House of Commons Hansard #14 of the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was case.
The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
Pursuant to section 79.2(2) of the Parliament of Canada Act, it is my duty to present to the House a report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, entitled “Reviewing the Fiscal and Distributional Analysis of the Federal Carbon Pricing System”.
David Lametti LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-201, An Act to develop a national school food program for children.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to introduce my bill, the school food program for children act. I would like to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East for seconding the bill.
This legislation would require the Minister of Health, in consultation with the provincial and territorial governments and other relevant stakeholders, to develop a national school food nutrition program to ensure that all children in Canada would have access to healthy food. The program would operate at little or no direct cost to children or their families, build on existing school food programs across Canada, use best practices from other jurisdictions and promote evidence-based healthy food education.
In a country as prosperous as Canada, no child should have to struggle through the school day on an empty stomach. However, today, more than 1.5 million children live in families that have difficulty putting food on the table. Canada remains among the few industrialized countries without a universal school food program.
A national school food program would not only give every student in Canada access to nutritious food, it would make healthy eating a daily lesson for our kids.
I am pleased to see in budget 2019 that the government announced its intention to establish a national school food program in Canada. This legislation represents an important first step toward making that goal a reality.
I call on all parliamentarians to work together to support this important health and social justice initiative.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-202, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assault against a health care worker).
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to introduce an important bill to Parliament, again, with thanks to the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain, for seconding it.
The legislation would amend the Criminal Code to require a court to consider that if the victim of an assault were a health care worker, this fact would be an aggravating circumstance for the purposes of sentencing.
Violence against health care workers has become a pervasive and growing problem within the Canadian health care system. Over the last decade, violence-related lost-time claims for front-line health care workers has increased by 66%, three times the rate for police and correctional officers combined.
National data also shows that 61% of nurses have experienced a serious problem with some form of violence over a recent 12-month period.
The bill would send a strong message that those who provide such critical services must be treated with respect and security. They take care of our health and safety and we must take care of theirs.
I call on all parliamentarians to support this vital and overdue legislation.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
I want to outline for members that for private members' bills, we want something succinct. I would remind hon. members to make their explanations as succinct as possible.
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.
That, at the conclusion of today's debate on the opposition motion in the name of the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Wednesday, February 5, 2020, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move on the motion?
The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Michael McLeod Liberal Northwest Territories, NT
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition that is signed by 25 constituents from the Northwest Territories.
The petitioners call upon the government to support Motion No. 1, a motion for a green new deal.
Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from my constituents.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to support Motion No. 1, a made-in-Canada green new deal. It is the first initiative before the House of Commons that calls on Canada to take bold and rapid action to adopt social and equitable climate action to tackle the climate emergency.
The motion also addresses the worsening socio-economic and racial inequalities at the same time, while ending fossil fuel subsidies, closing offshore tax havens, supporting workers impacted by the transition and creating well-paying, unionize jobs in the shift to a clean and renewable energy economy.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Opposition Motion — Instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
February 4th, 2020 / 10:10 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
moved:
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.
Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner.
Today is an important day for the official opposition, but it is especially important for the family of Marylène Levesque, which is entitled to answers. Marylène Levesque was a 22-year-old woman who was murdered two weeks ago in Quebec City, in my region.
This tragedy really had an impact on me. I simply cannot understand how it came to be that an inmate on parole was allowed to have sex with women. Somehow, someone recommended that this man have sexual relations even though he killed his ex-partner in 2004 and was sentenced to life in prison in 2006.
The first question we should ask ourselves in this case is why the individual was released before his 15-year sentence was up. The second question is about how the parole officer's strategy was implemented and why this officer's report was signed and endorsed by two Parole Board members. The report stated that the paroled inmate had a problem with women. That was clear. The man killed his ex-partner and, for nearly 15 years, demonstrated that he was not capable of engaging in normal relationships with women.
The parole report indicates, and I quote:
During the hearing, your parole officer underlined a strategy that was developed with the goals that would allow you to meet women in order to meet your sexual needs. Your CMT...gave permission for such meetings provided that you were transparent.
That is the issue that prompted us to move the motion we are debating today in the House of Commons. How could two board members agree to and sign a report that allowed a woman killer, someone with psychological problems in his relationships with women, to meet his sexual needs with women? That implies that he can have dealings with prostitutes and that he can have a relationship with other women. However, these women have no idea who he is or where he comes from. Those members basically let a fox into the henhouse.
The Quebec City region, Quebec and now all of Canada are appalled by this story. Let us not forget that Marylène Levesque paid with her life because an inmate like Eustachio Gallese was given that permission.
