Debates of Sept. 24th, 2024

Alleged Violation of Standing Order 116 at Standing Committee on Public Accounts

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am going to interrupt the hon. member. If the parliamentary secretary has something to add, he can do so under another point of order.

The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest has the floor.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, when I called the question, the member indicated a desire to speak. I said the question had been called. I was not in a position to grant that. I explained that her only option was to challenge the chair, which she did, as is the right of any member. My ruling was upheld by the committee and we proceeded to the vote.

I am not going to comment on the hon. member's motivation for coming to the House like this, but I will just highlight to our Speaker and members that my job as chair is twofold; it is to respect the rights of all members at committee and ensure everyone has the opportunity to speak, but it is also to move business along in a manner that respects the rights of all members. I did that yesterday and certainly stand by my decision.

I hope the Speaker and the desk officers, if necessary, will speak to the committee clerk, since I indicated that this member did not catch my eye or the eye of the clerk of the House of Commons public accounts committee.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I thank the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest for his contribution to this point of order that was raised yesterday.

The information he has provided will be taken under advisement, and we will be getting back to the House at some point soon with a response.

The House resumed from February 26 consideration of Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another Act (interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders), as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, we have just finished debate in the House on a Conservative motion of non-confidence in the government. After nine years, so many Canadians are suffering as a result of the failures and frankly, in many cases the malicious failures, of the government that have undermined our national well-being and our social cohesion, as well as had a devastating impact on our economy.

I am looking forward to voting non-confidence in the government tomorrow. Tomorrow's vote will be a clear indication of where members stand. It will show which members of the House stand with the government and allow the government to continue, and which members of the House want to replace the government and give the Canadian people a chance to decide.

Our Conservative priorities are clear. We would like to bring Canadians a carbon tax election and present our proposals for axing the tax, building the homes, fixing the budget and stopping the crime.

Now we are debating Bill S-205, a Conservative private member's bill that seeks to advance our agenda of stopping the crime. It is a Conservative bill that would combat domestic violence by creating expanded measures for electronic monitoring. When I addressed the House about the bill last time, I noted that the bill would create a mechanism whereby a judge could mandate that a perpetrator would wear an electronic monitoring device, and also that victims would be consulted in the process of judges' making decisions about the kinds of orders that apply to perpetrators.

In giving judges additional tools for facilitating the monitoring of perpetrators, the bill is simply common sense and would provide additional protection and confidence for victims. It is a bill that would facilitate accountability for criminals and a greater degree of security for victims.

Sadly, the Liberal response to Bill S-205 follows a familiar pattern. When it comes to violence in general and domestic violence in particular, we hear plenty of words of solidarity from Liberal politicians. The Liberals are eager to verbally express that they care about people who are victims of domestic violence, yet when it comes to voting on measures that would actually make a concrete difference in making people safe, they back away. In fact they put forward amendments at committee and supported amendments at committee that have weakened the bill substantially.

Here at report stage, Conservatives are proposing to reverse the acts of vandalism to the good bill before us that happened at committee. We want to restore the bill such that it would live up to what was proposed and what was passed by the Senate to protect victims of crime. It is sad to see that, despite how members of all parties make statements opposing violence against women, when it comes to actually supporting measures that would meaningfully impact that reality, Conservatives are often standing alone. Certainly, we are trying to build coalitions in this place, without the support of the government, to advance the important legislation before us.

I am very proud to speak in support of the bill, vote in support of the proposals from my colleagues that would reverse the damage done to the bill at committee, and allow Bill S-205 to pass and do the work that it is supposed to do to effectively stop crime, combat domestic violence in this country and give women a greater sense of security that those people who commit acts of violence against them would be held accountable.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to speak to my private member's bill, Bill S-205. It is a very important bill.

When researching the bill, I found out that one woman is murdered every 48 hours in Canada. In fact, last year, 205 women were murdered in Canada, and we know that about 60% of murdered women in Canada were murdered by their intimate partner. This bill looks to address that. It looks to provide additional measures to protect women.

I would just like to say off the bat that we know it is not exclusively women who are victims of intimate partner violence. Men can be as well. However, overwhelmingly, we know that it is women who are victimized and abused by their intimate partners, as well as their children. This bill aims to provide additional protections for them with more tools in the tool box to save their lives and the lives of their children.

Unfortunately, through the democratic process, we saw some unfortunate moves from the NDP, the Bloc and, notably, the Liberals at the committee stage, where they gutted a lot of very important provisions in this bill to protect women. I am going to get into that in a moment.

Before I do, and before I talk a bit more about the details of the bill, I do want to thank the original creator of this bill, Senator Boisvenu, who recently retired from the Senate. This bill originated in the Senate, and I was honoured to be asked to sponsor it in this place.

Senator Boisvenu has an extraordinary story in very tragic and victorious ways. His entire career has been dedicated to safeguarding women, fighting against domestic violence and providing more security tools for women who have been victims of intimate partner violence. It was inspired by his own daughter, who was kidnapped in a parking lot and murdered by a stranger. She would have been in her twenties at that time.

As a mother now, I cannot imagine what that would have been like for a parent. It is one of the more inspiring things I have heard of since being elected as a member of Parliament, that someone turned a horrific tragedy into the motivation to protect all women across Canada. He worked tirelessly throughout his Senate career to do that, and I thank him very sincerely for his courage and hard work on this. It is truly inspiring, as an elected official, to see that. It reminds us that we can really make a big difference in this place.

