Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 76 - 90 of 128
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We have done four, and I would suggest that we do four more, as Mr. Fortin suggested, for a total of eight, and then, for a bill of this size, have two meetings set aside for clause-by-clause consideration if necessary. If we get through it in one day, then we're through, but I would think we would need two meetings to get through clause-by-clause study.
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think we're all in a similar ballpark. We think of the numbers, and each party puts in their allocation. That's probably why the numbers don't exactly match up. I do think eight is preferable and reasonable.
I want to mention, though, that my suggestion for two meetings for clause-by-clause study is in no way to be interpreted as saying, “Well, if we're not done clause-by-clause....” We have to do our due diligence. We don't know how many amendments are going to come in from each of the parties. I suspect we will have some amendments.
I threw those two days out as a way of saying that we could probably budget for two days, not to say that it might take three. That's a point of clarification.
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
Again, just so we're clear, if we're not done on the 20th, then we're not—
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
[Inaudible—Editor] Yes—for the record.
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
Thanks, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for taking part in the study of Bill C-5, formerly Bill C-22.
Many good points have been raised. I will encourage you, Mr. Spratt, since you mentioned Conservatives, to take the time to research the origins of most of the mandatory minimum penalties that are being repealed here. You'll find direct links back to previous Liberal governments, including the government of the current Prime Minister's father.
By no means are the mandatory minimum penalties in the Criminal Code there just by virtue of Conservative governments, although having been part of the former Conservative government, I'm very proud of the measures we took when it came to conditional sentencing. One of the key responsibilities for us as parliamentarians is to put in place legislation that creates balance and has a justice system that's balanced and protects rights, not only of the accused but protects society, protects victims and respects victims and their families.
What we were finding with conditional sentences in the past was that too often, for something very serious in the community, the punishment being meted out to offenders was to serve their time in the community. There are times when that's appropriate, but there are times when that is certainly not appropriate.
My question is for you, Ms. Dunn. I appreciated your testimony. Section 718 of the Criminal Code cites that one of the main objectives of sentencing is to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and the community.
You mentioned victims in your testimony. Bill C-5 expands conditional sentencing, like house arrest, to individuals who are found to have benefited financially from human trafficking. We have spoken a lot about human trafficking. It's a scourge on our nation and internationally. We've heard very compelling testimony at this committee of the tragedy that is human trafficking. What message do you feel it sends to Canadians, particularly to the women and girls that you mentioned, that people benefiting from human trafficking would be allowed to serve their sentences home in their community?
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
Thank you. I appreciate that statistic you mentioned. I referenced a report published by Statistics Canada, which said “women were violently victimized at a rate nearly double that of men in 2019”. The report goes on to say that the discrepancy between male and female victims was largely due to the fact that “women were five times more likely than men to be a victim of sexual assault”.
I know that you deal in your organization with the fallout of these statistics, and you are able to to put a name to the stat. Sometimes when we're in these committees, I think we hear stats, but we forget that there's a person behind them.
Could you tell us, in the consultations you've had with the people who you work with, how Bill C‑5 could, in fact, fail Canadian women? What should we do instead to make a community safer rather than eliminating the inability of offenders to get conditional sentences and now being able to serve their sentence from home for some of these various serious offences against women?
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
We're at the end of our meeting. How long do you expect this committee business to last? I mean, we're introducing—
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
Well, unfortunately, we're not done, because we never agreed we would only hear six days of witness testimony. There had been some proposal, I think by Mr. Fortin, that we have eight days of committee testimony on Bill C-5. I certainly supported that and spoke to that last time.
We did not come to a conclusion on how many meetings we would have. I would propose that we have eight, but this is something I would hope we would set aside time for as committee business, and we are at the end of our meeting.
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
Yes, if it's time to discuss the total number of meetings, that sounds good.
My proposal would be that we have eight.
Thank you, Chair.
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses for the testimony they provided. It is good to see some of our witnesses here in person, because that's a first for our committee. I hope to see more of that in the future.
We heard the characterization of Bill C-5 as some offenders just needing an opportunity to “give back to the community”. As someone who was involved in the drafting of Bill C-9, which ended the practice of giving conditional sentences such as house arrest for crimes like criminal negligence causing death, manslaughter, impaired driving causing death, aggravated assault, aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, kidnapping and torture, I can tell you that these are serious offences. To pretend that somehow someone who's committed these offences should immediately be given a chance to go back into the community so they can “give back” is absolutely ridiculous.
