Bill C-75 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) modernize and clarify interim release provisions to simplify the forms of release that may be imposed on an accused, incorporate a principle of restraint and require that particular attention be given to the circumstances of Aboriginal accused and accused from vulnerable populations when making interim release decisions, and provide more onerous interim release requirements for offences involving violence against an intimate partner;
(b) provide for a judicial referral hearing to deal with administration of justice offences involving a failure to comply with conditions of release or failure to appear as required;
(c) abolish peremptory challenges of jurors, modify the process of challenging a juror for cause so that a judge makes the determination of whether a ground of challenge is true, and allow a judge to direct that a juror stand by for reasons of maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice;
(d) increase the maximum term of imprisonment for repeat offences involving intimate partner violence and provide that abuse of an intimate partner is an aggravating factor on sentencing;
(e) restrict the availability of a preliminary inquiry to offences punishable by imprisonment for a term of 14 years or more and strengthen the justice’s powers to limit the issues explored and witnesses to be heard at the inquiry;
(f) hybridize most indictable offences punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years or less, increase the default maximum penalty to two years less a day of imprisonment for summary conviction offences and extend the limitation period for summary conviction offences to 12 months;
(g) remove the requirement for judicial endorsement for the execution of certain out-of-province warrants and authorizations, expand judicial case management powers, allow receiving routine police evidence in writing, consolidate provisions relating to the powers of the Attorney General and allow increased use of technology to facilitate remote attendance by any person in a proceeding;
(h) re-enact the victim surcharge regime and provide the court with the discretion to waive a victim surcharge if the court is satisfied that the victim surcharge would cause the offender undue hardship or would be disproportionate to the gravity of the offence or the degree of responsibility of the offender; and
(i) remove passages and repeal provisions that have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada, repeal section 159 of the Act and provide that no person shall be convicted of any historical offence of a sexual nature unless the act that constitutes the offence would constitute an offence under the Criminal Code if it were committed on the day on which the charge was laid.
The enactment also amends the Youth Criminal Justice Act in order to reduce delays within the youth criminal justice system and enhance the effectiveness of that system with respect to administration of justice offences. For those purposes, the enactment amends that Act to, among other things,
(a) set out principles intended to encourage the use of extrajudicial measures and judicial reviews as alternatives to the laying of charges for administration of justice offences;
(b) set out requirements for imposing conditions on a young person’s release order or as part of a sentence;
(c) limit the circumstances in which a custodial sentence may be imposed for an administration of justice offence;
(d) remove the requirement for the Attorney General to determine whether to seek an adult sentence in certain circumstances; and
(e) remove the power of a youth justice court to make an order to lift the ban on publication in the case of a young person who receives a youth sentence for a violent offence, as well as the requirement to determine whether to make such an order.
Finally, the enactment amends among other Acts An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons) so that certain sections of that Act can come into force on different days and also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Criminal Code

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague completely.

The problem with Bill C-75 is that it favoured the criminal and did not find the right balance between the rights of the accused and public safety. Also, there is the perception that the public has in the fairness of our criminal justice system, which is the problem.

In Vancouver, and this stat has been mentioned a number of times, 40 people were responsible for 6,000 negative interactions with the police. This is just a revolving door. This is insanity. This needs to be fixed.

Bill C-75 caused that problem. Bill C-48 is a step in the right direction, but it would not solve the underlying problems.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his great intervention on bail reform.

With the Liberal's Bill C-75, which was soft on crime, they allowed so many criminals back on the street. They went back so far in time that they actually reversed a lot of the bail requirements for things such as committing a crime with a firearm, which started under Pierre Elliott Trudeau. They even undid things that were done on mandatory minimums going back to the Liberal era of the seventies and eighties.

I would ask my colleague if he really believes that, because of Liberal ideology in Bill C-75, the hug-a-thug approach, it has ultimately resulted in what we have today with an increase in violent crime of over 32%. The city of Winnipeg, where I come from, is now one of the most dangerous cities in all of North America. It all has to do with the bail reform, and how the Liberals have always stood up for the criminal and never stood up for the victim. It is time for jail and not bail.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, Canada's criminal justice system is broken.

Earlier this year, Leger, a polling company, polled Canadians on how they feel about public safety in this country. A significant majority, two-thirds, feel that they are now less safe than they were before the COVID-19 pandemic, and most Canadians think that provincial and federal governments are doing a poor job of addressing crime and public safety.

Another shocking statistic comes out of British Columbia. In B.C., people charged with violent crime committed while on bail pending trial on previous charges are released on bail again 75% of the time. That statistic comes from a recent review on bail hearings done internally in British Columbia the last couple of weeks of 2022 and the first few weeks of 2023.

The B.C. Prosecution Service, the crown prosecutors, asks for pretrial detention, but the judges deny that, so the accused are again free to go out and commit another crime. We have been hearing too much of that.

Public safety is taking a back seat to the rights of the accused. However, let us not blame judges. They are bound by the law. One B.C. mayor, the mayor of Nanaimo, who is a former provincial NDP cabinet minister, was quoted in The Globe and Mail in April: “The judges are applying the law as it exists.... The law needs to be changed. It diminishes public safety and destroys public confidence in the justice system. This needs to be fixed, yesterday.”

Unfortunately our new Minister of Justice does not have that same sense of urgency when it comes to bail reform. Shortly after being appointed to his new position, he acknowledged the obvious saying, “there's a sense coming out of the pandemic that people’s safety is more in jeopardy.” He then added that he thought “that empirically it's unlikely” Canada is becoming less safe.

Our Minister of Justice has his head in the sand. Other law enforcement agencies are doing what they can to face the crisis in confidence in our criminal justice system and public safety. For example, the British Columbia government has directed their prosecution service to push for more restrictive bail conditions in cases where public safety is at stake.