I also want to thank the incredible member for Peterborough—Kawartha. In my absence in the last year after I had a baby, she shepherded the bill through committee and fought valiantly against what the Liberals and the other parties were looking to do to water it down. She did an incredible job. In fact, she has moved amendments in the House that we will vote on in the coming days. We are trying to convince everybody to put the bill back into its original form. It was stronger and provided more protections for women and victims. It was tougher on their abusers. We are looking to do that, so I thank her very much for her initiative to put forward those amendments to return it to its original stronger form. I thank her very much for her hard work.

What this bill has been left with is still very important. It is about peace bonds in particular. For those who do not know what a peace bond is, I will briefly tell them. They are sort of like restraining orders. A lot of people are familiar with that term. However, peace bonds are criminal court orders often related to the safety of property or of an individual, whereas restraining orders are non-criminal court orders often related to custody and family court issues. They are similar, but different.

Bill S-205 would allow for a peace bond to be imposed if a victim demonstrates a reasonable fear of domestic violence. A number of conditions could be added to those peace bonds. This would allow a justice, the court process and prosecutors to ask for things such as therapy for the abuser as part of the peace bond. They could also ask that those with a peace bond cannot go to certain places or have to stay within a certain area. They may have to abstain from communication with the victim, or abstain from drug and alcohol consumption.

Most notably, it would provide the option within the peace bond to wear an electronic monitoring bracelet. These really have come a long way in recent years. We are seeing in Quebec, which was one of the first to institute some of these, that it has had great success in the protection of women who have been victims of domestic violence. The abuser wears the bracelet. It has a GPS in it, which is connected to their former intimate partner's phone. If he or she, but notably he, comes within a certain distance of the person they had victimized, an alert centre would be notified and would immediately call that abuser to tell them that it is time to back off because they are getting a little close. If the abuser does not co-operate, or if there is a reason to believe that it is too tense of a situation and that it needs to send the police right away, it would do so.

It provides an alert system so that people can be informed of what is going on. Women can be alerted if they are in fear of their lives or if an individual is coming close. It involves a route for police to be sent directly to where an individual is and provides a barrier of protection. It is another tool in the tool box.

This bill has been isolated to peace bonds, which is very good. I am excited to see it pass, as it will save lives. However, in its original form from the Senate, it was much more broad. Justices would have had the option to apply electronic monitoring bracelets to anyone who was getting bail, which was key. It would have been a monumental milestone to have that in the Criminal Code, particularly for those who have been victims of domestic violence and intimate partner violence. Notably, intimidation, breaking and entering, and being unlawfully in a dwelling or house, those kinds of things, could have triggered a justice to make someone on bail wear an electronic monitoring bracelet. It would have given them another checklist option, whereas now it is not front and centre for justices in those scenarios.

We know about this from Senator Boisvenu and the research he has done. In particular for intimidation, breaking and entering, and being unlawfully in a house, when physical contact of an assault has not occurred but a relationship has become a tense situation, a woman could decide to seek legal help to get a peace bond or make a request through the court process for an electric monitoring bracelet. That opportunity could tip off justices that there are precursors to domestic violence, and they could institute a monitor on an individual. That was the key part missed at committee.

We recently passed something called Keira's law, which we all supported. It was a very important law. For those who are not familiar with what happened to Keira, it is a devastating story, and it is wonderful that this place came together and passed something important. It was a good bill. Some argued that the bills were similar and did the same thing, but that is not entirely accurate. In fact, Keira's law was much more narrow. Although it was still very good, the original bill was going to have much broader impacts that considered all of the different violations of our law that occur in the scope of domestic violence, leading up to it in particular.

It is quite disappointing that something that would have provided a broader scope was so limited at the committee stage. This was the status of women committee, so it was surprising and bizarre to see it being gutted piece by piece by members of the committee. I read through all the testimony, and I am still scratching my head over why they would weaken protections for victims of intimate partner violence and their children. Perhaps they will respond to clarify, because nothing has been clear in everything that I have seen communicated from them. It has been very disappointing.

They gutted another provision as well. This one was really wild. There was a provision in the bill, right at the beginning, of paramount importance saying that victims would have to be consulted on their safety and security needs. During the process, a justice would have had to consult the prosecutor to see whether the victim had anything else they should know about so they could implement related protections for her. That was completely tossed out. Having a victims' rights option in there to have her voice heard on what she needs would have been required. We know there are a lot of problems in our judicial system about victims not being consulted, but that was gutted as well. It is interesting, because with Keira's law, the victim's stepfather supported that provision.

Lastly, just to conclude, the original bill also made a peace bond last two to three years. It takes a lot of effort and courage to get peace bonds, and 12 months, especially for mothers, goes by quickly so they have to keep going back. We could have had a two- or three-year option for women. Now they would have to go back every 12 months. That was gutted by the Liberals.

It is deeply disappointing to see them prioritizing the abuser over the victim. We worked so hard to get this bill here. I would urge them to please consider our amendments. There are women's lives at stake. Let us do this together. Let us pass the strongest bill possible. Let us do it for women.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is another issue that should not be hijacked by partisanship.

I rise today to speak to a bill that is important for women who are victims of domestic violence. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill S‑205. This is bill is consistent with the initiatives that have strengthened the justice and policing systems to address domestic violence. Gender-based violence is a scourge, and we believe that this bill is a step in the right direction for achieving this goal. To follow on the work we did in committee, we are maintaining our support for Bill S‑205. The Bloc Québécois' position is consistent with the initiatives that seek to strengthen the mechanisms to better align the justice system with public safety, particularly to ensure better protection for victims of domestic violence.

I will give an overview of this bill and then talk a bit about parole and the reservations we have. I will close by talking about the progress made in Quebec on this matter.

