Debates of Nov. 24th, 2022

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his well-informed and well-researched speech on Bill S-4.

My question relates to Jordan's principle, which is the requirement that people in indigenous communities receive justice in a fair and equitable manner. I wonder if my colleague could comment on whether Bill S-4 adequately addresses that.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for a very informed question on Jordan's principle, with regard to our justice system.

I am not a lawyer, but I will try to answer this question to the best of my ability. What I will say is that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General is obviously working very closely with indigenous communities and consulting with indigenous stakeholders to ensure that we have a nation-to-nation relationship when it comes to reforms within our justice system and to move forward with reforms in our justice system. Much like we did on Bill C-5, where there are negative impacts on indigenous individuals, for example, the overrepresentation of indigenous individuals in Canadian jails, measures will be taken to correct that and to ensure that there are not systemic barriers within our criminal justice system that impact indigenous communities.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I have to say that Bill S‑4 needs improvement.

What does my colleague think about the issue of connectivity in this case? We know it is a problem. My colleague mentioned it earlier, and he also talked about the existence and use of the “Liberalist”. There are currently judicial vacancies.

I would like to hear some solutions from my colleague.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, which is very important to this bill.

On the connectivity issue, obviously our government is working in a collaborative fashion with the provinces, putting funds forward to ensure all Canadians are connected to the Internet. If the opportunity arises via Bill S-4 for criminal justice system procedures or cases to occur in a manner where audio conferencing or video conferencing can take place and provides for an effective, efficient and accessible criminal justice system, we would continue to do that in a very expeditious manner.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to see Bill S-4 coming forward today to begin the much overdue work of modernizing Canada's judicial system. We know the government has known about the need for a much required overhaul since before the Liberals took over office from the previous Harper government.

I was speaking to a constituent just yesterday here in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith. She expressed to me that she had to apply to be excused from jury duty due to the costs associated with it.

I am wondering if the member could clarify why the government had to wait for almost a full year before bringing forward this legislation, which essentially is a carbon copy of a bill which was first introduced in the last Parliament, before the House, while maintaining existing systems with backlogs and barriers for jurors.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is obviously a legislative calendar we need to bring forward on the days allotted for it. I am glad to see this bill has been brought forward in this House to be debated by all members and hopefully quickly sent to committee and follow the regular process so that we can enact another piece of legislation that modernizes our criminal justice system here in Canada.

We all agree that this needs to occur. We all agree that Canadians need to have access to the criminal justice system and that it has to be accessible, efficient and effective. This is another step in that direction.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

The pandemic taught us many things. It taught us about how viruses spread or do not spread, whether asymptomatic victims of a virus can be contagious, whether vaccines prevent us from being infected or only prevent us from being very sick when we are infected and also what effects isolation has on mental health. The jury is out on many of these issues. People will be writing Ph.D. theses on the lessons we learned or failed to learn from the COVID-19 experience, but it is not just medical and scientific things that we learned through the COVID-19 years.

We also learned that we could do business differently. More and more people are working remotely and that kept many businesses afloat during the most severe periods of lockdowns and restrictions. Admittedly, working remotely works better in some sectors than others. In my profession of law, for example, working from home or from the office was completely seamless, or from my cabin, for that matter. My clients did not typically ask me where I was, as long as I was serving them. My clients did not tell me where they were. I did not ask. They did not tell me, and it did not matter in most instances. I remember that, after a lengthy conversation with a client one morning, I suggested that we meet for lunch that afternoon and he said it was a five-hour flight from Hawaii where he was and that would be difficult to do. I did not know and it did not matter. Business was seamless in some sectors.

This was before the pandemic, but the pandemic accelerated the need for us to become more and more digital in the way we do business, and that is why we are here today. We are looking at draft legislation that originated in the Senate, Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code to allow for the use of electronic means, for example, to select a jury and allow jurors to participate in hearings via video conferencing. It would allow us to expand the availability of remote appearances by video conference and/or audio conference, and it would modify case management rules, fingerprinting procedures and the issuing of warrants, such as search warrants, just as examples. There is a long, exhaustive list of what this bill would reform in our judicial system. All of this was born out of the pandemic. None of this is novel and very little of it is controversial.

