Mr. Speaker, I propose it be adopted on division.
House of Commons Hansard #133 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was elections.
House of Commons Hansard #133 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was elections.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Bail and Sentencing Reform Act Members debate the Senate’s amendments to Bill C-14, which targets bail and sentencing reform. Liberals propose adopting specific changes while rejecting others as redundant. Conservatives, including Larry Brock, criticize the government for relaxing surety restrictions. The legislation seeks to enhance public safety and further address repeat violent offenders while maintaining judicial discretion and Charter protections. 4200 words, 25 minutes.
Food and Drugs Act Second reading of Bill C-265. The bill creates a pre-approved list of therapeutic products to streamline special access. Supporters argue it reduces administrative burdens. While cross-party support exists for the objective, the Conservatives seek amendments to ensure safety and prevent drug diversion, while the Bloc emphasizes provincial jurisdiction. The House has referred the proposal for committee review. 7700 words, 1 hour.
Protecting Victims Act Third reading of Bill C-16. The bill strengthens protections against gender-based violence, targeting coercive control and femicide. Conservatives criticize clause 63, fearing it allows judges to bypass mandatory minimums. While supporters emphasize victim support and modern updates, the debate focuses on whether the legislation's judicial discretion creates an inappropriate "get-out-of-jail" card for serious offenders. 8200 words, 2 hours.
Strong and Free Elections Act Report stage of Bill C-25. The bill, titled the strong and free elections act, amends the Canada Elections Act to address foreign interference, disinformation, and AI risks. Government members argue these updates strengthen democratic integrity, while Conservative MPs critique the bill for allegedly failing to close loopholes regarding foreign financing, while also questioning its effectiveness in preventing interference during nomination contests. 3400 words, 1 hour.
Strong and Free Elections Act Third reading of Bill C-25. The bill amends the Canada Elections Act to address ballot flooding and foreign interference. While the government moves to impose time allocation, the Bloc Québécois criticizes the quashing of debate. Conservatives generally support the provisions aimed at election integrity but argue further amendments are necessary to close remaining loopholes regarding foreign funding for third parties. 4200 words, 35 minutes.
Adjournment Debate - Employment Garnett Genuis criticizes the government for ignoring youth unemployment, proposing a plan to unleash the economy, fix immigration, invest in vocational training, and increase housing availability. Jennifer McKelvie defends the government's approach, citing existing investments in summer jobs, skills strategies, and new initiatives for recruiting skilled trade workers. 1300 words.
Bill C-265 Food and Drugs ActPrivate Members' Business
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
I declare the motion carried on division. Accordingly, this bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Health.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
Bill C-265 Food and Drugs ActPrivate Members' Business
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
I believe the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and I suspect you would find unanimous consent for me to be able to present the Questions on the Order Paper and Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers.
Bill C-265 Food and Drugs ActPrivate Members' Business
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnPrivate Members' Business
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1106, 1107, 1108, 1109, 1110, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1115, 1116, 1117, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1122, 1123, 1124, 1125, 1126 and 1127 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnPrivate Members' Business
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnPrivate Members' Business
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnPrivate Members' Business
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.
Motions for PapersPrivate Members' Business
The House resumed from June 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-16, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters (child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures), be read the third time and passed.
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Mr. Speaker, when I was last speaking, I was talking about the irrefutable fact that, since 2015, when the Liberal government took power, we have seen skyrocketing rates of crime.
That is due to some deliberate actions that the government took. I am thinking, specifically, of Bill C-5, which did away with mandatory penalties for serious drug and gun crime and allowed for house arrest for serious offences like arson. It allowed someone to commit a violent crime, even burn down someone's house, and serve their sentence from the comfort of their own home and in the community where they offended.
Bill C-75 was the notorious law that was brought in, which introduced a principle of restraint that has really tied the hands of our system and forced people out on bail who have no business being out on bail. We have seen the results. What are the results? Since 2015, human trafficking has increased by 84%. Sexual assaults are up by 76%. Violent crime is up by almost 55%.
My home province of New Brunswick is not immune to this skyrocketing crime. When I speak to my constituents, there are concerns about violent crime, property crime and all manner of crime that people have seen skyrocket, such as drug-related crime. The numbers are staggering.
The total number of violent crimes in New Brunswick alone is up over 70%. As for total violent firearms offences, this is a government that talks a talk on firearms. The problem is that every measure the Liberals take has been completely ineffective because they target law-abiding citizens, the people who I represent in my riding of Fundy Royal, while completely going soft on hardened criminals.
What is the result? Violent firearms offences are up over 150%. Extortion is up over 300%. Theft of motor vehicle offences are up over 150% since that time.
What they have done with the bill is unfortunate. There is something called a mandatory minimum penalty. It is a penalty in the Criminal Code that says that we, as parliamentarians, recognize that, sometimes, an offence is so grave that it should carry with it a certain minimum amount of time in custody.