These issues are making us question how the Parole Board of Canada could have undergone such a complete transformation in recent years. The changes began from the moment we changed governments in 2015. The contracts of the experienced members already on the board were not renewed. The government decided that members would be politically appointed, and so people were appointed. Surely they were good people. I do not want to accuse those individuals, but the fact remains that people were politically appointed to the Parole Board, to strategic positions, without any support from experienced members. In the workplace, a senior employee is usually always paired with a new one to ensure the transfer of knowledge.
These are fundamental questions, because these people have a tremendous responsibility to ensure public safety. They recommend and sign off on granting parole to murderers, people who have been sentenced to life in prison by a court. They apply for parole, and based on various criteria, their applications are approved. In this particular case, a man who had murdered a woman was allowed to meet with women to satisfy his sexual needs. That is incomprehensible. No one can understand this. Even Robert Pigeon, the chief of the Service de police de la Ville de Québec, said in an interview last weekend that he had never seen anything like this in his whole career and that he could not understand how this could happen.
There is another problem. In 2018, the Auditor General of Canada reported that there were problems with the supervision and accommodation of offenders on parole.
This combination of factors led to an explosive situation. I will say this again, Marylène Levesque paid with her life. Whatever some people may say, Marylène was earning a living as an “escort”. It is currently illegal to purchase sexual services. However, we have seen that a government report proposed enabling him to meet with women and, indirectly, with “escorts”, which is illegal. Canadians have many questions about what happened.
Furthermore, what happened to Marylène Levesque was not an isolated incident. Two years ago, we spent a long time debating the murder of Tori Stafford in this very chamber.
Many will remember this Canadian little girl who was abducted, raped, tortured and murdered by Michael Rafferty and Terri-Lynne McClintic. Her body was found in Ontario. It was an unbelievable tragedy, and the murderers were given life sentences. After just six years, however, we learned that Ms. McClintic had been transferred from a maximum-security penitentiary to the Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge, a minimum-security facility in Saskatchewan. Since Ms. McClintic claimed to be indigenous, she was sent to a healing lodge where there were only cameras and residents can open the door and leave whenever they like. No one in Canada could understand how that could have happened. We raised the matter in the House of Commons, but the Liberals did not want to change anything. After considerable pressure and public outrage, the government finally sent Ms. McClintic back to a regular prison.
Those decisions have prompted many, many questions about the entire decision-making process. That is why we would like a review of how the Parole Board of Canada operates and how, and on what basis, decisions are made.
Quebec's justice minister, Sonia LeBel, summed up the situation surrounding the murder of Marylène Levesque in a single sentence, “Reintegration has to be a consideration in the parole process, but the overriding principle has to be, first and foremost, the safety and security of the public, the safety of our citizens”.
On that, in 2017, eight former PBC members sent a letter to the Prime Minister. The following two paragraphs provide a clear summary of the situation, “We are Parole Board of Canada members who wish to share our serious concerns about the member reappointment process, which does not seem to be transparent”.
Former members also mentioned the following in that letter: "Our primary mandate is to protect the public, and we fear that this mandate is currently in jeopardy”.
This is a letter that was sent in 2017 by eight former Parole Board members who were already flagging the problem. They never received a response from the Prime Minister.
We must not get distracted by the life that Marylène Levesque chose to live. We believe that the important thing to understand is that the parole conditions of the individual in question were unacceptable and the entire process has to be reviewed, including the way Parole Board members are appointed.
Opposition Motion — Instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the concern he has raised.
Could the hon. member describe the reaction of Canadians in his home province of Quebec, and how their reaction resonates with what many other Canadians have been thinking and feeling with respect to the parole system? It is at the crux of this issue and how we need to address some of the issues that have Canadians concerned for public safety.
Opposition Motion — Instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
The situation has been incredibly explosive in Quebec. People do not understand. They wonder how our government could allow a murderer on parole to meet with women.
A killer of women got permission to visit women to have his sexual needs met. People are asking us, as elected officials, to do something. We too often hear people say that a topic will last for three or four days, or maybe a week, but then it disappears and the situation keeps happening. People always say that politicians are all talk and no action. That is why we are here today.
I am pleased that this motion was moved and that we have an opposition day to debate this topic. I hope that my colleagues in all parties will support the motion, because we need to get to the bottom of this.
Opposition Motion — Instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Louis-Hébert Québec
Liberal
Joël Lightbound LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Madam Speaker, I have two questions for my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.