Conservatives have always supported finding new and innovative ways for government operations to be more efficient and cost-effective, but we must raise some concerns.

For video conferencing to be effective, it must be reliable. We have seen even here in the nation's capital, in Ottawa, where one would think the Internet would be world class, that hybrid meetings often get interrupted because a participant in the meeting, perhaps a witness at a committee, gets frozen or the audio is so bad that our highly qualified and professional interpretation teams cannot make out what is being said. It is one thing if a parliamentary or Senate committee is disrupted because of technological deficiencies, but it is quite another when it is a criminal trial and a person's rights, freedoms and liberties are at stake. We must get it right.

That brings me to reflect on a big challenge we have in Canada, particularly in some parts of this vast country, and that is Internet connectivity. Canada's Conservatives have been calling for an end to the digital divide between urban and rural areas in our country. Every aspect of our 21st-century economy is becoming increasingly dependent on the Internet and, therefore, we must ensure that everyone has access to good, reliable broadband.

Canada's productivity metrics lag those of our main competitor nations, our trading partners. For every $100, for example, that an American worker pumps into the economy, the Canadian counterpart contributes only $67. That is a big productivity gap. The Minister of Finance has acknowledged that gap and on several occasions called it our Achilles heel.

In the recent fall economic statement, she said, “We will continue to invest in tackling the productivity challenge that is Canada’s economic Achilles heel.” Earlier in the year, in delivering her budget, the Minister of Finance had this to say about Canada's lagging productivity. She said, “we are falling behind when it comes to economic productivity.... This is a well-known Canadian problem and an insidious one. It is time for Canada to tackle it.”

I could not agree with that more. It is time for us to tackle our productivity lag, and a good place to start would be to vastly improve our Internet accessibility, not only here in Ottawa, not only in my community of Langley where it is far from perfect in some areas, but across the country and particularly in rural areas. We can talk to any worker, any tradesperson, any health care worker, professional, trucker or teacher. They will all tell us that the best way to improve productivity is to get better tools, and the Internet is anyone's tool these days, including for the legal profession, our criminal justice system and our courts. There is nothing special about courts. They need to conduct business like everyone else.

Getting back to Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code, to improve efficiency in our courts, we want to move them toward greater use of electronic tools in jury selection, in jury participation, in witness appearances and even in the appearances of the accused, when the accused and the Crown both agree. We support these measures, but we must listen to the experts.

In her May 2021 report to the standing committee, our former federal ombudsman for victims of crime, Ms. Heidi Illingworth, had this to say on this specific topic. She said, “many courthouses across [the country] have old infrastructure, and implementing videoconferencing has been a challenge. For some in remote areas, bandwidth and internet access remains an issue.”

Ms. Illingworth was saying this in a study being conducted by the justice committee on formerly Bill C-23. Bill S-4 is almost a mirror image of it. Bill C-23 had the support of all parties, but it got bogged down because the government called an election that nobody wanted and was not necessary. That is for another day.

Ms. Illingworth had this to say in support of increasing the availability of technology. She said, “It is my hope that these measures will help to relieve the pressure on the courts by leveraging video and teleconferencing technologies to help speed up filings and hold hearings in an inclusive and efficient way.”

She was the ombudsman for victims of crime. In that capacity, she had this to say in support of victims. She said, “ensuring access to internet service across Canada would address concerns regarding access to justice for victims of crime during COVID-19, by ensuring that victims have a means to participate in the process should they so choose”, but she also warned, “Unfortunately, not all Canadians have equal access to the internet.”

I am hearing from many people in my home province of British Columbia about how important good access to the Internet is for Pacific economic development, which is something I have a great deal of interest in, but that too is for another day.

