Randeep Sarai

[Criminal Code, November 20th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the third reading debate on Bill C-75, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to other acts. I intend to focus my remarks on sentencing-related issues.

At the outset, it is important to address the continuing criticism by the opposition that hybridizing all straight indictable offences punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment or less—to allow the Crown to proceed by summary conviction in appropriate cases—would minimize the seriousness of these offences. These concerns reflect a lack of trust of the judiciary and Crown prosecutors, who already make these decisions every day. They also represent a profound misunderstanding of what Bill C-75 aims to achieve by reclassifying certain offences.

The proposal to hybridize offences is procedural in nature and is intended to allow prosecution by summary conviction of conduct that currently does not result in a sentence of more than two years. For instance, it is a mischaracterization of the reclassification amendments to assert that by hybridizing section 467.11 of the Criminal Code, i.e., participation in activities of a criminal organization, Bill C-75 is sending a message not to take organized crime offences seriously.

The proposed amendment simply recognizes that this offence can, by virtue of the range of conduct captured, include circumstances where an appropriate sentence falls within the summary conviction range. Proceeding summarily in these circumstances allows for more expeditious proceedings without undermining public safety or impacting the sentence ranges for this offence.

In fact, in 2011-2012 there were 49 guilty verdicts entered pursuant to section 467.11 of the Criminal Code. Of these 49 cases, only 34 were given a custodial sentence. Of those, one received one month or less, six received between one month and three months, 10 received between three months and six months, nine received from six months to 12 months, four received from 12 months to 24 months and the four remaining received a custodial sentence of 24 months or more.

At the time these sentences were imposed, section 467.11 of the Criminal Code was a straight indictable offence, and yet the overwhelming majority of sentences imposed were in the summary conviction range, including 15 non-custodial sentences. It is clear that keeping section 467.11 of the Criminal Code as a straight indictable offence would not in any way prevent the Crown, in appropriate cases, from seeking a non-custodial sentence or a sentence of imprisonment that is in the summary conviction range.

Let me be clear. There is absolutely nothing in Bill C-75 that would suggest to prosecutors and courts that hybridizing offences should result in their seeking or awarding lower sentences than what is currently sought or awarded under the law. Prosecutors would continue to assess the facts of each case and the circumstances relating to the offender and previously decided cases in order to determine which type of sentence they should seek. Sentencing judges would continue to impose sentences proportionate to the severity of the crime and the degree of responsibility of the offender, as mandated by the fundamental principle of sentencing in section 718.1 of the Criminal Code.

The misapprehensions about the proposed reclassification amendments also unnecessarily detract from other notable reforms. For example, the bill proposes to toughen criminal laws in the context of intimate partner violence, IPV, thereby increasing public safety and enhancing victim safety.

Bill C-75 includes a proposal that would impose a reverse onus at bail for an accused charged with an intimate violence offence if the accused has a prior conviction for violence against an intimate partner, regardless of whether it is the same partner, a former partner or a dating partner. In this context, to enhance the safety of victims of this type of violence, the accused, not the prosecutor, would have to justify their release to the court and the public. What this means is that the presumption that the accused should be released pending trial no longer applies

This proposal is targeted and reflects what we know about the heightened risk of safety that victims of intimate partner violence face. Victims of intimate partner violence tend to experience multiple victimizations before reporting it to the authorities or police. Based on Statistics Canada data from 2014, 17% of victims of spousal violence indicated that they had been abused by their current or former partner on more than 10 occasions.

I understand that one of the criticisms raised at committee was that the reverse onus could be problematic in jurisdictions where dual charging occurs, a practice whereby both partners are criminally charged, sometimes because self-defence on the part of the victim is confused with assault. I also understand that it is often not the law that is the problem in this context, but how it is applied.

Dual charging is an operational issue that provinces and territories have been addressing through the development and implementation of training and policies. For example, in March 2016, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police released the document “National Framework for Collaborative Police Action on Intimate Partner Violence”, which addresses dual charging and provides guidance for cases where charges against a victim are being contemplated.