First, I too would like to acknowledge Conservative Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, who appeared before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

Essentially, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Criminal Code to require a judge who is making a decision on the interim release of an accused person to ensure that the prosecutor has consulted the informant about their security needs. The bill would allow the judge to order the wearing of a monitoring device, commonly known as an electronic monitoring bracelet, when the prosecutor so requests. The purpose of the bill is to make it easier for the victim to obtain a copy of the order against the accused, and it requires the judge to ask the prosecutor whether the victim has been informed of the order. The bill also seeks to allow victims to lay an information before a judge about their abuser, if they have reasonable grounds to fear for their physical safety or that of their child. If the fear is justified, the judge may order the defendant to enter into a recognizance under threat of imprisonment.

The bill also gives the judge the authority to set the conditions for a good behaviour recognizance by imposing such things as psychosocial follow-up, relocation to a geographic area other than that of the informant, the obligation to refrain from going to a specified place and the obligation to refrain from communicating directly or indirectly with a child, the informant, the informant's child or any relative or close friend of the informant. The bill also allows the judge to prohibit the abuser from using social media and consuming drugs, alcohol or other intoxicants and to require that they provide a sample to check compliance with this condition. The bill also permits the informant to provide submissions in writing to the judge regarding the conditions of the recognizance to be set by the judge.

Bill S-205 has three main components: the obligation to consult the victim before making a conditional release order; the addition of the concept of domestic violence, allowing a victim to apply to have the accused enter into a recognizance to keep the peace under the infamous section 810 of the Criminal Code; and the preponderance of the victim's version of events, which could influence the choice of conditions the defendant will be subject to under the recognizance.

Bill S‑205 broadens the scope of section 810 of the Criminal Code, which empowers the court to order the defendant to enter into a recognizance to be of good behaviour if the victim fears that the defendant will cause personal injury to them, their child or their intimate partner or damage to their property. The bill adds relatives, close friends and other people who may be targeted to that list.

Let us not forget that release, with or without conditions, allows an accused person to be released into the community while awaiting trial. In Quebec and Canada, criminal law and penal law must punish crime and protect the public. With femicide and domestic violence on the rise, it is important to strengthen mechanisms for protecting victims, their children and their loved ones. Modernizing the Criminal Code is an essential part of that, and that is exactly what Bill S‑205 does.

The Criminal Code sets out the conditions under which it would be justified to detain an accused person pending trial. The decision to detain a person awaiting trial depends on a number of factors specific to each situation. When it is in the public interest to detain an accused person, it is important to remember that the accused is deprived of the exercise of fundamental rights. These include the presumption of innocence and the right to life, liberty and security of the person.

Allowing the victim to be more involved in the legal process is a welcome improvement that the Bloc Québécois can support unreservedly. Victims should not have to fight for justice to be served. The bill will help reduce the obstacles that victims might encounter and that might dissuade them from taking the brave step of filing a complaint against their abuser. There might be gaps in the bill that could compromise certain fundamental rights, like the requirement to provide biological samples to prove that the defendant has not breached a recognizance to be of good behaviour.

We supported the amendment made in committee to clause 1, which deals with the criminal history of a violent intimate partner. The amendment excludes cases of limitation and focuses only on whether the person has already been convicted, regardless of which crime they have been charged with. This has the effect of covering a broader range of offences for the benefit of the victim. The same goes for the list of amendments in clause 2, which clarifies the legal definition of partners and their children, who are included in the risk assessment and the protections granted. For most of these amendments, it is a matter of aligning the amendment with the relevant section of the Criminal Code, as it currently stands. We heard that in committee from experts.

We are in favour of the amendments dealing with specialized services for first nations, although all citizens should be entitled to the best support services available. However, we are not in favour of reducing the maximum time the judge can order the defendant to be of good behaviour from 2 years to 12 months. I still do not understand why this amendment was made at committee. In recent news, we have seen that spouses can act years later, motivated by revenge. Finally, we are in favour of the new clause 10.1 proposed by the committee. It includes the new amendments to the Criminal Code regarding firearms and all other types of weapons. This new section allows the judge to determine whether to prohibit the defendant from possessing any firearm, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, crossbow and prohibited device, for example.

In spite of our reservations regarding the bill as a whole, the Bloc Québécois will support it because it is commendable and seeks to make our communities safer, which is a net benefit for all Quebeckers. A sense of security within communities reinforces a nation's well-being. If passed, these legislative changes will represent an added value for victims, including female victims of domestic or sexual violence. The justice system has to be more effective in general and more transparent, not least to facilitate the legal process and ease the long-term effects on victims or their family, especially when a decision is made about releasing the assailant. It also strengthens public trust in the justice system so that no other victim of a crime will hesitate to report it to the police. This is still a problem in 2024—victims are still reluctant to come forward and report their abusers.

Quebec is one of the most progressive nations when it comes to protecting victims of family and domestic violence. In fact, Quebec's department of public safety launched a Quebec-wide electronic monitoring device pilot project. In December 2022, more than 650 offenders on parole were fitted with such a device. Let us not forget that these are people being prosecuted for offences for which they could be sentenced to incarceration in a Quebec prison. Federal offenders were not subject to the same conditions. It is time to settle this discrepancy and make sure that all inmates released from prison are subject to the same restrictions.

Statistics show that femicide and domestic violence are on the rise. Between 2009 and 2019, there was an increase of 7.5%. The updated statistics are chilling, particularly the ones released by Statistics Canada this summer. In Quebec alone, 14 femicides occurred in 2024, and eight of those women were killed by their partner or former partner. The first femicide took place in the riding of Shefford. I would like to once again offer my condolences to the victim's loved ones, whom I had the opportunity to meet during a difficult time this summer. They decided to turn their tragic experience into something positive by organizing an event to help raise funds for Maison Alice-Desmarais, a shelter for women fleeing domestic violence. The shelter is located in Granby.