However, these efforts are being blunted by the federal Liberal government's legislation, which requires judges to release detainees at the earliest possible opportunity and on the least onerous conditions. That catch-and-release bail system thinking, which needs to be fixed, is based on Bill C-75, legislation from the 42nd Parliament, passed just before the House rose for the summer four years ago, in June 2019.

It is poorly thought-out legislation. It is the Liberal government's response to its understanding of what the Supreme Court of Canada said in a series of cases about defending and protecting the rights of accused people to reasonable bail and the presumption of innocence. It is poorly thought-out legislation.

What is the result of Bill C-75 four years later? Is it general support for this catch-and-release? Absolutely not at all. As a matter of fact, we have a letter signed by 10 provincial premiers and three territorial premiers, from all political parties, unanimously telling the Prime Minister that our bail system is broken and that it needs to be reformed and fixed urgently.

The premiers are hearing from their citizens and reacting to deep concerns from the public about the perception that the criminal justice system favours the accused at the cost of the public. Here is what the premiers said: “We write to urge that the federal government take immediate action to strengthen Canada’s bail system to better protect the public and Canada’s heroic first responders.”

That letter was initiated at a meeting of the attorneys general from across the country in October 2022. It asks for reverse onus. They are saying reverse onus for repeat violent offenders would be one way to fix our criminal justice system. Reverse onus ostensibly makes it more difficult for an accused person to be let out on bail. They said, “This is just one proposal for much-needed reform”.

They are asking for general reform of the bail system. Certainly, the police services and the people I talked to across the country over the summer have been saying the same thing.

Between the time of the meeting and the writing of the letter in January, there was another tragic event in Canada that underlies the need for urgent bail reform. OPP officer Greg Pierzchala was shot down and was killed. He did not make it home after his shift on December 27, 2022. He was responding to a traffic call. He did not stand a chance. They opened fire on him, and he died on the scene.

His boss, OPP commissioner Thomas Carrique, stated that one of the two people who were charged with his murder was out on bail at the time. He had been banned from owning any firearms for life since 2018. Three years later, that same person was charged with several firearms-related offences and assaulting a police officer.

He was released on bail on a number of conditions, including remaining in his residence under his mother's care, not possessing firearms and wearing a GPS ankle bracelet, which he somehow removed. His trial date was set for September 22, but he failed to appear. There was a warrant for his arrest.

At the justice committee, when we were studying this, we had chief of police Darren Montour of the Six Nations Police Service, which was charged with supervising this killer's bail conditions. One witness had this to say: “What we've seen with the increased release of people on bail conditions is effectively a downloading to the police services of jurisdiction to become professional babysitters”. Darren Montour added, “We don't have the manpower or resources to do that.”

Commissioner Carrique of the OPP said at a press conference, “Needless to say, the murder of Const. Greg was preventable. This should have never happened. Something needs to change. Our police officers, your police officers, my police officers, the public deserve to be safeguarded against violent offenders who are charge with firearms-related offences”.

Premier Doug Ford, shortly thereafter, said, “OPP Commissioner Carrique's comments on the tragic killing of Constable Grzegorz Pierzchala is the latest plea for the federal government to address the revolving door of violent criminals caused by our country's failed bail system...Too many innocent people have lost their lives at the hands of dangerous criminals who should have been behind bars — not on our streets. Enough is enough.”

I agree with that, as does the vast majority of Canadians.

That is why we are here today debating Bill C-48, an act to amend the Criminal Code on bail reform. This is the government's response to concerns expressed by many Canadians, including the premiers. The premiers' letter captures the public perception, what we have all been hearing on the ground, but let us now see whether Bill C-48 captures that same mood.

There are a number of preambles in the introduction of this legislation. I am just going to read two of them that I think are informative. The fourth one reads, “Whereas a proper functioning bail system is necessary to maintain confidence in the criminal justice system, including in the administration of justice”. I agree with that.

The eighth paragraph in the preamble says, “And whereas confidence in the administration of justice is eroded in cases when accused persons are released on bail while their detention is justified”.

I would say that this sounds good. This is certainly a step in the right direction. This is a recognition that Parliament needs to find a balance between the rights of the accused and the protection of the public.

What would Bill C-48 actually do? It would introduce a reverse onus for serious offences, with serious offences defined as an accused person being charged within the last five years on something that would have had a 10-year sentence. However, I think the bill is too narrow. I do not think this legislation addresses all the concerns that we are hearing from the public, and more work needs to be done.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on this first day of the new parliamentary session.

I would start by saying that the role of debate is to separate the wheat from the chaff, to use our experience, intelligence, discretion and insight to pinpoint what is really going on as opposed to what we think is going on, which can be influenced by the rush to easy assumptions and various biases, personal and societal, and so on.

The point of intelligent and informed debate, that is, of reasoned democratic discourse, is to safeguard against the kind of populism that appeals to simple intuition or, to use the new Conservative code word, simple common sense. Common sense sounds so right, so good. Who could object to it? Common sense is a deceptively appealing slogan, but there is a difference between common sense and good sense.

There is a distinction to be made between good sense and common sense. Good sense that is thoughtful, nuanced and based on facts and rigorous analysis is an excellent thing. On the other hand, what is referred to as “common sense” can be reductionist and simplistic, a populist trope designed to get the public to buy into easy solutions that serve narrow ideologies and well-established political agendas.

“Common sense” is a catchphrase that seeks to oversimplify and to get the buy-in of the public for simple solutions to complex problems, solutions that are not always the best but that serve an ideological agenda like cost cutting or rolling back environmental protections. I believe there is such a thing as collective wisdom that offers up time-tested notions, like the difference between good and evil, the need for caution in the face of too much rapid change or the value of preserving order in society. However, age-old collective wisdom cannot always guide us in dealing with technically and legally complex matters of contemporary public policy. So-called common sense can be off the mark.

So-called common sense can lead us down the wrong path. It can actually lead us right off the road.