Knowing that the research shows that victims are at an increased risk of violence in the aftermath of reporting to police, especially in cases where there is an ongoing history of violence in the relationship, I am confident that the reverse onus proposed here is carefully tailored to address the concerns raised.

Bill C-75 would also require courts to consider whether an accused is charged with an IPV offence prior to making a decision to release or detain the accused during a bail hearing. In addition, Bill C-75 would clarify that strangulation, choking and suffocation are elevated forms of assault and would also define "intimate partner" for all Criminal Code purposes, clarifying that it includes a current or former spouse, a common-law partner, as well as dating partners.

Moreover, Bill C-75 proposes a sentencing amendment to clarify that the current sentencing provisions which treat abuse against a spouse or common-law partner as an aggravating factor apply to both current and former spouses, common-law partners and dating partners. What is more, Bill C-75 would also allow prosecutors the possibility of seeking a higher maximum penalty in cases involving a repeat intimate partner violence offender.

I think we can all agree that allowing for the imposition of higher than the applicable maximum penalty in cases of repeat intimate partner violence offenders is a concrete example of Parliament sending a clear message to prosecutors and the courts that repeat intimate partner violence offenders should receive strong denunciatory sentences.

In these cases, where the Crown serves notice under section 727 of the Criminal Code that a higher maximum penalty is sought, a sentencing court would be given additional discretion to impose a sentence that exceeds the otherwise applicable maximum penalty. This will better reflect the severity of the conduct in question and assist courts in imposing sentences that better protect victims.

I urge all members to support this very comprehensive legislation which will reduce delays and make the criminal justice system more efficient and effective on the basis of evidence and not ideology.

[1984 Anti-Sikh Riots, October 31st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, today we remember the day, in 1984, when riots took place on the streets of Delhi and numerous other cities across India. Organized mobs in the city killed thousands of innocent Sikhs only because of the choice of their faith. Sikh homes were identified, tagged and systemically targeted. Mobs came out, women were raped, men were burned by having tires placed on them and lighted, and children were killed for simply having unshorn hair. It is a memory that haunts Sikhs every day. Thirty-four years later, we still await justice for those women, widows and orphans.

Canadians stand with the Sikhs of India and demand justice for the victims. Our prayers are forever with them, and we will never forget.

[Sikh Heritage Month Act, October 30th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, Sikhs first came to this great country in 1897. Today there are over half a million Sikhs in Canada, making up approximately 1.5% of the population.

The story of this bill began in 1897, with Risaldar Major Kesur Singh, of the British Indian Army, landing on the shores of this great land. Kesur Singh and his fellow Sikh soldiers were in awe of this land's abundance and beauty, so when they went back, they told their families and friends, and a few years later, Sikhs started to migrate and settle in Abbotsford, working in the forestry and agriculture sectors.

By 1906, there were 1,500 Sikhs in Canada. They faced many challenges: the anti-Oriental riots of 1907, a push to have them moved to British Honduras, legislation to prohibit them from owning property, and not being allowed to vote, and the list goes on.

ln 1914, the Kamagata Maru landed in Burrard Inlet with 376 passengers, 340 of whom were Sikhs. They were ordered to leave, and when they returned, 19 were shot and killed. However, they were not to be deterred. They worked hard and pushed for the right to vote. They built communities, gurdwaras and industry.

They joined the Canadian army, beginning with Private Buckam Singh, who served in the 20th Canadian Infantry in Flanders. Private Singh was one of approximately 10 Sikh Canadians who served in the Canadian army during the Great War. He was wounded on the battlefield and sent back home to Kitchener after he contracted tuberculosis. He would later pass away and be buried there. Every year on Remembrance Day, Sikhs in Kitchener-Waterloo go to his grave for a special ceremony.

ln 1943, the Khalsa Diwan Society, the first Sikh society in Canada, sent a 12-person delegation to seek the right to vote in Canada, and by 1947, they had received that right, thanks to the society. Though many officials tried to thwart their efforts to strive, specifically the likes of William Hopkinson, and two Sikh pioneers, Bhai Bhag Singh and Bhai Battan Singh, even lost their lives to his manipulative and racist actions, the Sikh pioneers continued to push ahead.