As I was saying, the situation is now catastrophic. It is imperative that we use this solution, which may not be perfect but is still the best solution. As we know, electronic bracelets with geolocation save lives. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to help reverse this disturbing trend. The reality on the ground highlights the shortcomings of the status quo that prevails in the justice system. Many victims continue to fear their abuser, even when that individual is in custody. We can only applaud an initiative that seeks to improve the victim's experience of the justice system throughout the process, starting from the moment she decides to file a complaint. I would like to point out that Quebec elected officials produced a non-partisan report entitled “Rebâtir la confiance”, or rebuilding trust. Politics were set aside to tackle this problem. I say bravo for the specialized courts and the electronic monitoring bracelets.

In closing, the Bloc Québécois will stand up for women who are victims of domestic violence. Even one victim is one too many. Several communities have declared femicide an epidemic. We need to take action. I want to say one last thing. Last Friday, I marched with the Coalition des groupes de femmes de la Haute-Yamaska et de Brome-Missisquoi and many other groups from across Quebec. I was deeply moved to be joining those women once again this year.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am rising to join tonight's debate on Bill S-205, a Senate public bill that is now before the House after a very long journey. It has gone through the Senate, and it is now before us for report stage and third reading. I believe we will come to the consequential votes of this particular bill tomorrow. Recently, of course, it has gone through six meetings at the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women. It finds itself here via former senator Pierre‑Hugues Boisvenu and is now being sponsored here in the House by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

I also want to recognize another member, my NDP colleague the member for Winnipeg Centre, who is a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Not only in her own riding but indeed right across this country, she has been a stalwart champion for women and for raising these particular issues. I know that our entire caucus is extremely proud of the work she does on this issue every day. We are certainly very grateful for the work she did as our caucus member of that standing committee so the House could consider the committee's work on the bill that is before us today.

Intimate partner violence is absolutely a national crisis, and we know that the statistics outline that in very stark ways. We know that about every six days, a woman in Canada is killed by her intimate partner. That statistic is very troubling to me personally, being a father of three daughters.

We know that globally, before COVID, one in three women experienced some form of intimate partner violence. We know that the rates are highest in households that are low-income and indigenous. There has been a surge in recent years in gender-based violence, including intimate partner violence. We know that the number of cases for women and girls in Canada involving a male accused increased by 27% in 2022 compared to before the pandemic in 2019. We know that in recognition of the massive surge of violence, the aforementioned Standing Committee on the Status of Women just recently undertook a study into this very important and concerning issue.

We know that the situation is dire. In several Canadian cities, places like Ottawa, where the House of Commons is located; Toronto; and Kitchener, this is recognized as an epidemic.

There is a role, of course, for us as federal legislators and for the federal government. We have jurisdiction over how the Criminal Code is structured, and indeed the bill before us has some important amendments to it. We cannot alone legislate ourselves out of the problem. It is worth repeating here, as many of my colleagues have consistently done, that the current Liberal government has implemented only two of the 231 calls for justice from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.

In my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, there is a relatively high indigenous population. From speaking with many female indigenous members of my community, I know that this is a particularly galling statistic and one that they take great issue with. They feel that they are not being seen and that their personal circumstances are not rating high enough for the government's attention.

I also want to take some time to recognize the organizations that are working on the ground in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. There is the Cowichan Women Against Violence Society, which works from a feminist perspective to provide a supportive environment primarily to women and children who have been impacted by violence. It is there to support diversity, change, choice and growth through counselling, advocacy, emergency shelter services, community development and education. There is also the Victoria Women's Transition House, which has been supporting and advocating for women since 1974. That organization is active in the southern part of my riding, in the great city of Langford.

When we turn to Bill S-205, there are a number of elements. I do want to recognize that the bill is not in the same form as when the Senate handed it over to the House of Commons. I know that following those six meetings at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, a number of amendments were made to the bill, and I know we have some report stage amendments before us. We will, as a House, be deciding on the final form that we eventually want to have.

Some notable elements in the bill include mentions of the use of electronic monitoring devices, and I think some of the biggest parts of the bill deal with the recognizance orders that could be put in place for survivors of intimate partner violence, which would allow judges to impose conditions on these or for a domestic counselling program.

If we were to delve into the bill and look at those recognizance orders, first of all, there are a lot of different examples in the bill. It should be noted that the overall purpose would be to prevent serious harm by imposing conditions on a person, which can ultimately restrict their behaviour or their movement and essentially be a barrier the court could impose to reduce the risk of them committing a future offence.

We have to go back to section 810 of the Criminal Code to find existing provisions, and this bill would add some amendments to those particular sections. For example, there could be an order to attend a treatment program, to remain within a specified geographic area, to wear an electronic monitoring device so the person's whereabouts are known at all times, to abstain from communicating, to refrain from using social media or to abstain from the consumption of drugs and alcohol. Again, these all could vary based on the facts of the case before the court.

I want to thank the member for Winnipeg Centre for her hard work. We, as a caucus, will continue to support this bill. We believe that through the provisions in this bill, the legislative changes would be of benefit to survivors of intimate partner violence. It would provide some of the legislative guardrails that are necessary.

