime to a representative, an official of the state, without any subsequent risk of arrest? What happened is very illogical. It never should have happened and should never happen again.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I fully agree with the member that this never should have happened. It is important to shed light on all the events that led up to this tragedy.

I will repeat my question to the member because he did not answer it. What training do Parole Board members receive? Does he know? He does not seem to know. Has their training changed since we have taken office? I will answer that: No, it has not.

I will add a second comment for my colleague, because he clearly knows very little about the subject. The regional vice-chairperson of the Quebec region, who is responsible for ensuring that all Board members have the requisite knowledge and skills, was appointed by the previous government. Board members' decisions are always reviewed by a regional vice-chairperson before they are issued; in this case, a Conservative official appointed by the previous government.

I would like to know what the member has to say about that. I would ask him to do a little research before rising in the House.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, instead of lecturing me, my colleague should be lecturing the two people who showed a lack of judgment and whose actions led to the situation we are discussing today.

In 2017, changes were made to the appointment process. People with no experience were appointed, and those people made a decision that led to the outcome we know today.

At no point in my speech did I criticize the Liberals. I did not criticize parliamentarians as a whole. I said that a situation had happened that never should have happened, and the member changed the subject to the Conservatives and training, telling me I should have done my homework.

I am not going to take lessons from someone who defends people who made an asinine, incompetent decision that should never have been made and that led to a tragic act. I have no lessons to learn from the member, and I am really disappointed with his stance and with the comments he made today.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak to this very important opposition day motion that comes as a response to the tragedy that occurred in Quebec City a week and a half ago.

It is a disaster wherein a young woman was let down by the justice system and murdered by a violent criminal. Our motion calls for:

...the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to conduct hearings into this matter, including a review of the changes made by the government in 2017 to the board’s nomination process.

It is the responsibility of the House to ensure measures are taken so that no tragedy like this ever happens again.

This terrible situation should not have been allowed to happen the first time. We have a man given a life sentence for horrifically murdering his 32-year-old female partner. The criminal was assessed as a high risk to reoffend, particularly with a partner, but as it goes, and as we have seen happen time and again, an offender serves a portion of a sentence and is then turned loose, regardless of the risk to reoffend.

In this case, the man was granted day parole as a violent criminal with a risk to reoffend, and then had his day parole extended last September by the Parole Board. They noted that a risk management strategy had been developed to allow this man to meet women for his sexual gratification. How did this not raise a red flag within the Parole Board? A violent criminal with a particular risk to reoffend against vulnerable women was encouraged by his parole officer to solicit sex from vulnerable women.

The result was a preventable and truly heartbreaking tragedy. The lack of regard for the safety of Canadians is astounding. The Parole Board put this criminal's supposed needs above concern for possible future victims, showing an extreme lack of foresight and prudence.

Two former Parole Board members have pointed to a change in the Parole Board of Canada's nomination procedures. This has resulted in a lack of experienced members. That may have been a factor in this murder.

If that is the case, that inexperienced Parole Board members made this decision and got it so wrong that it resulted in the murder of a vulnerable young woman, then those members who made the decision and the people who appointed them must face consequences.

This woman's death could have been prevented. An inquiry into the Parole Board's decision must be made. I am sure that all of my colleagues in this place will join me in condemning this inherently unjust decision, and call for an external inquiry.

When the Minister of Public Safety was asked about this and what was being done to get to the bottom of this case, he told the House on Monday that a full investigation would be conducted jointly by the commissioner of corrections and the chair of the Parole Board of Canada to determine the circumstances surrounding the killer's release, and to ensure lessons are learned from it. The Parole Board will investigate the Parole Board, continuing the legacy of unaccountability.

Canadians need and deserve an external inquiry so that we can make sure prudent decisions are made in the future and that violent offenders are not encouraged to solicit sex from vulnerable women, victims of prostitution, victims of what appears to be a reckless decision by the authors of the so-called risk management strategy.