Sikhs in Canada have always had a passion to build institutes and co-operatives to help their communities succeed but at the same time preserve and cherish their faith, language and culture. In fact, they are the most visible of visible minorities, sporting steel bracelets, turbans and beards.

Besides gurdwaras, they founded the Guru Nanak Mining and Trust Company, in 1909, in Lions Bay, West Vancouver, under the guidance of Professor Teja Singh. Today there is a Khalsa Credit Union, with almost half a billion dollars in assets, and there are more than a dozen Sikh private schools, including the Khalsa School, the Sikh Academy Elementary School, the Guru Angad Dev Elementary School and the Gobind Sarvar School, to name a few. They have built their own non-profit crematoriums, including the Riverside Funeral Home and Crematorium, to help with the funeral rites of Sikh and Hindu Canadians. They have built free kitchens, feeding thousands daily in their gurdwaras from coast to coast to coast and also through Guru Nanak's Free Kitchen on the Downtown Eastside.

This bill is about the story of my family and many like myself. ln 1959, my father, Mohan Singh Sarai, immigrated to Canada, settled in Abbotsford, worked in the sawmill industry and bought a small farm. He loved this country and sponsored my mother, Amrik Kaur Sarai, in 1967. Subsequently, my whole immediate and most of my extended family made Canada home. Sarais, Bains, Randahawas, Bahais and Dosanjhs all made Canada their home. However, none of this would be possible, including me being here today, if it was not for the pioneers who first settled, who fought for basic labour and voter rights, and who cleared the path for equal opportunities for all Canadians.

Members may wonder why we need these heritage months. Why celebrate diversity and the cultures and faiths that call Canada home? It is because that is what Canada is all about. I think Canada is this way because of our indigenous peoples. Our first nations welcomed all to this great land, even though the thanks and gratitude were not always as such. They shared this abundant land's bounty and beauty, and although there have been times when Canada has not kept up to that reputation, the pendulum always swings back because of these elders and their values. Therefore, on behalf of Sikh Canadians, I want to thank all the indigenous nations of this great country who welcomed us and allowed us to be who we are and celebrate our diversity.

The bill will mark April as Sikh heritage month. This will mark a month which for Sikhs is so important. It will commemorate Vaisakhi, the day the Khalsa was initiated, a day on which hundreds of thousands walk the streets of Surrey, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg and Toronto, singing hymns, sharing food and recognizing the human race as one, the freedom to worship as we please and social justice as a human right.

The bill will commemorate the Sikhs in Canada whether it is Private Buckam Singh; or industrialists Asa Singh Johal and Suneet Singh Tuli; or farmers like Rashpal Sing Dhilon; or women like pioneers Harnaam Kaur or Justice Shergill; or policing firsts like Inspector Baltej Singh Dhillon; or judicial firsts like Wally Oppal; or political firsts like Dr. Gulzar Cheema, the Hon. Herb Dhaliwal and Moe Sihota; or journalists like Belle Puri and Simi Sara; or athletes like Arjan Bhullar, Robin Bawa and David Sidoo; or our comedians, Lilly Singh and Jus Reign. All of these are just a sprinkle of the thousands who have contributed to the beautiful fabric of this land.

It is equally imperative that we recognize many of the lawmakers who really changed the way Canada saw its immigrants and diverse cultures. Notably the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau and the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien, who implemented the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the policy of multiculturalism. If it were not for these two key bills, we would not be tabling and debating this bill today.

Let us celebrate the achievements of Sikhs in Canada and leave stories for our children.

[Suminder Singh, October 15th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, last week, Surrey lost an exceptional teacher in a tragic car accident. Suminder Singh, known as Mr. Singh by his students, was an exceptional teacher, mentor and musician. His impact on his students and fellow teachers at Tamanawis Secondary was profound. He was the head of the math department, an award-winning teacher, and on weekends, an amazing tabla player. He lived a very disciplined, graceful and elegant life. He taught, he served, he sang, and in between he worked out.