With respect to bail reform, this seems to be the Conservative common-sense approach or belief: Those apprehended and accused of a crime are guilty and therefore should remain in jail while awaiting trial. However, in our justice system, the product of centuries of accumulated wisdom and reason, in law one is, thankfully, innocent until proven guilty.

Traditional small c conservatives are supposed to put faith in accumulated wisdom and the organic evolution of thought, laws and institutions, as opposed to promoting reactive solutions. Canada's bail system is the product of English common law dating back hundreds of years.

Let me be clear: One murder because someone is out on bail who should not have been is one death too many. It is a tragedy and we should not stand for it. There is not a single person in this House who disagrees. However, to claim, as the opposition does daily, that the streets are being overrun by murderers on automatic bail in a revolving-door justice system is, I believe, demagoguery.

How does the bail system work, versus the opposition's truncated version of it? Namely, it is up to police and prosecutors in provincial jurisdiction to make the case against granting bail to an individual. In other words, the onus is on the state to justify why someone who has not yet been found guilty should have to remain behind bars while awaiting trial. However, something not generally understood is that when it comes to charges of murder and certain other offences, the onus is actually reversed. The accused must convince the court why they should be released while awaiting trial.

In 2019, Parliament adopted Bill C-75, which extended the reverse onus to repeat offenders charged with an offence against an intimate partner, or what we call intimate partner violence. Again, this will be news to many listening today. The burden of proof is also on the accused for certain firearms offences, including weapons trafficking, possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, illegal importation or exportation of a weapon, discharging a firearm with intent, discharging a firearm with recklessness and the following offences committed with a firearm: attempted murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage-taking, robbery and extortion. Again, that is a far cry from a revolving door. Furthermore, the law is already clear that detention without bail is justified when deemed necessary by a judge to protect the safety of the public.

When someone is granted bail, they typically are required to have a surety, that is, one or more people who commit to supervising the behaviour of the accused and who will pay a certain sum if the accused breaches their bail conditions. There are many reasons bail can be denied: the accused has a criminal record or failed to comply with past bail conditions; or, as mentioned, the accused is thought to pose a risk to the public; or the accused lacks a surety or place to live, which is a problem that more often afflicts members of disadvantaged groups.

Here is a news flash that will come as a surprise to many people listening today: In 2020, 77% of people in Ontario's jails were in custody awaiting trial. In other words, we are not a lenient country, contrary to the Conservative populist narrative. To quote Queen's University professor Nicole Myers, “We've had more people in pretrial detention than in sentence provincial custody since 2004.”

All that said, we do need bail reform, and Liberals are reformers by nature.

How do we reconcile the need to protect the public while at the same time preserving the central tenet of our criminal justice system, which is “innocent until proven guilty”? The answer is Bill C-48. The bill would add a reverse onus for an accused person charged with a serious offence involving violence that was used, threatened or attempted, and the use of a weapon such as a knife, where the person was previously convicted, namely within the previous five years. This makes sense because a previous offence is an indication of risk. A serious offence would be defined as an offence carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment, such as assault causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon.

The bill also expands the list of firearms offences that would trigger a reverse onus. These offences include unlawful possession of a loaded or easily loaded prohibited or restricted firearm, breaking or entering to steal a firearm, robbery to steal a firearm and making an automatic firearm. Currently, there is a reverse onus when the person is subject to a weapons prohibition order and violates it. The new law would clarify to include prohibition orders made at bail.

Bill C-48 would also broaden the reverse onus for repeat offenders of intimate partner violence to those who have received a discharge under section 730 of the Criminal Code, or, in other words, where the offence no longer appears on a criminal record.

Finally, Bill C-48 would require courts to consider an accused person's history of convictions for violence as well as concern for community safety. As OPP commissioner Thomas Carrique told The Globe and Mail recently, the changes in Bill C-48 “go a long way to help eliminate and prevent harm and senseless tragedies in our communities”.

We need to keep in mind that indigenous people are denied bail more often than others, while Black people in Ontario spend longer in custody while awaiting trial than white people for the same offences. This is because courts use police reports to decide on bail, and police reports can contain racial bias. Another reason is that members of disadvantaged groups often have trouble finding sureties or bail money. It is worth noting that the longer someone is detained without bail, the greater the probability of a plea bargain or that the person will plead guilty despite having a viable defence. Either way, justice is compromised.

Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, accused persons in Canada have the right to bail unless there is a very compelling reason to keep them in custody. This is constitutional law, whether Conservatives like it or not.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, some of the reverse onus provisions in this bill apply only to violent offences with a weapon. I wonder why the government did not include other violent offences where a weapon was not used. Does the member believe that these crimes are less serious? Conservatives have been calling for a total repeal of Bill C-75. Why did the government not do that?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes I was. In fact, I would have undone the Liberal bail law in Bill C-75 six years ago, the day it was passed.

Not only did the minister go on vacation before addressing bail, but he also went to a radio station and claimed that we were holding up the reversal of Liberal bail policy. He thought no one would find out about this. In fact, he was on vacation and had allowed Parliament to rise without bail reform occurring in the first place. Let us not forget that what little good this bill would do is just undoing the damage his party already did.

Finally, I would ask the minister to stand in his place and apologize to Canadians for trying to gaslight them and tell them that rising crime is just a perception issue. I have given him all the data published by his own government, which shows that violent crime has raged out of control after eight years under the Prime Minister. These are data points. These are facts. Will he admit it and apologize for gaslighting Canadians?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of this Prime Minister, the cost of living is going up because of an inflationary tax that the Bloc supports and that they want to drastically increase. The cost of living is also going up because of inflationary deficits.

It no longer pays to work and the cost of housing has doubled. The desperation that these policies have caused is leading to a crisis of homelessness, drug use and crime. That is the situation after eight years of this Prime Minister.

Today, we are rising in the House of Commons to talk about the utter chaos that the Prime Minister has unleashed on our streets with his changes to the bail system. He introduced Bill C-75, which was passed. That law allows criminals who have been charged dozens of times to be released on the very day they are arrested.