There have been mandatory minimum penalties brought in by previous Liberal governments. There have been mandatory minimum penalties brought in by Conservative governments, and which have been constitutionally upheld, but because the Liberal government is so ideologically opposed to Parliament having its say, listening to our constituents and saying that certain crimes deserve to have a mandatory penalty if someone has committed the offence, the Liberals have introduced in the legislation a clause that would allow judges to ignore the mandatory penalty for someone convicted of these serious crimes.
One could look up the definition of “mandatory” in Webster's, but I am pretty sure that allowing someone to ignore a mandatory penalty means it is no longer a mandatory penalty,
What is the result of that? Certain mandatory penalties for offences, many of them considered by the courts and constitutionally upheld, will now be able to be ignored, offences like aggravated sexual assault with a gun, human trafficking, multiple violent firearms offences, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings with restricted or prohibited firearms.
In the Criminal Code, there is a mandatory penalty for someone convicted of those offences. The bill would allow judges to ignore that mandatory penalty when they are sentencing.
I can tell members, having served on the justice committee, that we heard many times about how there has not been a huge increase in the number of criminals in Canada. There has been a very prolific number of criminals who do a great job at what they do. They are committing crimes non-stop because they have a system in which, once they are caught, once the police have done their job and have caught someone, once they have been tried and convicted, they are out on bail, if they are pretrial, and, once convicted, they may be serving their sentence in house arrest.
I will sum up by quoting an individual who appeared at our justice committee. She urged members to restore justice to the justice system. As a victim of crime, she said she does not feel we have a justice system anymore in Canada. She feels we have a legal system, not a justice system. I urge everyone to listen to those words and do our job.
It is, rightly, the job of parliamentarians to say we are the ones who draft the Criminal Code, set out mandatory penalties and maximum and minimum sentences, and distinguish between different offences. There is a tremendous amount of flexibility in the system when the police have discretion and prosecutors have the discretion on whether to proceed by summary conviction or indictment. At the end of the day, we, as parliamentarians, are responsible for the safety of our constituents. We must ensure that our actions illustrate this and that we take strong measures.
I would like at this time to move:
That the debate be now adjourned.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
The question is on the motion.
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.
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
I declare the motion defeated.
Resuming debate.
I would remind members that Standing Order 17 requires members to rise in their place in order to be recognized by the Chair. Standing Order 17 provides for only three exceptions to that rule.
The hon. member for Moncton—Dieppe.
Ginette Petitpas Taylor Liberal Moncton—Dieppe, NB
Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of that standing order.
Before I get started, I would like to take a moment to say that I will be sharing my time with the member of Parliament for Pickering—Brooklin.
I, too, would like to take a moment to offer my support to the member for Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata. I wish him a speedy recovery and send my best wishes to him and his family during this very difficult time.
I rise today not just as a parliamentarian, but as someone who has spent over two decades on the front lines as a social worker working with victims of crime. Before I ever walked the halls of this House, I walked the halls of RCMP detachments, emergency shelters, local hospitals, etc. I sat in cramped interview rooms. I held the hands of women shivering in police station lobbies at all hours of the day and night.
At the time, before entering politics, I was a frontline social worker with the Codiac Regional RCMP in Moncton, New Brunswick. Part of my job as a victim services coordinator was providing assistance and guidance to those dealing with very difficult situations. We provided crisis support and crisis intervention, and also ensured that victims and family members were aware of their rights and what they had to expect. I know first-hand what intimate partner violence looks like before it becomes a file on a prosecutor's desk. I also know what it looks like before it becomes a statistic in a report. Because of that lived experience, that professional experience, I stand here today to speak about Bill C-16, the protecting victims act.
When we look at this bill, we see legal text. We see legal jargon. We see clauses and so on, but as a former social worker, when I read this bill, I see the names and faces of people I worked with over the years. I see Jacqueline, which is not her real name, who was a former client of mine. She never had a black eye, never had a bruise and never had broken bones, but her husband controlled her vehicle keys, monitored how many kilometres she drove, monitored her phone location every second of the day, and also decided when she could sleep and when she could not. Under the current framework, it was agonizingly difficult to get the criminal justice system to intervene in her case, because the terror she lived under did not leave physical marks. This is why Bill C-16 is so vitally important.
The first pillar of Bill C-16 is the criminalization of coercive control. For too long, our legal system has viewed intimate partner violence as a series of isolated physical incidents. Frontline workers know the truth. As a client told me in the past, “Abuse is a continuous pattern of trapping a human being almost in an invisible cage.” By formally defining and penalizing coercive control, this bill would finally align Canadian laws with the psychological reality of intimate partner violence. Elevating intimate partner violence and femicide to first-degree murder reflects the grim truth that these tragedies are rarely sudden crimes of passion; they are predictable and escalated conclusions of long-term patterns of control within relationships.