Today, I am speaking in support of improving access to justice through Bill S-4. It is a step in the right direction. We will be supporting it. I look forward to a deeper dive into the details of Bill S-4 at committee. I welcome any questions.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the words the member has put on the record regarding Bill S-4. I do not necessarily agree with everything, but I agree with some of it.

We have had a fairly good discussion on Bill S-4 today. I believe a vast majority of us, if not all members, will be voting in favour of the legislation going to committee. I have consistently made reference to the fact that this legislation is before us today because of provincial input and the fact that we are going through COVID, which clearly demonstrates the importance of recognizing technological change and how that change can assist us in the judicial system.

It is important for us to recognize the issue of judicial independence, which goes to my question. It is really encouraging when we pass legislation like this, because of the direct impact. It is also always good to get unanimous support wherever possible, as we saw, for example, with Rona Ambrose's private member's bill, which ultimately became a government bill.

I wonder if the member can provide his thoughts regarding the importance of judicial independence.

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

Madam Speaker, judicial independence is core to our western judicial system. It is core to our whole democratic system. It is core to every part of our society. Of course, we support it. We need to do everything we can to make sure that our judiciary remains independent, particularly from Parliament and politicians.

We appoint judges because we trust that judges are going to make wise decisions, but there still has to be some oversight. That was not the subject of this bill today, but previous debates in the House, like the one earlier this week, were on the Canadian Judicial Council and judges judging judges.

This needs to be done properly and there needs to be lay input, but the bottom line is that politicians should be hands-off.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like to hear what he thinks about a situation that could result from the application of Bill S‑4.

For example, since there is often a shortage not only of judges but also of court rooms, clerks, public servants and constables, we could potentially find ourselves in a situation where a person could get an earlier court date if they decided to have their case heard via video conference, whereas those who chose to have an in-person hearing would have to wait longer.

Ultimately, that would perhaps put pressure on people to proceed via video conference even if they would rather have their case heard in person.

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

Madam Speaker, that is a great question. I believe that the reforms in Bill S-4, if properly implemented, will have the overall effect of speeding up the judicial system and increasing accessibility to it, particularly for remote communities. I believe that all in all, it is a big improvement, but the point is well taken that there have been a lot of delays.

There has been an increase in crime, unfortunately, as we have heard from other speakers on this topic. The best way to speed up the judicial system is to not only have more judges and improve our technology, but also bring crime levels down. There is no easy solution to that, but that must be part of the solution.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, this bill does take a number of positive steps, but I am curious as to why the government left out the recommendation from the justice committee's report on access to justice and legal aid. It called on the federal government to replace the legal aid funds currently included in the Canada social transfer with a specific earmarked legal aid fund for provinces, administered under the Department of Justice Canada's legal aid program. This would help with backlogs and access to justice.

Does the member support this recommendation, and does he agree that the government should have included this in Bill S-4?

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

Madam Speaker, I do not know the details of that proposal, but I can tell the member generally that I am very supportive of more funding for legal aid. I was a lawyer in British Columbia, where legal aid was underfunded. It is so important to speed up the judicial process and make sure that justice is accessible to all people.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make other related amendments. While I have much to say on this bill, I want to briefly talk about some the failures of the Liberal government on crime in general and crime specifically.

Rural crime is a serious issue, and one that has been ignored by the Liberal government for far too long. In my area, in Haliburton County for example, incidents increased from 526 back in 2017 to 758 in 2021. Police are now trying to keep up with more people charged than in any of the previous four years.

The crime severity index, or CSI, is a measure of police-reported crime in which more serious crimes are given a higher weight in the overall measurement of all crimes. The index provides a picture of regional crime trends. In the case of Kawartha Lakes, specifically in Lindsay, the picture is not as good. Like Haliburton County, the CSI numbers for Lindsay in 2021 showed a significant increase compared to previous years. Lindsay's overall CSI was 93.1 last year, which is a jump of more than 20% over 2020, and is significantly higher than the country's CSI of 73.7 and nearly double the province's CSI of 56.21 for the same period.