That bill was supported by the Bloc. Yes, voting for the Bloc is not worth the cost. A vote for the Bloc is a vote for Liberal policies that cause crime in our streets. What are the consequences of that Liberal-Bloc policy?

After eight years of this Prime Minister, violent crime has increased by 39% and homicides by 43%. Gang-related homicides are up 108%. Gun crime is up 101%. I will stop there for now. The Prime Minister thinks that fighting gun crime means banning hunters’ weapons. He stated in his comments that he wanted to ban firearms that are used for hunting. That is what he proposed in Bill C-21, to which he added 300 pages containing the list of hunting weapons he wanted to ban.

The Bloc Québécois was beyond happy, it was ecstatic. The Bloc said it wanted to adopt that list and that it had been waiting many years for this major ban on hunting weapons. Now the Bloc leader is trying to do an about-face, trying to make the people in Quebec's regions forget that the Bloc betrayed them with its agenda of banning hunting weapons. The Bloc Québécois also voted in favour of a law that allows criminals who use firearms to commit violent acts to return to our streets on the day they are arrested.

That approach did not work. We Conservatives will protect hunters and put the real criminals in prison. We will allocate resources to the border to prevent weapons from entering the country illegally from the United States.

Moreover, we see that assault causing bodily harm has increased 61%. Sex crimes against children increased 126% after eight years of this Prime Minister. Car thefts increased 34% after eight years of this Prime Minister.

This is the record of this government’s approach of freeing the most violent criminals while banning hunting weapons. This does not actually work. It does not make sense. That is why the Conservative Party is the only party in the House of Commons that had the common sense to oppose this and stand up for the rights of hunters. We are going to put criminals in prison and protect law-abiding citizens.

We know that the Conservative approach works, because when we were in power the crime rate decreased by 26%. We targeted the most violent and vicious criminals and made sure that repeat offenders were sent to prison. All the other parties said that this would increase the prison population. In fact, the number of prisoners decreased by 4.3%. There were fewer people in prison and less crime on our streets. In addition, we were able to eliminate the gun registry to protect our hunters.

Our approach works because by targeting the most violent criminals and denying their release to prevent them from committing the same crimes again, we can protect society and deter crime by others. We will take that common-sense approach again when I am prime minister of Canada.

Today, we have a bill that partly reverses the damage that the Prime Minister has caused. We all know that after eight years of the Prime Minister, life costs more, work does not pay, housing costs have doubled, and crime, chaos, drugs and disorder are common in our streets. We know that his policy of freeing repeat violent offenders the same day they are arrested came to us in Bill C-75, supported by both Liberals and their coalition partners. In fact, the NDP wanted to go even further.

What are the consequences of their catch-and-release policy? Violent crime is up 39%. Homicide is up 43%. Gang killings are up 108%. Aggravated assault is up 24%. Assault with a weapon causing bodily harm is up 61% increase. Sexual assault is up 71%. Sex crimes against kids is up 126%. Kidnapping is up 36%. Car thefts are up 34%. These crimes are almost always committed by a very small minority.

The good news is that we do not have a lot of criminals in Canada. The bad news is they are very productive. They are allowed to be productive because of the catch-and-release policies passed in Bill C-75 that allow an offender to be arrested often within hours of their latest crime. In Vancouver, the police had to arrest the same 40 offenders 6,000 times, because the police and the system required them to be released under the Prime Minister's bill, Bill C-75.

The bill before us today partly and modestly reverses the catch-and-release bail system that the Prime Minister created, but it does not go far enough. Our policy is very clear. A common-sense Conservative government led by me will bring in jail and not bail for repeat violent offenders. Those offenders with a long rap sheet who are newly arrested will be in our jails today.

When we brought in policies of this sort under the previous Conservative government, we not only reduced crime by 25%, but we actually reduced incarceration rates. That was against all of the rhetoric of the radical left that said that we would have to build mega prisons to accommodate all the criminals. In fact, our laws were narrowly targeted at the worst repeat offenders and they scared the rest of the criminals away. We actually had fewer criminals, less crime and, therefore, fewer prisoners. That meant safer streets.

The Prime Minister has unleashed a crime wave over the last several years.

I was just in Whitehorse yesterday at Antoinette's restaurant. The owner told me that his restaurant had been robbed 12 times in 18 months, multiple times by the same offender who was released again and again. In fact, police officers told him they were going to stop arresting the offender because it was not worth the time of having him arraigned and being released almost immediately. It was easier and more cost-effective to just leave the thief on the streets and let him do his business.

That is how broken our criminal justice system is after eight years of the Prime Minister. Now he has appointed a radical justice minister who says that crime is all in the heads of Canadians, that their imaginations have gone wild. However, the data proves otherwise.

It turns out that Canadians and Conservatives are right. A common-sense Conservative government will fix the mess the Liberals made. It will fix what is broken with jail and not bail. Now, let us bring it home.

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

Mr. Speaker, even if the Liberals give us an inch when we need miles of reform on public safety, it is very important that we move forward with the small pittance they are providing us in this bill.

However, Bill C-48 is not bail reform, which is what premiers, police forces, provincial justice ministers and civic leaders are all asking for. They are not asking for tweaks on the margins; they are asking for broad bail reform. What the Liberals are proposing today is not that.

I will draw the minister's attention to the fact that there has been a consistent Liberal government theme over the last number of years of going soft on criminals. It is not just Bill C-75 that made it easy to get bail. Bill C-5 removed mandatory minimums for violent gun offences and permitted more house arrest for rapists. Bill C-83 allowed mass murderers, like Paul Bernardo, to be transferred to medium-security prisons.

This is a theme, a perspective that the Liberals bring to the table, which has resulted in more violent crime, and that will not be solved by a measly seven-page bill, Bill C-48.

