Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.
This is a profound moment for me. This is the first time I have been able to rise on my own private member's bill, as in within both the first and second hours. In the last Parliament, we had Bill C-291, which changed the name from “child pornography” to “child sexual abuse and exploitation material”. I drafted that bill and worked through it with the member who now represents Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, but this being a bill that I both drafted and am hoping to usher through the House, it is very meaningful.
I want to acknowledge a few people: Karen, who is Bailey's mom, and Carrie Wiebe, who suffered in the attack that took Bailey McCourt's life. I also want to acknowledge that we have several members of Bailey's family here in Ottawa. We are not allowed to point people out, so I will not, but at the end of the day, Bailey's father, her stepmom and her aunt are all present. I thank all of these people, whom I will collectively refer to as “Bailey's family”. I thank them all for their support and offer them my deepest condolences for what they have endured.
I thank the member for Lethbridge, the member for Oshawa and the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, who rose on very short notice.
In my last two or three minutes, I want to address something. I had a good conversation with my colleague from Spadina—Harbourfront. I am quite frustrated with some of the talking points the government has put out, and here is why. We hear things like, “This bill sounds tough on crime, but it is not, because of issues with defence.” When it comes to the murder provisions, that is about sentencing. Self-defence operates at the trial level, so if there is a valid self-defence claim, that occurs at trial, and the claim is either accepted or rejected by a judge or jury. If it is rejected, then there is a conviction.
In the current case, if there is a murder charge, the current state of law would mean that if self-defence is rejected, a person is liable for second-degree murder. When members say things like, “This could complicate it,” it actually does not complicate it at all. Self-defence is a trial issue that is a decision for a judge and jury. What this would do is impact the sentencing.
I get very frustrated when I hear these things. I could point out so many things. The member for Victoria wrote to a constituent with words almost identical to the ones we heard. I was incredibly frustrated by reading that.
Somebody I want to acknowledge is Kelly Favreau, who was with My Voice, My Choice and is now with a group called Beyond the Verdict, which advocates. Her work is so tremendous on this. What a tremendous supporter she is. We come from opposite sides of the political spectrum, but we are united on protecting victims of intimate partner violence.
I will say this very clearly: If there is an issue whereby intimate partners who are abused may be liable for self-defence, then we as the House have to address it now. If there is an issue whereby the law would compel somebody to be found guilty of second-degree murder, then I challenge the House to address it right now, because that has been the state of the law for decades. Why are we not addressing that? I am happy to address it. Frankly, I will lead the charge to address that. Nobody wants to see a battered spouse who is acting in self-defence serve a life sentence.
I am optimistic and hopeful today. I am open to amendments. I would like to acknowledge the fact that this has been, in the last few weeks, a very collaborative exercise. I have met with the Minister of Justice with members of Bailey's family. I know other people in Bailey's family have also had time with the Minister of Justice.
I really hope we can get this through as a united House, to protect intimate partners and take one small step towards ending the very large scourge of intimate partner violence.