Kawartha Lakes Police Service Chief Mark Mitchell described the increase as “death by 1,000 cuts”, referring to the lack of murders but an overall increase in other non-violent crimes. He further added, “Our calls for service were up 20% in 2021, our criminal charges were up 25%, break and enters, frauds were all significantly higher, and our theft charges were up 80% compared to the year before and the current year.”

I have spoken with residents who are afraid to walk in their community. They are afraid to basically be inside their own homes. They are frustrated and angry. These concerns came to a boiling point about a year ago at a community meeting I attended that was hosted by the Kawartha Lakes Police Service.

At the meeting, residents learned that the Ross Memorial Hospital's mental health program had already received roughly 1,700 referrals just this year. Concerns were raised about the impact the Central East Correctional Centre is having on the community. The John Howard Society noted the challenge given the number of those who have come to the area to support the incarcerated and those who are released into the community on their own recognizance, bail or after completing their sentence.

The Kawartha Lakes Police Service is doing everything it can, but the government is sadly making its job harder. While it was distressing to hear the first-hand stories shared by many in attendance, it was evident to me that Canada's justice system has failed those law-abiding citizens. Lindsay resident Al Hussey raised concerns about the victims of crime, asking, “When does the support start flowing to us?” He was speaking of the victims of crime such as the residents living next to known drug houses, the business and property owners who are being robbed and the people who are afraid to walk near certain areas of town.

It is true a small number of people are creating a disproportionate amount of work for our law enforcement agencies, the court system, social services and not-for-profit organizations. However, those who continually refuse help and continue to reoffend should not be repeatedly returned to the streets in a revolving door justice system.

A big part of this is linked to the passage of Bill C-75. In 2017, the Liberal government's legislation watered down penalties for over 100 serious crimes, including the use of date rape drugs, human trafficking and impaired driving causing bodily harm. Sadly, the government severely underestimated the heartbreaking impact this decision would have on individuals, communities and families. It is unacceptable that taxpayers are once again being forced to pay more while at the same time receiving a lower quality of life.

Police officers I speak with say that Bill C-75 is the root of much of the issue regarding the catch and release bail concepts through the ladder principle, a principle that instructs justice system actors to release the accused at the earliest opportunity under the least restrictive conditions.

I firmly believe that serious crimes deserve serious penalties. Most importantly, the law should always put the rights of victims and law-abiding citizens above dangerous or reoffending criminals.

It is clear that Bill C-75 has hurt our community. To that end, I recognize that federal lawmakers must make bold changes to our criminal justice system. New methods, such as restorative justice, should be expanded, especially for those who show a desire to be rehabilitated and released as productive members of our society.

This brings me to Bill S-4. It may come as no surprise to anyone listening that the first thing I looked at was how much this bill would impact crime in the communities I represent and how it would impact those victims of crimes. The impetus for this bill is born from the increasing backlog facing the court system here in Canada. I believe we all have stories about that.

The judicial system has been facing a series of delays in cases proceeding to trial, which has been exacerbated by COVID. This is not lost on us here in the official opposition. We have continuously raised concerns about the delays and the potential for criminals to walk free due to the Supreme Court's Jordan decision, which said that no more than 18 months can pass between laying a charge and the end of the trial case in provincial courts or 30 months for cases in superior courts. We have raised our concerns in the House and in the media.

It was the Conservatives who called for a study into the impacts of COVID–19 on the judicial system at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Now Bill S-4 hopes to alleviate this backlog through several initiatives. It will amend the process for peace officers to obtain warrants without appearing in person, will expand the provisions to fingerprint the accused later should fingerprints not previously have been taken at the time of arrest, and will allow the courts to deal with administrative matters for accused persons not represented by lawyers.

Of these provisions I have no issue. Anything to move the process along that does not diminish the rights of the accused persons or victims or brings the justice system into disrepute is a good thing. I expect that these initiatives will be thoroughly examined at committee and perhaps even acted on.