This case is a prime example of a failure on the justice file, of a revolving-door prison system, and of putting criminals ahead of victims. With the passage of Bill C-75, the previous Liberal government cemented its legacy as being soft on crime. It made sweeping changes that were very concerning and weakened our justice system.

That piece of legislation watered down penalties for over 100 serious crimes. Dangerous criminals should not be getting fines for serious offences such as gang crime, using date rape drugs and impaired driving causing bodily harm. Across our country, victims' groups and law enforcement have opposed the government's weakness on crime and its refusal to take violent crime seriously.

Canadians deserve better than a Prime Minister who prioritizes the rights of criminals over the rights of victims. Conservatives will always put the rights of victims and law-abiding Canadians ahead of the rights of criminals.

This case is a continuation of the Liberals' soft-on-crime approach failing victims. If we look back at the previous Parliament, there are glaring examples of where the government unjustly put criminals before victims.

In 2018, Liberals fought tooth and nail against doing the right thing and putting Tori Stafford's killer behind bars after the killer had been transferred to a healing lodge. It was only after a public outcry, and weeks of pressure from the family and the official opposition, that they relented and put the killer back where she belonged.

A further example is when the Liberal government defended its decision to use veterans' benefits to pay for mental health services for a man who never served a day in his life in the military, but was locked up for murdering a female police officer.

Although the killer claimed to have PTSD from committing this truly heinous crime, the Liberals continued to defend their use of those benefits for this individual. It was out of touch, it was unjust and it again put the supposed rights of a criminal before the victim.

This approach is in stark contrast to the legacy of the Conservatives on the justice file. Our record is based on the most foundational meaning of justice being rendered to the other where it is due. This was showcased in the Victims Bill of Rights, which set a path for victims of crime to be protected and to have their voices heard during judicial proceedings and the subsequent incarceration of an offender.

The Victims Bills of Rights has much to offer victims. They should have their security considered by the appropriate authorities in the criminal justice system, and they should have the right to convey their views about decisions made by appropriate authorities in the criminal justice system that affect their rights under this act, and to have them considered. The right to have their security considered is truly foundational.

In closing, Canada's Conservatives are calling on the Liberal government to condemn the board's extremely misguided, reckless and negligent decision, and to conduct hearings into this matter, including a review of the changes made by the Liberal government in 2017 to the board's nomination process. This motion should be supported by all members of the House to correct an injustice, to review the circumstances of the Parole Board's shocking decision and to hold those responsible to account.

Nothing we can do will bring these young women back. However, as lawmakers, we can make sure it does not happen again. That starts by putting the rights of victims before those of criminals, and by supporting this motion to conduct hearings into this matter. I am calling on all members of the House to support our motion.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, this is not the first time the opposition has raised justice-related issues. We have seen a very positive response from the government to look at ways to improve the system. As much as possible, we have to try to avoid, unless it is well established and substantiated, pointing to a government or member and making the accusation that, because of that government or that member, there has been a death. That does a disservice.

Having said that, wanting to co-operate and look at ways to improve the system is one of the reasons this internal review will take place. It will be a public document. I understand that many members on the government side will vote for the resolution. Would the member agree that we should be looking at ways to depoliticize this, get to the core of the issue and make sure this does not happen in the future?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, the official opposition's role is to hold the government to account, and that is truly what we are doing in this case. It is not a matter of pointing fingers. It has been established that a clear lack of judgment was exercised.

This matter needs to be reviewed by a parliamentary committee that is made up of members from all parties in the House, and that is tremendously important. It is our role as opposition members, and we will not waiver in our resolve to make sure that we stand up for the rights of victims.

If the government came to the table and asked for all-party support, we would not need to point to examples that make our case as to why this is necessary and why it demonstrates a pattern with the government.