This Saturday, thousands of students and teachers arranged a vigil in his honour, shared stories of how he made math relatable, how his door was always open and how he extracted the best of his students. He will be deeply missed by his friends, students and colleagues. We know we will continue to see him through his three beautiful children Jeevan, Jodhan and Kiran. I miss my friend.

[Divorce Act, October 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation would reduce poverty by simplifying and streamlining processes related to family support. It would allow for the release of CRA information to help enforce family support, i.e., income information from T1s, which otherwise would have to be voluntary or a court order would be made for it.

The bill would allow for the implementation of the 2007 Hague child support convention, which provides a low-cost and efficient way for people to get family services across international borders.

The combination of those four would have a great impact on making the process more efficient and more cost-preventive for families.

[Divorce Act, October 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is going to help a lot. Litigation can be long and cumbersome. It can also involve different departments. There can be child protection arrangements that have certain contact orders. There can be criminal proceedings. Sometimes other family members are also involved where others have no-contact orders or stay-away orders or restrictive contact orders. Previously, the two did not marry in court and the family judge would not necessarily know of the other arrangements. With this legislation, the judge would have access to those.

They would not have to make special applications to have them heard or brought into court. A judge would have all the data available, all the orders available, regardless of the level of court or the jurisdiction of the court or the type of proceeding that it was made in. That facilitates the best interests of the child, the safety and security of the parent, and gives clarity so that judges do not make contradictory orders not knowing other aspects of the arrangement.

[Divorce Act, October 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I am not privy to that. I will look into that and will get back to the member opposite in due course.

[Divorce Act, October 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Willowdale.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-78 and the significant contribution it would make to addressing family violence.

The Chief Public Health Officer of Canada has identified family violence as an important public health issue, recognizing that the effects of family violence go well beyond physical injury and can have long-lasting impacts on mental health.

In 2014, 13% of individuals who were separated or divorced and who had been in contact with their former partners within the last five years reported being victims of spousal violence. While we have no solid statistics on the number of family law cases where family violence is a factor, estimates from court file reviews and surveys of lawyers and judges range anywhere from 8% to 25%, yet, the Divorce Act currently makes no mention of family violence or how it is relevant to parenting matters. Bill C-78 would take concrete steps to address this gap.

There are marked differences in the severity and the violence that men and women experience. In 2014, women were twice as likely as men to report being sexually assaulted, beaten, choked or threatened with a gun or knife. In contrast, men were three and a half times more likely to report being kicked, bitten or hit.

We also cannot forget that children can be directly and indirectly affected by family violence and that the exposure to family violence often comes with direct abuse against the child. In 2014, 70% of adults who reported having witnessed parental violence as children also reported being victims of childhood physical and/or sexual abuse. Children who witnessed that violence were also more than twice as likely to experience the most severe forms of physical abuse compared to those who had not witnessed violence.

Children can be negatively and deeply harmed emotionally when they are exposed to family violence, whether it is from seeing the violence take place or bruises on a parent. Emotional and behavioural problems and even post-traumatic stress disorder can be a serious effect.

Despite all we know about family violence, myths about it remain. There are two myths that I would like to highlight today.

The first myth about family violence, particularly intimate partner violence, is that if a survivor has not reported to the police, then the violence did not happen or it was not serious. Statistics Canada tells us that only 19% of survivors report violence to police. Some do not report violence to police out of fear of not being believed and/or that calling the police may escalate the violence. Certain vulnerable communities also have mistrust for the police.

Despite these fears, survivors may choose to start family law proceedings in order to protect their children, whether they reported violence to the police or not. In some cases, starting a family law proceeding can increase the risk of violence. Leading family violence researcher Linda Neilson notes, “Family law cases involving domestic violence are not necessarily less serious or less dangerous than criminal cases. Indeed some are more dangerous.”

The other myth is that intimate partner violence ends after separation. In fact, separation can actually increase the risk of family violence, and it often persists long after the relationship has ended.