However, I do have concerns, perhaps cautions is a better word, with the remaining provisions in the legislation, particularly around the expansion of the accused's ability to appear remotely by audio or video conference and to allow the participation of prospective jurors in the jury selection process by video conference. I would caution the members at committee to pay particular attention to the rights of victims and those citizens who are doing their duty as jurors.

We must ensure that the anonymity of jurors is protected. Technology has come a long way and the risk that recognition software might compromise jurors and risk the integrity of the trial is a real concern.

We must also take into consideration the impact of the expansion of telecommunication options, particularly when allowing accused persons to call in using a phone, which may impact the healing process for victims and their families. The bill will permit an offender to appear remotely for sentencing purposes. This measure would require the consent of the criminal prosecutor. The court would also weigh the rights of the offender to have a fair public hearing.

Nowhere is the victim asked or required to consent to the offender being allowed to call in for his or her sentence. The balance of rights in the court process is already heavily weighted in favour of the accused and I am afraid that Bill S-4 tips the scale even further.

That reminds me of another failure of the Liberal government, which is the delay in the filling of long vacancies, such as the federal ombudsman for victims of crime. Without that person in place, Bill S-4 will not be critically analyzed by a key advocate for victims to advise on how the bill will impact victims of crime.

Conservatives remain steadfast in our commitment to victims of crime and will ensure that legislation like Bill S-4 helps victims and their families in their pursuit of justice. We will stand up for law-abiding Canadians to ensure communities remain safe places to live and that delays in the court process do not allow criminals to walk free.

With that, I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to give a quick example. A number of Conservatives have stood up and talked about the issue of crime stats, and that brought me back to a day when I was inside the Manitoba legislature. Stephen Harper was Prime Minister at the time, and I raised a question about the record number of car thefts. Manitoba was way above every province in the country. I think in a normal year we would get 3,000, but in that particular year it was 14,000. It was a huge increase, and we found out that a relatively small number of youths were stealing a whole lot of cars. We ended up recognizing that judicial independence is important, but it is also a shared responsibility between the provinces and the federal government. Our municipal governments also play a role.

To deal with crime in that particular issue, once the province and the city got together and developed a plan, along with MPI, Manitoba Public Insurance, they were able to drive down the number of car thefts in the following years. It proved to be very effective.

I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on the idea that when we talk about crime stats, we have to incorporate other jurisdictions to deal with crime.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I accept the fact that there are a number of contributing factors. I also agree with the member that in most cases, especially in the cases I laid out in my speech in my community, it is definitely a small number of people doing a disproportionate number of these crimes. At the end of the day, whether a person is a victim of crime or just a law-abiding citizen who likes to feel safe in their community, we like to see that repeat offenders, especially violent repeat offenders, are not continually rotated back into our community causing this kind of frustration, as I said in my speech about the community meeting where people said they were sick and tired of being revictimized over and over again.

I think there are ways that organizations can work together, and the member opposite laid out a few. I have a few instances in my community where not-for-profits come together and work together to try to help people and rehabilitate those who want the help. We need to look at all facets of this, and I urge the committee that is going to study Bill S-4 to do that.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about increasing the efficiency of the courts and being able to process more cases.

The idea of mandatory minimum sentences is an issue that comes up often in the House. Mandatory minimums had become quite common for certain offences, preventing the parties, crown and defence, from reaching agreements in certain cases because the agreed-upon suggestion would be lower than the mandatory minimum sentence. This forces parties to go to trial and increases backlogs in the courts.

Does my colleague agree with that reality, that is, that it also contributes in some cases to backlogs?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know that my Bloc colleague was a lawyer in a previous life, and I appreciate her input in the discussion today.

I think that looking at as many ways as possible to speed up the judicial system for victims, for those awaiting trial, to either be convicted or cleared, and a whole bunch of other cases in between, is something that should be examined. We have seen massive backlogs, as I mentioned in my speech. COVID was a major contributor, but even before COVID, the backlog in the court system was quite significant. Issues have been raised about that.