I am pleased to hear that members on the government benches will be supporting this motion, and I hope all members will consider doing so.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to put on the record a quote from Sandra Wesley, the director of Stella, a Montreal-based sex workers organization. She said:

They identified that this man was a potential danger to women and wasn't ready to have proper relationships with women, but figured that he could then go see sex workers.

She then went on to say, “It really tells us what they think about us.”

There is no question that this is extremely disturbing and it should be looked into. However, underlying this question is another issue, and that is the safety of sex trade workers. They are out there, at risk. What measures do we need to take to ensure that they are recognized as human beings, as individuals, and that their safety is equally important as that of everyone else?

I would invite the member to provide suggestions of what approaches the Conservatives would take other than to say, “We do not recognize the sex trade at all.”

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, all Canadians, and all women, deserve full protection under the law, irrespective of and especially in vulnerable circumstances. They rely on legislators to craft laws and to make well-informed and appropriate appointments so that we are protecting them.

In this case, we had a decision by members of the Parole Board that said these vulnerable women were less than women who were not sex workers, and therefore they could be exposed to this violent criminal. The board's decision was reprehensible. It was a tragic catalyst for the discussion that we are having here today.

To the member's question, all women, but especially vulnerable women, need to be protected under the law and all government appointees need to have their best interests and truly their safety in mind when they are making decisions.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Jean.

As my party's critic for the status of women, I would first like to point out that the Bloc Québécois offered its deepest condolences last week to Marylène Levesque's loved ones, who deserve answers from the Parole Board of Canada, but also, and especially, concrete action.

Ms. Levesque was murdered by a man the state knew to be violent and who had already committed violent crimes against women. Her death marks Quebec's fifth femicide since December, and we must ask ourselves whether violence against women is being taken seriously enough. It is unfortunate to see yet another woman fall victim to it. Last week's protests in Quebec prove that people are concerned about this type of crime. How is it that a Parole Board of Canada official allowed this man to be with Marylène Levesque?

In my speech, I will briefly talk about my party's position, my questions about the Parole Board and my hope that there will be less violence against women, especially when taking into account the violent nature of the crime we are talking about today.

First, with regard to the Bloc Québécois's position, we believe that we need to be very careful before we comment on any legal proceedings or decisions because, generally speaking, we never have all of the facts.

However, in the case of Marylène Levesque's murder, the facts speak for themselves and show a serious violation of the rules and even of the federal justice and public safety laws. We are appalled by the Parole Board's completely insane decision to grant the accused permission to commit a criminal act with the complicity of the system that should have protected the victim.

The Bloc Québécois will therefore fully support this motion so that we can get to the bottom of the events that led to this murder, which, unfortunately, could have been prevented. People need to have confidence in their justice system, but that confidence has been undermined. However, we need to be careful. We are aware that criticizing the decisions and policies of the justice system is tricky because we need to fully understand the processes and laws, and especially the unique circumstances of each case. We are supporting this motion with the goal of understanding why the laws and processes in place were not correctly applied since the facts indicate that this situation could have been prevented under the existing rules.

We wish to reiterate that the principle of rehabilitation is not in any way at issue. However, in this specific case, it is clear that the board members had all the information they needed to return the offender to prison before the murder occurred; indeed, he had allegedly already breached his parole conditions, particularly those concerning drug use. Furthermore, they had all the information they needed to also prevent him from having contact with Marylène Levesque in the circumstances that we know, namely, that she was a sex worker, which is also prohibited.

This leads me in this second part of my speech to speak about what might have been problematic in the case we wish to debate today. I am using the conditional here because first and foremost we need to conduct an investigation to determine what happened and avoid hasty accusations.

First, let us discuss how dangerous Gallese was. According to the Parole Board, Gallese's risk of reoffending was moderate. Apparently there was contradictory information about this. Why did AFPAD state that he was at high risk of reoffending, when that was not his official status?