Every case before a judge is different and every one of them brings its own unique challenges. Mandatory minimum penalties and house arrest have their place, but for serious offences, we need to make sure that our communities are protected and that offenders can get the help they need.
Using a firearm in the commission of an offence, weapons trafficking, robbery with a firearm and extortion with a firearm are things we hear about every day as parliamentarians. We hear about gun violence. These are currently offences that require someone who's been found guilty to serve jail time, as they should. This bill would end that. Obviously it should be a concern for all Canadians, whether they live in rural or urban areas.
As I mentioned, as parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice at that time, I was happy to work with organizations such as MADD Canada, which supported Bill C-9. They were looking at these offences from the perspective of the many victims they represent, as well as protecting Canadians from impaired driving. It's hard to believe, in fact, in my opinion, that we're back here discussing some of these offences after the hard work that went into correcting the imbalance in our justice system.
I will pose my question to MADD Canada.
Could you tell us how the legislation from 2007 impacted victims of impaired driving, and why victims of impaired driving and their families were calling on changes to the legislation as it was?
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
Thank you, Mr. Sullivan.
In your brief, you stated that many of the individuals with whom MADD Canada works feel that sentences for impaired driving-related deaths do not reflect the harm that was caused. In a September 2020 letter to the Prime Minister, you stated that, “in too many cases, we are the only support victims and survivors have”. We've heard, in this justice committee, about the need for support for victims and their families.
Since impaired driving is often not a priority for government-funded victim services, could you share what, if any, consultation MADD Canada had with the federal government on Bill C-5? I know you were consulted widely on Bill C-9 when some of these changes were first put into effect. These are changes that will impact the families of victims of impaired driving and put impaired drivers back on the street rather than in jail. Could you talk about consultations you've had with the federal government on this?
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
I only have one minute left. Time flies.
We appreciate the work that you're doing because you bring forward the perspective of victims and their families. It is important for us as parliamentarians that the Criminal Code reflect Canadian values and a balance in our justice system that treats everyone fairly. I always like to err on the side of protecting our communities and victims and listening to the concerns of the families of victims who are no longer with us.
You stated that victims and survivors should not be sacrificed to safely return offenders to the community and that you believe that the well-being of victims and survivors should be balanced with the safe integration of offenders. I think most of us support the safe integration of offenders.
Could you expand a bit on how you reconcile those two things?
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister, for appearing. It's good to see you again virtually, as well as the officials who are appearing with you.
Minister, I know you and I agree with each other from time to time. Bill C-5 is not going to be one of those times. I can tell you from the testimony that we've heard in our deep consultations with witnesses and communities, both rural and urban, as well as various victims groups, that this bill could not be more breathtakingly out of touch at the time we find ourselves in in Canada.
Removing mandatory minimum penalties for serious gun crime, house arrest for serious offences against a person, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act trafficking, production and distribution minimums being eliminated for serious offences that are plaguing our communities.... This bill, quite frankly, flies in the face of those who are calling for safer streets and communities, and it is an affront to victims.
I heard in your opening remarks—it's quite heartening and I'm sure Canadians will be relieved—that you're maintaining the mandatory minimum penalty for murder. I guess that sets the bar fairly low, Minister. We're interested in making sure we have a justice system that's balanced, protects the rights of victims and keeps communities safe.
I want to jump right into questioning.
According to Statistics Canada, women were violently victimized at a rate nearly double that of men in 2019. We know part of this is due to the fact that, according to Statistics Canada research, women were five times more likely than men to be victims of sexual assault. At your appearance at committee on March 10, 2020, you stated that, “despite the robustness of our legal framework in this area, there are still extremely low rates of reports, charges and convictions in sexual assault cases.”
With your Bill C-5, Minister, both sexual assault with a weapon, threats or causing harm, and the offence of sexual assault under section 271 would have mandatory jail time removed, and an offender could serve their sentence from their home community.
Did you consult with victims of sexual assault before making the decision to allow the perpetrators to serve their sentence from home?
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
Thanks, Minister. I don't have a lot of time. My question is, did you consult with victims of sexual assault?
View Rob Moore Profile
CPC (NB)
Thanks, Minister.
Where I'm getting the information around sexual assault is....
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I'm getting the French translation into my headset. I'll continue—
Results: 76 - 90 of 128 | Page: 6 of 9

|<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data