I think that there is an opportunity here to have that conversation about what can be done to speed it up, and I look forward to that discussion in the weeks ahead.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I just want to recognize that, for those of us who represent rural and northern areas, the ability for people to access the justice system remotely, as well other systems, is a very serious matter. I wonder if the Conservatives agree that Canadians living in remote and rural areas should have the same access to serving on a jury remotely, as urban Canadians do, to make jury selection.

How important is it, in the member's view, to make access to jury selection as fair as possible, particularly for rural and remote communities?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, rural communities have a number of challenges. I live in one. I represent a rural community, and I know the challenges. There are challenges related to connectivity, but as I mentioned in my speech, there needs to be protection for those applying to be a juror. There are concerns around hacking or facial recognition software, which could be used to identify, so all those considerations need to be taken into account.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton Manning.

I begin my comments regarding Bill S-4 by acknowledging the hard-working and law-abiding citizens of my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

During these challenging economic times and the troubling revelations Canadians are hearing every day in testimony from the Emergencies Act trial, Canadians in my riding and across the country know that I will always defend whomever the target is for this week's two minutes of hate from a Prime Minister who likes to make fun of other cultures by mocking them in their native attire and wearing blackface.

Why is it that whenever the Liberal Party brings forth legislation to change criminal laws or the administration of justice, it is always about protecting criminals, never about the victims or their families? The system is failing everyone. lt is failing victims, it is failing the accused and it is failing everyone working in it.

We have a situation where the public lacks faith in the justice system, and that is what we are beginning to see happen. There is even a call for the Liberal-appointed head of the RCMP to resign. People have lost trust in our public institutions. Everything the government touches breaks. Everything is broken.

Bill S-4 is about technology. Knowing how the government thinks, could Judge Dredd be far behind? The fact is that technology is not a quick fix for what ails the criminal justice system in Canada. The government has all the wrong priorities. For once, the government needs to think about the victims of criminal justice. Someone has to speak for the victims.

Earlier this year, a coroner's inquest was concluded in one of the worst cases of multiple-partner violence in Canadian history. Basil Borutski murdered Anastasia Kuzyk, Nathalie Warmerdam and Carol Culleton in separate incidents on the morning of September 22, 2015, in Renfrew County. Borutski was well known to all of his victims and to police for a long history of violence. He was a dangerous serial offender with a history of beating women. The three grieving families and our entire community relived the horror of that event through the inquest. Borutski went on a violent rampage in the Ottawa Valley on that day and murdered three women: Carol Culleton, Nathalie Warmerdam and Anastasia Kuzyk.

In their verdict, the jurors determined that Culleton, Warmerdam and Kuzyk all died by homicide. Carol Culleton's cause of death was upper airway obstruction, which is a polite way of saying she was choked to death, while Anastasia Kuzyk and Nathalie Warmerdam both died of shotgun wounds to the chest and neck. The violence did not happen without warning. All the women were former intimate partners of Borutski, and the murders were a culmination of abusive behaviour that had been happening for over 40 years.

He was sentenced to life in prison with no eligibility of parole for 70 years. Multiple sentences were to be served concurrently for the multiple murders he committed.

Prior to the law passed by the Conservative government, the maximum sentence for first-degree murder, even when multiple victims were killed, was a life term with no chance of parole for 25 years. The Conservative government law that I was pleased to vote in favour of allowed for parole terms to be stacked on top of one another in cases involving multiple victims. The sentence of serial mass murderer Basil Borutski is an example of a sentence that takes into consideration the severity of the crime. The Supreme Court has since ruled that there can be no more multiple sentences.

Alexandre Bissonnette, the Quebec City mosque shooter who was initially sentenced to 40 years for the murder of six people, had his sentence struck down on appeal. The Supreme Court upheld the appeal and ruled that sentences of that length are cruel and unusual and violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Unless the Liberal government brings in new legislation, the court's ruling will mean the maximum sentence a person can receive for first-degree murder, even in cases of multiple murders, is life with no chance of parole for 25 years. When women are killed because they are women, that is different than first-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter or the general term “homicide”. It sends the wrong message to the courts.