Since 1988, Gallese was sentenced four times for being unlawfully in a dwelling-house, mischief in relation to private property, drunk driving and assault of Joanne Lafrance, the mother of his children. For this last offence, he was sentenced to seven days in jail and three years' probation.

This individual was also given a life sentence in 2006 for murdering his wife with a hammer, with no possibility of parole for 15 years.

Why was he released before 2021 despite problems with violence and addiction?

I am also concerned about changes to the nomination process for members of the Parole Board of Canada. According to a survey conducted by the Parole Board in May 2019, 70% of parole officers said that they were not able to do their work properly or to properly protect the public. In November 2018, the Auditor General of Canada came to the same conclusion regarding offenders under community supervision.

We are therefore very pleased that two investigations are under way, but we are impatiently awaiting the results.

I would like to talk about the criminal investigation first. When Le Devoir asked the Parole Board of Canada if it was aware that an offender's sexual needs were being taken into consideration, the Parole Board referred the paper to Correctional Service Canada, whose spokesperson said the CSC was reviewing the circumstances of the decision.

The Parole Board of Canada is also conducting an internal investigation. We thank the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness for asking for that on January 27. The CSC and the board will conduct the investigation jointly. However, even Jean-Claude Boyer, a lawyer and former Parole Board member, thinks the investigation should be external and independent.

As I mentioned earlier, we also learned that the Auditor General of Canada produced a report in 2018 that confirmed that Correctional Service Canada was lacking resources and was not equipped to help certain offenders with the transition, which then increased their risk of reoffending. I will share a quote from the Auditor General's report:

Our audit also found that Correctional Service Canada did not properly manage offenders under community supervision. For example, it did not give parole officers all the information they needed to help offenders with their health needs, and parole officers did not always meet with offenders as often as they should have.

In short, the Auditor General had already noted the lack of resources. The government will have to answer the questions we have all been asking today on what it did or did not do to fix this problem.

Dave Blackburn, a former board member and former Conservative candidate, has also expressed concerns about the new appointment process for board members established in 2017. He said:

That year, Justin Trudeau's government changed the member renewal process. Members who had already been appointed to the Parole Board had to go through the same appointment process as new candidates.

According to him, as a result of the changes, the majority of experienced board members were not reappointed. We know how important experience can be.

In a decision made in September 2019 concerning the 51-year old accused, the Parole Board of Canada wrote:

During the hearing, your parole officer underlined a strategy that was developed with the goal that would allow you to meet women in order to meet your sexual needs.

Why did the Parole Board, in that same document, maintain that it deemed this strategy for meeting women to be inappropriate, adding that it constituted a significant and worrying risk factor?

In this context, the Parole Board expects a review of the analysis grid that led to this approach. It is even noted that as part of this decision, in September 2019, the Parole Board extended Eustachio Gallese's day parole. However, at the same time, his parole application was denied.

It is my wish that women suffer less violence. Last week I heard a journalist talk about an interaction she had with one of Mr. Gallese's security guards. She said that she noticed he had problems with authority and with women. He was also prone to taking on the role of seducer.

I therefore share the reactions of Quebec, whose justice minister, Sonia Lebel, of the Coalition Avenir Québec, is demanding explanations from the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness on the reasons that led to Mr. Gallese's day parole, given his history of violence against women. Her fellow MPs Véronique Hivon and Manon Massé are also demanding answers.

Parti Québécois member Véronique Hivon is asking for a serious analysis of the situation. Is it a lack of training, a lack of information, or a lack of analytical tools? Was it the system that failed? She is also distressed at the thought that such a thing could happen at a time when there is growing awareness of femicide and the consequences of domestic violence.

Québec Solidaire's Manon Massé believes that lengthy reflection is needed, and she is not ruling out the idea of a public inquiry once the answers to certain questions have been obtained.

According to Quebec's status of women minister, Isabelle Charest, Quebec wants to increase security around victims of domestic violence to prevent violent crimes like the ones in recent months. Funding for shelters—