However, we are not going to legislate ourselves out of this problem. This is one piece of the puzzle that we as legislators can have a positive impact on, but we have a responsibility as a society to act swiftly and decisively to prevent and eliminate intimate partner violence and to support survivors. Bill S-205, on balance, would be a step in the right direction, but I think many people who are listening to this debate and who have that lived experience would agree with me that the work is far from over. We certainly must keep this issue top of mind.

With that, I will conclude my remarks. I appreciate being able to speak to this particular issue on behalf of my constituents.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I am also here to speak to Bill S-205, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another act regarding interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders.

Bill S-205 proposes amendments to the bail and peace bond provisions of the Criminal Code and the Youth Criminal Justice Act to address intimate partner violence, a cause that all of us in the House should be seized with. I will start by thanking the Standing Committee on the Status of Women for their work on the bill. The committee looked carefully at Bill S-205 and identified ways to strengthen it while maintaining the original spirit of the legislation. I also want to recognize the contributions and expertise of the witnesses, all of whom shared their diverse perspectives, which were often of a deeply personal nature.

Bill S-205 has two main components, bail and peace bonds, and I will touch on each of these in turn, starting with bail. Bill S-205, as passed by the Senate, proposed four changes to the Criminal Code related to bail. First, the bill would have required a justice, before making a bail order for an offence involving intimate partner violence, to ask the prosecutor whether the intimate partner of the accused had been consulted about their safety and security needs.

The committee voted in favour of removing this proposal because it would have been duplicative of existing bail provisions. Moreover, it could have had the unintended consequence of endangering victims. Under this proposal, victims could have had details about their safety needs revealed to an audience, potentially including the accused, in court. This goes against protecting their security. Victim support services are better positioned to discuss safety and security needs with the victim in a more private setting, without the accused present.

Second, Bill S-205 would have required bail courts to consider imposing a condition that the accused wear an electronic monitoring device, for any offence charged, at the request of the Crown. This provision was removed from the bill because, under section 515 of the Criminal Code, it is already possible to impose electronic monitoring. Explicitly adding it as an optional condition could result in it being routinely imposed, even where it is not warranted. Most importantly, this provision was removed because it runs counter to the approach of Bill C-233, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act regarding violence against an intimate partner, which received royal assent on April 27, 2023.

Bill C-233 ensures that electronic monitoring is specifically considered as a bail condition in cases of intimate partner violence. This tailored approach is crucial. It signals to judges that intimate partner violence is a crime for which electronic monitoring may be especially successful in protecting victims. If we had extended this condition to all offences, intimate partner violence would no longer be singled out for special consideration from judges. Our government supports the tailored approach of Bill C-233 to best protect women and other victims of intimate partner violence.

Third, Bill S-205 proposed amending the reverse onus bail provisions in section 515 of the Criminal Code. A reverse onus is where the accused must demonstrate that they should be released instead of the burden of proof being on the prosecutor to demonstrate that they should be detained. The proposed change would expand the existing intimate partner violence reverse onus for bail to apply not only to accused individuals who were previously convicted but also to those who were previously discharged on an intimate partner violence offence. This amendment remains in the bill and is identical to a change our government made in Bill C-48, which passed last year after receiving unanimous support in the House.

Finally, Bill S-205 would require the justice to ask the prosecutor if the victim has been informed of their right to have a copy of the bail order after a decision on bail has been made. I support this measure to improve transparency in the justice system and enhance victims' access to information.

Moving on to the peace bond regime, Bill S-205 would create a new peace bond focused on preventing domestic violence, which is understood as violence directed at an intimate partner or child of either partner. Peace bonds are entirely separate from criminal punishment or sentencing. They can be sought when there is a reasonable fear that a crime may occur, and they are designed to prevent crimes from taking place. The committee adopted several amendments to the peace bond proposed in Bill S-205, to strengthen the original intent of the bill.

For example, Bill S‑205 proposed that the defendant's intimate partner be allowed to apply for a recognizance to keep the peace. This approach differs from existing recognizance to keep the peace provisions in the Criminal Code, which allow a person other than a person who may be a victim of the alleged offence, such as a police officer or a family member, to apply for the recognizance on their behalf.

The committee's amendments would ensure that the new domestic violence peace bond could be brought forward by someone on behalf of a person who fears that a crime will occur, as is the current practice for other peace bond regimes. I am somewhat surprised to see amendments from my Conservative colleagues to restrict this back to only the victims. This seems counterintuitive to a victim-centric approach.

The committee also made several amendments to ensure that the duration, conditions and procedures of the new recognizance to keep the peace provision are consistent with similar existing recognizance provisions in the Criminal Code.

For example, in the new provision, the maximum duration of the recognizance to keep the peace would be 12 months, or two years if there is a prior conviction, which is consistent with recognizance to keep the peace provisions that apply to organized crime, forced marriages, serious personal injury offences and sexual offences against a minor. Similarly, the maximum term of imprisonment for failure to sign a recognizance to keep the peace would be 12 months in order to align with all other recognizance to keep the peace provisions in the Criminal Code.

Bill S-205 also proposes conditions that could be imposed on a defendant in a peace bond. The committee made several changes to the list of conditions proposed, which included removing the condition requiring the defendant to refrain from using social media.

It is important to point out that peace bond conditions are not intended to be punitive, but preventative, and they are to be tailored to a specific threat. The use of social media could be interpreted broadly by the courts to include things such as job searches or shopping for second-hand furniture. While some uses of social media may be linked to a specific threat posed by the defendant, in many cases it may not be, yet breaching the condition would still be considered a criminal offence. Moreover, defendants in a peace bond would already be prohibited from contacting in any way or stalking the person who sought the peace bond, so the social media prohibition is not necessary for protection.