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

Mr. Speaker, this past summer, on July 7, a mother of two young children, Karolina Huebner-Makurat, was fatally shot by a stray bullet from a gunfight between drug dealers near a so-called safe injection site in Leslieville, just east of downtown Toronto. The alleged suspect responsible for her death was out on bail at the time. He was also banned from possessing weapons and was obviously not allowed to deal illegal drugs. A man out on bail involved in a drug deal gone wrong got into a gunfight with another drug dealer, and a mother of two young children was shot to death in Toronto.

Just the other day, on September 14, a man who had been charged with first-degree murder for gunning down a person sitting in their car pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was out on bail following that. He is now wanted on a second charge of homicide, after killing someone else when he was out on bail.

On June 14, in southwest Edmonton, a man shot multiple rounds, killing another man in a back alley. At the time of this murder, he was wanted by police for failing to attend a sentencing hearing for murdering another person in July 2020. After pleading guilty to manslaughter for that murder, he was let out on bail, then failed to appear in court and murdered someone else.

Murderers are being let out on bail and are murdering more people. All of this is in the past number of months.

Also in June, a video went viral that I am sure members probably saw. I know a number of Conservatives did. It was very alarming and disturbing. The video that went viral online was of a man stabbing another man multiple times on a subway in Toronto. The suspect, who has been charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon and two counts of failing to comply with a release order, was out on bail at the time.

I have taken public transit and the subway in Montreal and other cities on multiple occasions. We could be sitting next to someone who is out on bail for a violent crime, like this man who stabbed another man multiple times, and that is not something that Canadians deserve to deal with every day. I do not think that is not something Canadians ever thought they would have to deal with, yet if we read the news on a regular basis, we know that assaults, stabbings, shootings and murders inside and outside public transit have unfortunately become the norm in many parts of our great nation.

I will just wrap up with a few more examples. I could go on all day. We have all heard and read about them. It is endless.

In August, news broke that a man accused of four cold cases of sexual assault in Vancouver was released shortly after being charged. A rapist, accused of four counts of rape or sexual assault, was released on bail into the community. He could be walking among us. I did not realize that Canada had become like this. When researching for today, I saw tale after tale of violence against women, murders, shootings, stabbings and physical assaults, over and over again.

The crime stats back this up. It is not just in our heads; we are not just paying more attention to the news or social media, not that we can get the news on social media anymore thanks to the Liberal government. The stats from Stats Canada back this up. In fact, since the Liberals formed government in 2015, violent crime has gone up 39%, murders are up 43%, gang-related homicides are up over 108% and violent gun crime is up 101%. Again, this is in light of OICs and so-called gun control legislation that go after law-abiding hunters and sports shooters in this country that the Liberals have promised will end gun violence. After all of that effort and all of that division, gun crime is up over 100% under the Liberals' watch in the eight years that they have been in power. Obviously it is a very failed approach to addressing violent gun crime in this country.

Sexual assaults are up 71%. Again, this is a feminist government, as they say at every opportunity. We know that sexual assaults are mostly against women, and there has been a 71% increase in sexual assaults since 2015.

The next stat is difficult to say, but sex crimes against children are up 126% since 2015. Also, car thefts are up 34%, which pales in comparison to sex crimes against children, but as MPs we hear that car thefts are through the roof, especially in major cities. People cannot leave their cars outside. Even if they are in the garage there are devices to steal them now. We hear about this over and over again.

I will remind the House that of the 44 shooting-related homicides in Toronto last year, 17 of the accused were out on bail at the time. In Vancouver, the same 40 offenders were arrested 6,000 times. There were 6,000 interactions with police in one year with 40 people. The people of Vancouver deserve far better. Why can we not do something with those 40 people who are causing mayhem, who are causing hardship, assaults, harms, rapes, thefts and abuse? Why is it that they continue to walk free time and time again?

Even more troubling is that the overall severity of crime in Canada, tracked by the violent crime severity index, has increased by nearly 30% under the Liberal government during its eight years. I will remind the House again that under former prime minister Stephen Harper, the same metric fell by 25%. It was down 25% and now is back up 30% under the Liberal approach.

Crime is one of the top things I hear from my constituents in Winnipeg. It is not just in their heads. In fact, violent Criminal Code violations increased from 9,400 in 2015 to over 14,000 last year. There were 9,400 in 2015 when the Liberal government took the wheel, and there are over 14,000 eight years later. The statistics speak for themselves: The Liberal approach to dealing with public safety and violent crime is failing Canadians. It is actually costing lives, as we have seen. This is not just a partisan issue or just a difference of ideology. This is really about the safety and security of women, children, the elderly, people riding public transit and men and women who are just going about their day.

It is very important that we are having this discussion. The Conservatives have been leading the charge on violent crime reduction discussions in the House for years. We have been talking about bail reform for a very long time, and it is just in the past few months that the premiers have sounded the alarm. Premiers from every political party have written multiple letters to the Prime Minister demanding bail reform. Every police force across the country that I have talked to says we need bail reform. There are also issues with people getting out early on parole. There are issues with conditional sentencing, with people given house arrest instead of jail time, not following that house arrest and going out and creating more mayhem for people in their communities.

I did congratulate the new Minister of Justice for his new role. It is a very important role in Canadian society. He is tasked with the Criminal Code. He alone is responsible, in addition to his boss, the Prime Minister, for fixing these problems. What concerned me, though, is that mere days after being appointed, he unfortunately said, as quoted in Reuters, that “empirically it's unlikely” that Canadians are becoming less safe. Those are his words. I asked him about it today and he seemed to backtrack, but that was his initial position.

How do we trust the Liberal government given this is its record and given that it has made no moves to make any changes until recently because of public pressure from the premiers and from police? Everybody and their dog is asking for bail reform and tough-on-crime measures. Now the Liberals are doing something. They are bringing forward a small bill of about seven pages to fix a problem that was created by a bill that was over 200 pages, Bill C-75, from a few years ago. That was a Liberal bill from about five years ago that made it easier to get bail, bottom line.