In 2014, 41% of those who experienced family violence by an ex-spouse reported that it occurred after the break-up. In just under half of those cases, about 48%, the violence took place at least six months after the separation. Very worrying is the fact that in almost half of those cases where violence occurred after the separation, it increased in severity.

Bill C-78 includes a number of measures to strengthen the family justice system's response to the unfortunate case of family violence.

First, we must realize that when a family is in crisis, it is possible that various aspects of the justice system may be involved, such as the criminal, civil protection or child protection proceedings, in addition to divorce proceedings. Unfortunately, however, the divorce courts are often not aware of other proceedings or orders that may have been made. This lack of information about other proceedings can lead to conflicting orders, such as where a criminal order prohibits contact between a parent and other family members, but a family order provides that same parent with access to a child.

This is why Bill C-78 would amend the Divorce Act so that courts would have evidence of other pending proceedings or orders in effect. This would help improve the administration of justice.

Where parenting is specifically at issue, courts are required to consider only the best interests of the child. New criteria listed in Bill C-78 would require consolidation of any civil or criminal proceedings or order relevant to the well-being of a child, even if no longer in effect. This is to help ensure that the court has all relevant information when deciding on the best interests of the child. It is critical that family violence be taken into account when deciding on parenting arrangements for children.

As we learn more about family violence, in particular intimate partner violence, we have come to understand that not all family violence is the same. Depending on the nature of the violence, it can have very different implications on the parenting of the child and the ability of former spouses to co-parent successfully.

At least four different types of violence have been identified, but given my short time today I will only mention two. The first is separation-instigated violence. It generally involves a small number of incidents around the separation, although these can range from very minor to more serious. While no violence is ever acceptable, this type of violence may, over the long term, be less likely to negatively affect the ability of the parents to work together or care for the child.

In contrast, the second type is coercive and controlling family violence. As the name suggests, this violence involves a pattern of control based on intimidation, emotional abuse and physical violence. Coercive and controlling violence is most often perpetrated by men against women. It generally occurs over a prolonged period, has the highest risk of lethality and is most associated with compromised parenting skills. The perpetrator often attempts to control his former partner long after separation. As a result, in these situations, joint decision-making can be challenging and contact between the parents during the exchange of the child can create opportunities for further abuse.

To address the range of family violence, Bill C-78 includes an evidence-based definition of family violence. It identifies that family violence can include a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour. It provides examples of specific behaviours that constitute family violence, such as physical and sexual abuse and psychological violence and harassment, including stalking.

Finally, Bill C-78 specifically highlights family violence as relevant to the best interests of the child when making parenting arrangements. The proposed amendments will direct consideration of any impact of the family violence, but in particular how it might affect the ability of the parents to co-operate with one another, or how it might affect the ability of an abusive parent to care for the child. The bill also provides a list of specific criteria for the court to consider that will determine the severity of the violence, the impact that it has had or may have, and whether and how this should inform the parenting arrangement.

These criteria would help put focus on the particular dynamics of family violence in each individual case. Importantly, both the definition of family violence and the best interests criteria recognize that even when children are not directly subjected to violence, they can be harmed by it. Through Bill C-78, we are taking concrete action to promote children's best interests in situations where they are most vulnerable.

[Firearms Act, September 20th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, my understanding is that 60% are from guns that were obtained in Canada from licensed gun owners, but perhaps obtained illegally or by theft, and that only 40% were those that were from across the border in the U.S.

The perception is that all of these guns are coming in illicitly from foreign means, when in fact most jurisdictions are stating that 60% of the guns were domestically sourced, either by theft from legal gun owners or by means of guns sales that were from those who turned a wilful blind eye.

[Firearms Act, September 20th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, this is just one of the aspects.

There will be a check to see if there have been any previous court orders, or any threats, any threats online, or if there have been any orders that perhaps pertain to mental health on the record, through child services or court orders or custody orders. If those are there, that can be a tool used to assess the mental ability of one to have a firearm.

This does give more breadth, more tools to the chief firearms officer to ascertain whether someone has the right to possess a firearm. It will make it harder for those who have challenges with respect to keeping a firearm and those who should not have them in the first place.