Next, I will speak to the peace bond condition that would require the defendant to refrain from going to specified places, such as the home or work of the intimate partner. This is essential to ensure the safety and security of the victim and is often the main reason for seeking a peace bond order.

The committee voted to expand this condition to further prohibit the defendant from going within a specified distance of a place to allow for the imposition of a radius within which the accused would be prohibited from going. For example, the condition could provide that the defendant must not go within 500 meters of the victim's home to prevent stalking behaviour, such as sitting in a car outside the victim's residence. I would support this amendment, which would strengthen the existing protections for victims of intimate partner violence. My colleagues across the way also appear to want to repeal this amendment, which I am of the firm belief gives stronger protection to victims.

The last amendment I want to talk about was proposed as a result of an NDP motion to allow an alternative to the peace bond process when the informant or the defendant is indigenous. Under this change, the judge must determine whether it would be appropriate, instead of ordering a recognizance to keep the peace, to recommend that indigenous support services be provided if available. The purpose of this amendment is to address the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system by allowing the use of alternative justice methods for healing. I support this change.

To conclude, Bill S‑205 makes targeted but important changes to criminal law to better address domestic violence.

I urge all members to support the bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue has five minutes for his right of reply.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, many women helped create Bill S‑205 by joining forces and working hard. I want to pay tribute to these women and their resilience. Their insights and hard work have led to the tabling of this legislation before us which seeks to strengthen the Criminal Code and to put in place preventive safety measures called interim release at the beginning of the legal process, when a woman decides to report the violence she has experienced.

I rise in the House to speak to a bill that proposes a solution to the issues that affect thousands of victims of domestic violence by providing them with the protection and supports they desperately need to regain their safety and dignity. Bill S‑205 invites us to reflect on the fate of victims who have come to testify about how their domestic violence complaints were dealt with at the reporting stage by the police, as well as the entire process dedicated to such complaints.

I would especially like to talk about victims of sexual assault in sports, because over the past two years, as I reviewed the accounts of several athletes who were victims of violence and abuse, I realized to my great dismay how the system does not do justice to the victims. In routine court proceedings, lawyers agree on a number of things, such as a publication ban on the identity of the victim, a witness or a stakeholder in the justice system, even before the trial begins. What about the victim's right to lift the ban? One of the first things I noticed was how little opportunity there is in the system to consult with victims who are subject to a publication ban. That issue was pointed out by the people at My Voice, My Choice, whom I salute.

I rose several times in the House with the hope that the Prime Minister would open an independent, public inquiry into the sports and that this would highlight the absurdity of the mechanisms chosen to address violence and sexual assault, as well as the need to better protect our athletes and children. Why are athletes in vulnerable or power imbalance situations treated differently, outside the courts? That is a debate we should take the time to get into in the House.

When Rick Westhead's article came out, were it not for my intervention in the House and for the motion on Hockey Canada being adopted unanimously, what would have happened in the now high profile case of the alleged victim of gang rape by Hockey Canada players? Sport Canada was informed in June 2018, but did nothing. The chief of the London police apologized for not getting to the bottom of things at the time, and I could list everything the victim went through. The system allowed for the imposition of a non-disclosure agreement—or her silence in exchange for monetary compensation. Two years of work at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and public pressure help put this case back on track, where it should have been from the start. The victim, in this case, could apply to have the publication ban lifted at any time during the trial, when she feels safe enough to do so.

I see the similarities with Bill S‑205. We must give victims back the power to decide whether or not to be informed. We should not be making decisions for them. We must give them tools to ensure they have some sense of safety, such as requiring the alleged abuser to wear an electronic device if they are released on bail. We must take the time to do the right thing and implement preventive safety measures. What do we know about “peace bonds”, often referred to as “810s” in legal jargon? We know the system uses them too often, and perhaps too quickly. Here again, we are confronted with that reality in each and every case that is reported in the newspapers. Orders issued under section 810 of the Criminal Code and the amount of red tape involved in filing complaints too often result in victims withdrawing their complaint.

I want to talk about indigenous women because, in rereading the testimony heard in the Senate, and given my role in connection to indigenous relations, I paid close attention to testimony from the Native Women's Association of Canada, represented by Sarah Niman, the organization's legal counsel. I would like to echo those voices. I am addressing my colleagues with a deep concern for indigenous women who, when they experience violence, are often abandoned by a system that is supposed to protect them. Too often, when an indigenous woman finds the courage to ask for help, she is confronted with a system that turns its back on her.

Instead of protecting her, the Criminal Code allows the abuser to remain free and keep hurting her while we wait for a solution to be found. The wait can seem endless at times, however. It is unacceptable that the safety of an indigenous woman should depend on her ability to persuade others of her worth and her right to protection.

That is why we must support Bill S‑205. This bill is far more than a piece of legislation. It is the promise of justice. It seeks to redefine our approach to violence against indigenous women by putting their safety and security at the heart of the legal process. Bill S‑205 not only creates specific intervention for indigenous women, it establishes a framework that will allow them to be seen, heard and respected in a system that too often ignores them.

This bill puts the criminal justice system under an obligation to consider the safety of victims at every stage, from the initial request for assistance until the end of the proceedings. The time has come to give victims a voice and restore their power to choose a path to justice. By supporting this bill, we are taking a decisive step toward a more just society where every woman, no matter her background, deserves to be safe and protected.

We are in favour of the amendments on specialized services for first nations, even though all citizens should be entitled to the best support services available. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of most of the measures set out in Bill S‑205. Allowing victims to be more involved in the legal process that concerns them is a good step forward that the Bloc Québécois can fully support. Victims should not have to go to great lengths to seek justice. The bill helps to reduce the obstacles that victims may face and that may dissuade them from courageously pursuing their complaint against their abuser.