Now they have brought forward a piddling little seven-page bill that they are telling Canadians will solve all the problems. I do not believe them. I believe the minister's words when he said he did not really believe there was a lot of crime going on, though I am paraphrasing. The Liberals have sort of downplayed the concerns of Canadians. I have read the statistics and the stories, and clearly there is a problem.

I do not think there is any way we are going to solve this problem unless we have a change of government. The Conservatives have a proven track record of reducing crime in this country. It has been proven. It is in the data. The Liberal approach has failed, and people are being harmed as a result. We have a justice minister who, right out of the gate, downplayed these concerns, making it seem like they are all in our heads.

I will quote from the National Post. Adam Zivo wrote about this recently, which will sum it up really well. He said, “Canadians deserve political leaders who don’t gaslight them about violence in their communities. If the Liberals want to tackle this issue half-heartedly and do only the bare minimum needed to temper public anger, then that’s their choice—but it will be the end of them.” I very much agree with Mr. Zivo.

I hope we will see much more effort to address public safety in the remaining days of the current government, but if not, this side of the House is ready and waiting to get to work, roll up our sleeves and clean up our streets.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-48.

As this is my first time rising in this chamber as Minister of Justice and Attorney General, I want to first thank the Prime Minister for placing his confidence in me and appointing me to this position. I want to thank the constituents of Parkdale—High Park for their faith in me over the past three elections. I look forward to continuing to earn their support in this new role. I also want to thank my parents and my sister for always empowering me to dream, and I want to thank my wife and children for supporting me in realizing my dreams.

There is another person in this chamber without whose work I could not be engaging in this, and that is the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. The work he has done over the past four and a half years has made Canada a better place and the justice system more fair. His work will continue to inspire me in the work that I do in this role.

Lastly, I want to congratulate my parliamentary secretary, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore. I have the pleasure of having him as a riding neighbour in Toronto, and I am very excited to work with this excellent lawyer and parliamentarian to improve Canada's justice system.

Bill C-48 will strengthen Canada's bail laws to address the public's concerns relating to repeat violent offending and offences involving firearms and other weapons. It is a response to direct requests we have received from provinces, territories and law enforcement.

I know that these issues are of top concern for all parties in this chamber and indeed all Canadians. I look forward to seeing everyone in this chamber, across party lines, help pass this bill quickly in order to make Canadians safer. We have heard support for this package from provincial and territorial counterparts across the country of all political stripes as well as municipal leaders, police and victim organizations.

I want to begin by expressing my sincere condolences to the families of those we have lost recently in senseless killings. My mind turns to the family of Gabriel Magalhaes who was fatally stabbed at a subway station in my very own riding of Parkdale—High Park. The country mourns with them. This violence is unacceptable and we cannot stand for it. Canadians deserve to be safe in their communities from coast to coast to coast.

As a father, I am personally concerned about crime and violence. I want to make sure that my two boys are protected, as are all Canadian families. That is one of my goals as justice minister. This bill will help advance that goal.

Our government is working to ensure that these crimes cannot be repeated, which means tackling crime as well as what causes crime. We are the party of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canadians expect laws that both keep them safe and respect the rights that are entrenched in the charter. In Bill C-48, we have struck that important balance. This legislation recognizes the harms posed by repeat violent offenders and would improve our bail system to better reflect this reality.

I will take a moment to remind my colleagues about the values we hold on this side of the House. Public safety is paramount for our Liberal government. This means ensuring that serious crimes will always have serious consequences. It also means improving mental health supports and social services that will prevent crime in the first place and help offenders to get the support or treatment they need to reintegrate safely into communities after they have served their sentence. We believe that investing in our communities ensures safety in the long term.

I was dismayed by the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition in the spring. He would rather engage in fearmongering for political gain instead of doing what is right: coming up with real solutions. He advocates for measures that would limit Canadians' charter rights. He points fingers instead of acknowledging the root causes of crime. The Leader of the Opposition has ignored evidence; he has voted against progress. I am dismayed, but I am not surprised. The Conservative approach to criminal justice has been short-sighted. We cannot return to Harper-era policies of clogged prisons, court delays, wasted resources and increased recidivism.

However, I was heartened to hear the Leader of the Opposition, on August 18, just about a month ago, say, “I am happy to bring back Parliament today and will pass bill reform by midnight” tonight. Well, Parliament is back. We are here. I am willing to put in the work to have this bill pass by midnight tonight. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will stay true to his word and is ready to do the same along with his caucus colleagues. Premiers around the country want this. Police around the country want this. Canadians around the country want this. Let us get this done; the clock is ticking.

What are the specific measures we are speaking about in Bill C-48? According to existing Canadian law, bail can be denied in three circumstances: to ensure the attendance of the accused in court, to protect the public and to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

Justice ministers across Canada agree that the bail system functions properly in most cases. However, at the same time, we heard there are challenges with the bail system when it comes to repeat violent offenders. Circumstances change and our justice system should reflect those changes. We are always open to making the system better. When we see a problem, we act. That is what Bill C-48 is about.

The targeted reforms in this bill would improve bail in five regards, as follows: first, by enacting a new reverse onus for repeat violent offending involving weapons; second, by adding certain firearms offences to the provisions that would trigger a reverse onus; third, by expanding the current intimate partner violence reverse onus, fourth, by clarifying the meaning of a prohibition order for the purpose of an existing reverse onus provision; and last, by adding new considerations and requirements for courts regarding the violent history of an accused and community safety.

Let me start, first of all, with the newly proposed reverse onus. A reverse onus at bail starts with a presumption that an accused person will be detained pending trial unless they can show why they should be released. The onus is on the accused. It sends a strong message to the courts that Parliament believes bail should be harder to get when there is an increased risk to public safety or because a release in these cases would undermine confidence in the system. Importantly, the decision and the discretion to deny bail rests with the courts, which are best placed to make such determinations.