First, has he read the September 19 decision in which the board clearly indicates to the corrections officer that visits to massage parlours are completely inappropriate for a correctional plan? Does he realize that this was the board's decision, and has he reviewed it?
Second, I would like to ask my colleague whether he read the letter released yesterday by the president of the union representing corrections officers. He made a direct reference to the devastating cuts made in 2012 as part of the then Conservative government's deficit reduction plan. These cuts had an impact on corrections officers' ability to do their jobs.
Does the member have anything to say about any of this?
Opposition Motion — Instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Madam Speaker, naturally I have the report here and we have everything we need.
However, given that the Liberals have been in power since 2015, their accusation about Conservative cuts of five years ago is a pretty pathetic defence. These are questionable appointments and we have to shed light on that. I will certainly not allow myself to be distracted by the type of comments that the Liberals always trot out to try to defend themselves.
Opposition Motion — Instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Madam Speaker, in the past, the Conservative government had a reputation for being tough on crime. I am thinking in particular of the criminalization of young offenders. I would like to know how he can reconcile this with the rehabilitation of offenders in the Conservative Party platform.
Opposition Motion — Instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
That is a different issue, Madam Speaker. It is another matter. The Conservatives are tougher on criminals. We want criminals who deserve to be in prison to stay in prison, but we also believe in rehabilitation. We cannot allow a criminal who killed his wife and is unable to have a relationship with women to be sent to women to satisfy his sexual needs. No one can make me understand that. That is why we need explanations.
Opposition Motion — Instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the Conservative motion by my hon. colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.
The motion denounces the decision made by the Parole Board in Quebec that cost the life of a 22-year-old woman at the hands of a dangerous repeat offender. It seeks immediate action to review Parole Board nominations that contributed to putting a dangerous offender on the streets, and to have Parliament recommend steps so that this will never happen again.
Given the recent comments by the Minister of Public Safety on finding common ground with all parties to protect Canadians, I would think that he would be supportive of our motion. I imagine every member of the House will condemn the murder of a young woman by a man who beat his previous partner to death with a hammer, and who was released on parole with permission to seek out women in order to manage his sexual needs.
As one columnist noted, it appears the Parole Board's release plan assumed this offender's right to access a woman's body. Any man who cannot control his urges is not fit to be released back into society. Our country is founded on freedom and respect: respect for one another, respect for the law and respect for our values. In this case, the Parole Board's decision is reprehensible.
I will not pretend that this entire problem is the fault of the Liberal government or of any single previous government or decision. The problem we face is a parole and release system that favours offenders over victims. It puts the rights of offenders ahead of the safety of our communities.
This is a result of the current government's inaction, as well as previous governments' actions or inactions, court rulings and court precedents. None of that should prevent the House from challenging the status quo and moving toward a better system of preventing the release of those who are not ready to be law-abiding members of our society.
Let me be clear. We are not talking about anyone who has ever gone to jail. We are not saying that if people have done something wrong, as we all have at some point to different degrees, there is no redemption. I believe in redemption.
For those who have committed crimes, we lay out very clear ideas of what that looks like based on their efforts to reform, to rehabilitate, to seek to address their failings or challenges, to train and educate themselves for a post-release period and to never again be in trouble with the law. However, there have been too many instances like this one. There have been too many recent decisions by Liberal-appointed Parole Board members to release repeat dangerous offenders back into our communities without the adequate protections and information. That lack of accountability and of good, sound decision-making is why the House urgently needs to review and revise how it treats violent offenders.
Dangerous offenders are deemed by the courts. They are held for indeterminate prison sentences because of the malicious repeat offences they have carried out. Dangerous offenders have a pattern of behaviour and persistent aggression that makes them a threat to others.
It is not up to society to accept dangerous offenders. It is up to those dangerous offenders to accept the laws and values of our society in order to be released. However, the Liberal government seems too eager to defend the rights of dangerous offenders and others who are brought before the courts. Dangerous offenders get off too easily under the Liberal government.
Under Bill C-75, in order to address court backlogs, the Liberals reduced sentences and allowed sentences for more violent crimes to be reduced, even to fines. Under Bill C-71, Liberals went after law-abiding firearms owners for the actions of criminals and gangs. In national security laws, they increased red tape, put more effort into watching the public servants who defend Canadians and put less effort into monitoring known radicalized threats, returning ISIS terrorists and foreign threats.
Two years ago, we went through a very similar scenario. Canadians were outraged when Terri-Lynne McClintic, a woman who helped lure, assault, rape and murder eight-year-old Tori Stafford, was transferred to a lower-security healing lodge instead of staying in prison. The indigenous community not far from my riding did not want her there, as she was not indigenous. This raised many questions as to why she was being transferred in the first place. No child predator should ever be sent to a prison where children and families are present.