We support the amendment made in committee to clause 1, pertaining to the criminal record of a violent intimate partner. The same goes for the list of amendments to clause 2 to clarify the legal definition of partners and the children of partners and include them in the risk assessment and the protections that are granted. We are opposed to reducing the maximum period of good behaviour from two years to 12 months. Finally, the committee improved the bill with a provision that enables judges to decide whether to prohibit the accused from possessing prohibited and restricted firearms, prohibited devices and crossbows.

Quebec is recognized as one of the most progressive nations when it comes to protecting victims of family violence. It has rolled out some promising initiatives, including electronic monitoring devices that help keep victims safer by restricting the movements of abusers. As of December 2022, more than 850 offenders had already been fitted with these devices. However, we know that challenges remain. The same protections do not apply to persons convicted at the federal level. It is imperative to standardize the conditions of release for all abusers so that all victims are kept safe, free from discrimination or distinction.

The legislative changes we are proposing will genuinely benefit victims, especially women affected by domestic or sexual violence. We need to make our justice system more efficient and more transparent. This requires clear and timely decisions regarding the release of abusers. However, it also demands greater awareness, so that all victims can report crimes without fear.

The numbers are chilling. The Quebec government's report on rebuilding trust noted an alarming 7.5% increase in femicide and domestic violence between 2009 and 2019. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to reverse this worrying trend. The reality on the ground demonstrates that many victims continue to live in fear of their abuser, even when he or she is in custody. This is unacceptable. It is essential to create an environment in which victims feel supported, listened to and protected. That is our duty.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 to 12.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 98, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, September 25, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 2 to 12.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Public Services and Procurement

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

Madam Speaker, at a time when our country is facing historic challenges, Canadians are facing the doubling costs of everything. Food price inflation is at record highs. The cost of rent has doubled. The cost of mortgages has doubled. Even the needed down payment has doubled.

Today, common-sense Conservatives put forward a motion calling for a carbon tax election, declaring that we have lost confidence in the government. That loss of confidence is born out of what we have heard from Canadians, who are struggling. They cannot afford to eat. They cannot afford to buy a home. They cannot afford to rent a home. They can nary afford a tent to live in. Tent encampments are increasing in size in communities across this country. There is desperation from Canadians.

It was not like this before. What has changed? One thing that has changed is that the government has decided to put its friends first and help its friends line their pockets while Canadians are lined up at food banks. There are incredible examples, like the $21 billion that the NDP-Liberal government spent on outside consultants last year, on their buddies at McKinsey and their buddies at GC Strategies with the $60-million arrive scam scandal.

The Liberals are lining the pockets of their friends with wanton disregard for the effects that their inflationary spending is having on Canadians. They like to talk about all of the help they are going to give to Canadians sometime in the future. However, Canadians would not need the scale of rescue that the government proposes if it were not for the injury being caused by that same NDP-Liberal government.

Inflationary spending, corruption and grift are what we have seen after nine years of the NDP-Liberals, and it is Canadians who are paying the price, not just through the cost of servicing the debt that has been racked up, but also with the lack of available funds to take care of what matters most to Canadians. That says nothing of the fact that the Liberals' carbon tax on everything does nothing to help our environment, but drives up the price of absolutely everything. They want to see it raised to over 60¢ a litre. It is a tax on the farmer who grows the food, the trucker who moves it, the grocer who sells it, the food processors and of course the Canadians who buy it.

It is economic vandalism after nine years of these NDP-Liberals, and Canadians need relief. Why will the government not just give Canadians a carbon tax election so they can decide?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, I find the member opposite's speech and question a bit melodramatic, but he is known for that in this House.

As the hon. member is aware, the CBSA initiated an internal investigation as soon as there were allegations of inappropriate contracting practices. The matter was also referred to the RCMP for investigation. Contracts with three companies involved, including GC Strategies, have also been suspended through a stop work order from Public Services and Procurement Canada.

We expect procurement processes to be followed properly, and anyone who does not follow contracting rules will face appropriate consequences. This has been and will always be the case. The procurement ombud's and the Auditor General's reports have identified unacceptable gaps in management processes, roles and controls. Some recommendations have already been implemented and the CBSA is taking further action to ensure practices are aligned with policies and meet the expectations of Canadians. The government is taking steps to ensure that all departments are better positioned to undertake projects of this nature in the future.

Regarding ongoing investigations into alleged misconduct, the RCMP is assessing all available information, including the Auditor General's performance audit report, and will take appropriate action. To protect the integrity of the investigation, the RCMP will not be providing any further information at this time. We know that a pillar of our democracy is to have independent police services and there should be no interference in the RCMP's investigation. I can also confirm that the president of the CBSA similarly referred allegations of misconduct received in 2022 to its professional integrity division, which has been actively working on its administrative investigation since then, and which has also referred the allegations to the RCMP.

This government remains committed to act on the findings of all audits, reviews and investigations.

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

Madam Speaker, I think that Canadians will find that response to be wholesale inadequate.

I will take a minute to say that I want to wish my mom a very happy birthday. It is her 71st birthday today. I had the delight to have breakfast with her this morning. It is because of my mom that I have such a strong interest in our wonderful country, standing up for what is so important, and accountability and affordability. These are things that are crucial to Canadians and are values that were instilled in me by my wonderful mom.