This new reverse onus would apply in the following situations: when violence was used, threatened or attempted with the use of a weapon in the commission of the offence; when the offence is punishable by a sentence of 10 or more years in prison; and when the accused has been charged with another offence that meets these criteria in the past five years.

Bill C-48 targets repeat violent offending. My provincial and territorial counterparts and the police have told us this is what we need to address. We are delivering in terms of that specific request.

The new reverse onus targets the use of dangerous weapons. What am I speaking about? I am talking about firearms, knives and bear spray, which I know has been a particularly acute problem in the prairie provinces, thus the direct ask that was made of me and my predecessor.

In the second category, we are cracking down on firearms offences. Bill C-48 would create a reverse onus for additional indictable firearms offences. When the premiers of the country came together in January and wrote to the Prime Minister, they said a reverse onus was needed on unlawful possession of a loaded or easily loaded prohibited or restricted firearm. This bill would deliver that.

On top of what they asked us for in January, we added additional provisions. Those are if one is charged with breaking and entering to steal a firearm, if one is involved in a robbery to steal a firearm and if one is charged with making an automatic firearm. In all those additional instances, the onus would be reversed, which would make bail much more difficult to receive.

Gun crime is a serious threat to public safety. We heard this from coast to coast to coast in this country. We heard about this in this chamber. We have seen too many lives lost and innocent people hurt because of guns. Our government knows when a gun is involved the risk is so much greater. That is why we are expanding the reverse onus provisions to make it harder to get bail in those circumstances.

These reforms respond directly to the calls of the 13 premiers across this country, some who share my political party stripe, many who share the Speaker's and Conservative Party's political stripe, and some who share the NPD's political stripe. What is important is it is a multipartisan approach. The reforms also reflect the perspectives of law enforcement partners to make bail more onerous for accused persons charged with serious firearms offences.

My third category is that this bill would strengthen the existing reverse onus that applies to accused persons charged with an offence involving intimate partner violence where they have a previous conviction for this type of offence. As members may recall, this particular reverse onus was enacted through former Bill C-75, which received royal assent in June 2019. It makes it more difficult for an accused person to get bail where a pattern of violence against an intimate partner is being alleged. The goal is to provide further protection to victims from the escalating nature of this type of violence. Our Liberal government, under the direct leadership of the Prime Minister, has always taken the issue of intimate partner violence seriously and will continue to protect victims of such violence.

The fourth key element of this bill is that it clarifies the meaning of a prohibition order at the bail stage.

Right now, the reverse onus applies at the bail stage when a person has allegedly committed a firearm-related offence while subject to a firearms prohibition order.

The bill clearly states that the reverse onus will also apply in cases of bail orders that carry a condition prohibiting the accused from being in possession of firearms or other weapons. This amendment serves to strengthen the existing reverse onus provision by making it clearer and easier to apply.

The final key proposal among the group of five that I mentioned at the outset relates to what considerations a court must make and take when deciding whether to release someone on bail. In 2019, the former Bill C-75 amended the Criminal Code to provide that before making a bail order, courts must consider any relevant factor, including the criminal record of the accused or whether the charges involved intimate partner violence. That very provision would now be expanded to expressly require courts to consider whether the accused's criminal record includes a history of convictions involving violence. This would help strengthen public confidence and public safety, because bail courts would now be specifically directed to consider whether the accused has any previous violent convictions and whether they represent an increased risk of reoffending even when the proposed reverse onuses do not apply.

The bail provisions would be further amended to require a court to state on the record that it considered the safety and security of the community in relation to the alleged offence. Let me repeat that: This bill, once it passes, and indeed I hope it passes today, would require a court to state on the record that it considered the safety and security of the community in relation to the alleged offence when making a bail order. That is listening to communities and responding to their needs directly through parliamentary action. It would complement the current requirement that the court consider the safety and security of any victim.

This amendment would address specific concerns I have heard from municipalities, indigenous communities, racialized communities and marginalized communities. Our collective safety matters critically in bail decisions. This is an important change. Members of small rural communities have told us that the release of an accused on bail can have significant implications for their residents. This change would require the courts to explicitly consider the wishes of those very communities.

It is our government's responsibility to ensure that legislative measures are consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am confident that the proposed measures are compliant. More information is provided in the charter statement for this bill, which is available on the Justice Canada website.

I am deeply committed to ensuring that any measures taken in the chamber by this Parliament would not exacerbate the overrepresentation of indigenous, Black and racialized persons in our criminal justice system. We must not further marginalize and disadvantage vulnerable people, including those struggling with poverty, homelessness and mental health and substance use issues.

The government is committed to addressing systemic discrimination in Canada's criminal justice system. I believe that the approach taken in this bill, which makes narrow but important changes, is evidence of that.

The measures proposed in the bill are the result of extensive collaboration among federal, provincial and territorial governments. Members may be aware that the previous ministers of justice and of public safety convened an urgent meeting on March 10 of this year with their provincial and territorial counterparts to discuss ways to strengthen the bail system. This was a productive meeting. The ministers agreed that law reform was necessary but was only part of the solution. The provinces and territories expressed willingness to take action in various areas themselves, including improved data collection, policies, practices, training and programs in the area of bail support and bail enforcement.

I am very encouraged by the efforts by these provincial and territorial partners that are already taking place to improve the bail system in Canada. They are our partners in this issue. They will be our partners in rendering Canada more safe. For example, Ontario and Manitoba have announced commitments to enhance bail compliance measures, among other things, to increase public safety and to address concerns posed by those engaged in repeat violent offending. In British Columbia, the premier has also stepped up and made significant investments to strengthen enforcement and improve interventions in relation to repeat violent offending. I believe that any criminal law reform enacted by Parliament will be even more effective because of such actions taken by the provinces I have just listed, and I am hoping that every province follows suit.