In the case of serial killer Basil Borutski, a violent offender who openly ignored court orders that were part of his probation, he was released anyhow. Bill C-5 is a slap in the face to every woman in Canada by a Prime Minister who is consumed by his own toxic masculinity.

By reducing or eliminating mandatory minimum sentences, a downward pressure on all sentences is exerted, especially in circumstances in which supposedly determinate periods of imprisonment are routinely reduced, halved or more by early release. If a man such as Borutski is released early after a triple murder, what sentence will a mere murder receive?

What does all this mean to the people of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke? In the case of Bill C-5, which was brought to the House instead of the Senate like Bill S-4, Bill C-5 is a radical, left-wing bill that would eliminate mandatory minimum penalties. It sends the wrong message to the community and the families of Carol Culleton, Nathalie Warmerdam and Anastasia Kuzyk, and women who live in fear of domestic violence.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been listening attentively to the speech by the member. I am hearing her talk of Bill C-5 and mandatory minimum penalties. I do not believe any of that is relevant to Bill S-4.

I am wondering what your thoughts are on the relevance of the speech.

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

The member well knows that there is quite a bit of latitude, and the member has made references to Bill S-4. I would hope that, in the three and a half minutes left in the member's speech, she will come back to the subject at hand.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is a recommendation from the inquest for the federal government to explore adding the term “femicide” to the Criminal Code. What do Canadians get? Bill C-5 and Bill S-4. Bill S-4 was so important to the government that it has come before us several times, and the government just lets it lapse on the Order Paper.

Borutski, the eastern Ontario man who was sentenced to life with no chance of parole for 70 years for killing three women in 2015, can now challenge his sentence due to the Supreme Court ruling. Bill S-4 is not going to fix that. Even if he is not granted parole, his victims' families are forced to relive the crime and the loss of their loved ones at regular parole hearings after the 25-year mark. Real justice calls for changes that would prevent such a tragedy from happening again. Tinkering with the system by allowing Zoom into a courtroom is no joke to victims' families, and that is what Bill S-4 is doing.

The coroner's inquest into the deaths of Carol Culleton, Nathalie Warmerdam and Anastasia Kuzyk wrapped up after hearing extensive testimony from victims' families, their counsel, domestic violence experts and advocates. The jury made 86 recommendations based on the inquest. It is important to know about them since part of accountability is our awareness, and demanding that our public institutions do the right thing to prevent intimate partner violence. However, Bill S-4 tinkers with the administration of the court system.

It is time to be more cognizant of what is causing the problems. The first set of recommendations addresses the need for oversight and accountability. These initial recommendations recognize the importance of listening to and learning from victims and survivors, and they emphasize the need to follow up on implementation.

We need to create a survivor advocate position. Understanding that domestic violence victims' experiences with police and the justice system can be difficult, the jury recommended having a survivor advocate to advocate on behalf of survivors when they interact with the justice system.

They wanted to establish an independent intimate partner violence commission. The jury wants a commission to be established, like the one in the U.K., that can be a voice for survivors and victims' families. Local activists agree that an independent commission would help ensure the inquest recommendations are followed through and engage in meaningful consultation. By speaking with intimate partner violence survivors, victims' families and experts in the field, these consultations would determine the responsibilities and direction of the IPV commission and evaluate the effectiveness of existing community supports and prevention strategies, including program funding.

I will conclude my remarks by thanking all those who were involved in the inquest process, including the witnesses who gave their time so generously, along with the women from the anti-violence community in Renfrew county and beyond.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I have the pleasure of sitting with her on the Standing Committee on National Defence, among others.

She spoke at length about victims' rights. We know that victims are generally witnesses, not parties, in criminal hearings. There may be some work to do on this. However, one of the potential positives that could come of Bill S‑4 is a reduction in wait times for cases to be heard. Victims may not have to wait as long to know the outcome of a case.

Would my colleague agree that this is at least a step in the right direction for victims?