I just want to ask the parliamentary secretary: Will the Liberals just give Canadians a carbon tax election so they can decide on having a government that will bring home an affordable country?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will say “no” as a direct answer to the member's question, but I will offer to sing “happy birthday” to his mom if he so chooses. I do wish the member's mother a happy birthday as I have wished my mother a happy birthday fairly recently. She is a bit older than the member opposite's mom, but taught me the same values of accountability and affordability, those principles that I hold dear.

I agree with the member that we need to hold our institutions accountable and our public servants accountable. We need to hold ourselves accountable. I understand that we take the concerns that the member has raised very seriously.

This government is committed to transparency and accountability. We acknowledge that the procurement ombud's and the Auditor General's reports have identified gaps in management processes, rules and controls at the CBSA and we have acted through numerous ways that I have detailed in my longer response. Transparency in the management of these processes is paramount.

Finance

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to a question I raised in the House back in the spring session, shortly after the budget was delivered, when the government issued more debt and extended the debt it was going to visit upon Canadians.

I asked that because the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions talked about follow-on risks of the added debt the government was bringing into the financial equation for Canadians. Those follow-on risks include things such as stress in the mortgage insurance industry, investment portfolio risk, asset management risk and insurance risk. These are things the government does not have its eye on when it loads on more and more money. It keeps extending the balance sheet, not just to the government, but also its Crown corporations.

The Bank of Canada's balance sheet is expanding its liabilities, and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is expanding its balance sheet with more liabilities. This is more risk for Canadians. That risk is borne in higher costs throughout the financial system and Canadians eventually bear that. They bear that because the government manages Canadians' money and pulls the money in. It is no wonder the government is raising taxes because there are more bills to pay. The primary part of the bill, of course, is ever-rising interest on the debt that they are incurring. This is a house of cards.

At the time, I stated that the finance minister needed to redo the budget because, frankly, it was not delivering for Canadians. The government is spending way beyond our means and loading a whole bunch of burden onto future Canadian taxpayers. At that point in time, the parliamentary secretary's response to me was that it is a hard time for Canadians, but then tried to blame rising mortgage costs on Conservatives, as if we have been in government causing all of this mayhem in the Canadian financial system.

I am going to go back to what the Prime Minister said years ago when he talked about the Canadian government taking on a whole bunch of debt so Canadians do not have to. The issue is that both have happened. The government's debt-to-GDP ratio is now 107%. It is referenced in the International Monetary Fund's own disclosure documents, which I referred to last week in a previous session. That amount is excessive, and we recognize how high that is. However, the parliamentary secretary tried to tell me last week that it is only 40%. It was, frankly, misinformation. It is in the government's own documents and exists nowhere else in the world. Government debt in Canada is 107% of our GDP. Liberals can reference that, and Canadians can reference that any time they want.

If we add to that the Canadian debt that is held by the public, that is about 102% of GDP. If the government debt, all in, is $2.1 trillion, counting both provincial and federal debt, and the Canadian consumer debt is about $2.5 trillion, we are talking about a massive 209% minimum debt-to-GDP ratio in this country. There is no other country in the world, frankly, with such an offside both on the consumer side and on the government side. This whole thing about issuing debt for the benefit of Canadians, when the government is also incurring a whole bunch of debt, is only layering on. I will get back to the cost of this.

I would like to hear what my colleague across the way has to say about how the Liberals are going to manage this debt and get things under control.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, our government continues to manage Canada's public finances responsibly. I know the member opposite seems to disagree with that, but he should remember that our debt service costs are the lowest in the G7 when compared to GDP, as 0.6% of GDP is the cost to service the national debt. Also, contrary to what the member has said, the International Monetary Fund has rated Canada number one in the world in terms of budget balance and also gives Canada a number one ranking in the G7, expecting the largest GDP growth in 2025.

In fact, Canada has done fairly well in the grand scheme of things. The COVID-19 pandemic had a massive impact on the world economy. There were lots of losses of revenue and lots of interruptions to supply chains. It was one of the biggest economic dips one could see, probably at least in the last 100 years. We have recovered quite quickly from that, which is good news for Canadians. Our government is quite proud of our record of support to Canadians during that time, which has allowed us to recover quickly.

Some of that debt, obviously, Canada now services, but at a much lower rate and with a AAA credit rating, which we have maintained. We also know that Canada is leading the G7 in achieving a soft landing from the postpandemic surge in inflation and high interest rates. The Bank of Canada was the first central bank in the G7 to cut interest rates since the recent global hiking cycle, first to cut it twice and first to cut it a third time.

This is something I think all Canadians should recognize. Certainly the member opposite should admit that it is a very positive sign for Canada's recovery postpandemic that we are the first country to do three rate cuts with our central bank. The Bank of Canada has said that Canada's budget has stuck to its fiscal guardrails that were set out in last year's fall economic statement, and that was exactly why inflationary pressures were alleviated from the economy. It said the government managed its resources in such a way as to ensure that those interest rates could start to come down faster.

This is helping people who have a mortgage coming up for renewal. It is helping people with variable rate mortgages immediately. It is helping people looking to buy a first home. This is helping business owners from coast to coast to coast who may be carrying debt. Interest rates are falling because inflation has come down. It has come down for many months in a row, from over 8% to now 2%, which is right at the Bank of Canada's target rate.

This is really good news for Canadians. Things are looking up. Canada's economy is recovering. I know that the member opposite and I can debate fiercely, but I think the facts speak for themselves. Even our Parliamentary Budget Officer recently came out with a report that showcased that Canada could spend over $40 billion more per year. That is not the intention of this government, of course, but it was interesting to hear the Parliamentary Budget Officer say there is actually fiscal room there. To hear these independent experts actually say that our government has—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Calgary Centre.