We must also look at the structural changes this bill proposes. As someone who has accompanied survivors and also many family members through the gruelling court process, I know that delays are often a secondary victimization. When cases are thrown out due to the Jordan framework, a victim is left entirely unprotected, looking over her shoulder and feeling abandoned by the criminal justice system. Modifying these rules to prevent administrative breakdowns from collapsing an intimate partner violence prosecution is a vital step forward.
However, my background also forces me to look at this legislation with a critical and pragmatic eye. Bill C-16 reintroduces mandatory minimum sentences. Through a strictly political lens, we might see this as just being a tough-on-crime approach, but through a frontline social worker lens, I asked myself what this actually does to victims. In my years of practice, I saw many, many victims refuse to call the police because they feared the absolute destruction of their family's economic survival. If a victim knows that a call to police automatically triggers a mandatory multi-year prison sentence, they may choose silence instead of making a complaint.
The inclusion of the safety valves allowing judges discretion in exceptional circumstances, and I stress “exceptional”, is not a weakness of this bill. To the contrary, I would argue, it ensures that we punish perpetrators without inadvertently forcing vulnerable victims deeper into the shadows.
We also need to acknowledge that the nature of abuse has mutated over the years. When I began my career, many years ago, as a social worker, we worried back then about landlines. We worried about letters being sent and physical stalking, or, as we refer to it now, criminal harassment. Today, however, abusers use technology as a weapon of absolute humiliation of their victims. Provisions in Bill C‑16 address AI‑generated deepfakes and digital exploitation of minors. These are not futuristic hypotheticals. They are happening right now. Abusers are creating non-consensual, synthetically generated, explicit images to ruin a victim's career, destroy their custody cases and shatter their mental health. Our laws must evolve as fast as the technology that is used to inflict this cruelty.
Bill C‑16 is a powerful, overdue evolution of our justice system. It validates what social workers, shelter staff and victims have been saying for decades: that abuse is systematic, that psychological abuse is dangerous and that our courts must be modern, efficient and compassionate.
In closing, I would be remiss if I did not highlight the wonderful services that exist within my community in Moncton, New Brunswick. First and foremost, I have to give a shout-out to our local shelter, called Crossroads for Women, and Renée and all of her team there. Crossroads for Women has been in operation for more than four decades now. It provides emergency shelter for victims who are fleeing domestic violence. It also provides a 24‑hour crisis line for those who need support. It also provides supportive housing and services for those facing not only intimate partner violence, but also sexual violence. Let us not forget our youth in these situations. The shelter also provides child and youth support services. If we want this intergenerational cycle to cease, we have to make sure that we provide services to the young who are exposed to this. Again, I want to give a big shout‑out to our local shelter.
As well, we have another great organization, which started off just a few years ago, called Shelter Movers, in my town. Shelter Movers is just that: When victims are fleeing domestic violence and they need someone to go to their home and provide them with moving and storage services for their furniture, or whatever they need, we have volunteers who are called within our community. They may be called out at any hour during the day and night, and they provide that service free of charge. Again, hats off to them.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not speak about the Beausejour Family Crisis Resource Centre. Again, this is a wonderful organization that provides shelter and counselling services to those in need. As well, within the province of New Brunswick, they provide justice facility dogs for those who have to appear in court or those who have to meet, perhaps, with a police officer and are feeling anxiety. These facility dogs will accompany them either in the courts or in the interview rooms. It has made a huge difference for many victims within my community. Again, I have to give a shout-out to them and their team at the Beausejour Family Crisis Resource Centre. Kristal, Chantal and all of the team provide tremendous work, and for that I am very grateful.
Finally, if there are any survivors who are watching us this evening, I want to encourage them, if ever they need any help or support in the province of New Brunswick, to call 211. This is a free information and referral service that provides needed information to those who are fleeing difficult situations.
Let us not forget the 988 service that our federal government put in place just a few years ago. Again, if any folks in the entire country need any mental health supports, those essential services are there to help them along the way.
Again, with respect to Bill C‑16, this is a wonderful step forward in making sure that we are there to support victims. I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the House to support this bill and move it forward as quickly as possible.
Rob Morrison Conservative Columbia—Kootenay—Southern Rockies, BC
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member, whom I have worked with. I appreciate victim services, after being in the RCMP for 35 years. I am thankful for what she has done.
My question goes back to the issue of mandatory minimum penalties for individuals who commit crimes. Do you think there is enough accountability in our Supreme Court justices? Can we hold them to account so they will actually put people in jail who need to go there for those minimum penalties? I think we are a little bit weak on that.
I just wonder if the hon. member, whom I loved working with, could answer that question, please.