The Liberals said nothing was wrong, launched a months-long investigation and then determined that they were wrong. They slapped a minor edit on their policies and said everything was fine and would be fine. If the policies were applied properly the first time, that transfer never would have happened.
The offender at the centre of the tragedy is a violent, dangerous offender, whether the law puts that label on him or not. The Parole Board and the minister should have known and should have had the processes in place to prevent this latest tragedy. However, there is no accountability left for the minister or government. Did the Parole Board fail in its duty to Canadians in this circumstance? Yes, it did. Was it likely that former minister Ralph Goodale's decision to appoint fresh and untrained people in the position to make these decisions a factor? It certainly appears that way.
Under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the purpose of conditional release is to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society that will best facilitate the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the community as law-abiding citizens. The act specifically notes that the paramount consideration by the Parole Board is public safety protection. The release of offenders who are deemed unable to stop themselves from harming others, who pose a risk to women or who have been instructed to break the law by hiring women for sex can in no way live up to the standards set out in law.
Even if there was some justification for a dangerous, violent offender to be released, parole officers are overwhelmed with workloads. According to their union, workloads are insurmountable and there is a real risk to Canadians because they cannot keep tabs on parolees. With the Liberals releasing many dangerous offenders into the community, this issue is being compounded.
For example, Madilyn Harks, formerly known as Matthew Ralf Harks, is a serial rapist who has preyed on young women, with three convictions for sexual assault against girls under the age of eight. She was released into Brampton, one of the largest suburbs in Canada, despite posing a risk to the tens of thousands of children in that community. After public outrage and political pressure on local Liberal MPs, she was removed. Was she a risk to Canadians? Absolutely. Was she placed in a poorly chosen spot? Absolutely. It was only fixed, though, after political and public outrage.
Randall Hopley, a serial child predator, was released into Vancouver despite the Parole Board stating that it was unable to manage his risks to Canadian children. Peter Whitmore, who has many convictions for assaulting young boys, has repeatedly received light sentences for the rape and assault of children. After abducting two boys, tying them up and raping them, he has been locked up again. However, he is now eligible for parole, and it would seem only a matter of time before the Liberal's Parole Board will release him again, if we can believe it. There are many examples like this, more than time allows to mention here.
None of these crimes needed to happen and none of these victims needed to be put at risk and victimized. However, we can all agree that we presume innocence and that the taking away of freedoms under the Criminal Code should not be treated lightly. There are times when it is clearly the best and only course of action. The actions of the guilty are the fault of the guilty. There is no right to cause pain, harm and suffering to others. When the Parole Board sees a threat that is not manageable, there needs to be a mechanism to ensure that Canadians are not put at further risk. We do not need to accept the decisions of murderers, rapists, pedophiles or repeat and serial offenders as a foregone conclusion. However, once people have reached that state, it is incumbent upon them to show and act in a manner that enables their release, not the other way around. It is not beholden on Canadians to accept their intolerable and hateful acts. Criminals are not the victims.
In conclusion, my colleague's motion is justified in light of the many issues facing our communities. Public safety has been put on the back burner time and again by the government and its political manoeuvring. Reforming how we manage dangerous offenders would seem something that all parliamentarians can get behind and can contribute toward protecting Canadians.
However, I suspect that the Liberals will invent yet another excuse why action is not needed right now. They will respond by saying that they have an internal inquiry under way, a response we have heard many times. However, there is an inherit bias to defend the system by those in charge of making those very decisions. Another McClintic-style “sweep it under the rug” decision should not be tolerated.
It is time that other members of Parliament took the role that the minister is too timid to tackle. I encourage my colleagues to vote in favour of a study to strengthen and review the parole system, ensure the appropriate funding is in place and that the safety of Canadians comes ahead of any Liberal political concerns.
Opposition Motion — Instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Oakville North—Burlington Ontario
Liberal
Pam Damoff LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services
Madam Speaker, the member's comments about pedophiles and sex offenders being released into the community by this government are not true and create fear in Canadians that is simply unwarranted. Has the member actually read the parole board's decision in this case, which explicitly opposed the offender visiting massage parlours?
I would like the hon. member to speak to the decisions and the laws that the previous Harper government passed that criminalize sex workers and put young women like poor Marylène Levesque in the position where she was exposed to someone dangerous because the Conservative government under Stephen Harper criminalized sex work.