The position I am taking and pronouncing here in the chamber, which is entrenched in Bill C-48, is backed up by law enforcement. Brian Sauvé, president of the National Police Federation, said this on this very issue:

We also see the federal government's tabling of Bill C-48 in June as a good first step, but this cannot be the only solution. Provincial and territorial governments must now look at their own justice systems and make needed improvements. Our justice system is complex with many interrelated challenges and flaws that cannot be addressed through legislation alone.

Apart from the Criminal Code reform, our government is also fighting crime through non-legislative means. For example, the Minister of Public Safety announced $390 million in funding to help fight gangs and gun crime. This kind of funding will support provincial government initiatives related to the bail system and will complement our efforts to crack down on firearms through Bill C‑21.

Ultimately, we all have a role to play in keeping our communities safe. I would be remiss not to acknowledge the dedication and service of law enforcement personnel across our country in doing exactly that: protecting the safety of our communities, sometimes jeopardizing their own personal safety in doing so.

We are pleased that the police associations across the country have come out in support of Bill C-48. This past weekend, in my very own riding of Parkdale—High Park, I hosted the Toronto chief of police, Myron Demkiw, for a festival. He personally expressed to me his hope that Bill C-48 would become law as soon as possible. When I told him it would be debated first thing on Monday, he said, “Dyakuyu”, which means “thank you” in Ukrainian.

We have also discussed bail in meetings with representatives from national indigenous organizations. Their views were and continue to be welcomed. This helps us to better understand what is needed in relation to criminal justice system reform and keeping all communities safe.

Our government takes cases of repeat violent offending and offences involving firearms or other weapons very seriously. Our goal of protecting public safety and victims plays a major role in our analysis of how the bail system operates and whether it is performing as planned.

Bill C-48 demonstrates our commitment to taking action at the federal level to strengthen the bail system in response to the challenges raised over the past several months. Provinces, territories and law enforcement have all lauded this legislation. They come from political parties of varying stripes. This is not a partisan issue. It is about safety, and it is now our turn to pass this bill swiftly.

I started off by acknowledging some people who have been important in my life, and I want to return to that message right now. I talked about my parents and my sister. When those three people and I came here from Uganda as refugees in 1952, we were fleeing the persecution of General Idi Amin. We came here for one thing above all else: safety. We came here because Canada offered that safety and the prospect of a better life. That concern remains alive and well 51 years later for me and everyone who has the ability, honour and privilege of calling this country home. We have the ability today to do something that promotes and advances safety. I hope we can all do it co-operatively and collegially, and can get this done today.

Justice and Human Rights

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

Mr. Speaker, with former prime minister Stephen Harper, ministerial accountability was alive and well in many regards on a couple fronts. There was a principled approach, unlike what we have seen in the last eight years.

Just to conclude on the justice file, Stephen Harper brought forward about 80 justice bills in favour of being tough on crime and in favour of victims. I mentioned one of the bills today, and all of the bills the Liberals have brought forward are for the least restrictive environments for criminals. That is the reason the most vile killer in Canadian history has been moved. It is because of legislation like this.

We saw it with bail reform. It has never been worse in this country. That is directly related to Bill C-75, also a 2019 Liberal bill. I am getting pretty sick and tired of these soft on crime Liberals. It is time for a Conservative government to clean up our streets and keep Canadians safe.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented on Wednesday, December 7, 2022, be concurred in.

I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Brantford—Brant.

The seventh report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights speaks to improving the response to victims of crime. I can honestly say, and I think all Canadians agree, if we believe what we are seeing in the news, that the response of the government to victims of crime has been woefully inadequate. I can go further. When we talk about victims of crime, we are also talking about the victims' families, and that came through loud and clear in our report. Once again, even today we are talking about the impact on victims of crime and their families of the government's soft-on-crime revolving door justice system.

I will speak to some of the measures in our report.

One of the things we heard loud and clear was the need to address the unfair situation of sentence discounts for multiple murders. What that means is that in Canada, someone who is convicted of first-degree murder receives a life sentence but is eligible for parole in only 25 years. What this has led to is a ludicrous situation. For example, in Moncton, New Brunswick, an individual killed three of our Mounties, three police officers, just trying to do their job, and that individual would have received a 25-year parole ineligibility, the same as if they had killed one person. We have seen situations of mass murder in this country where someone kills three, five or six people, and they would receive the exact same parole ineligibility as if they had killed one person.

We believe, on this side of the House, that every life should count, every victim should be counted and every victim's family should be respected. That is why when we were in government, we brought in legislation for ending sentence discounts for multiple murders. This meant that an individual who committed multiple murders would receive multiple consecutive periods of parole ineligibility. It is why the individual who killed the three Mounties in Moncton received a 75-year parole ineligibility. Other mass murderers in Canada sentenced since that legislation have received similar sentences.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court struck down that provision. We all know that a charter dialogue takes place between the legislature, Parliament and the Supreme Court, and it is absolutely scandalous that the government has not responded to that Supreme Court decision. We have called on it for over a year to respond to this decision, to make it right and to listen to victims' families.

When we were studying the response to victims of crime, that came up more often than not. One of our great witnesses was Sharlene Bosma. Many members will remember that name, as it was her husband who was killed by a mass murderer, someone who murdered at least three individuals. What Sharlene said left a lasting impact on me as well as on many members, certainly on this side of the House.

She said that through the whole process of attending hearings every day, attending court and working to ensure a conviction of this individual who took the life of her husband, the one solace she took when he was sentenced is that her daughter would never have to attend parole hearings and face this monster. However, with one decision from the Supreme Court, that has been ripped away. Now this individual will be eligible for parole in what is left of his 25 years, and Sharlene Bosma, her daughter and other victims' families will have to face unnecessary parole eligibility hearings. Once again, the government throws up its hands.

Even in today's headlines it is reported that one of the worst killers in Canada, one of the most notorious, the Scarborough rapist, Paul Bernardo, has been moved, to the horror of the victims' families and all Canadians, from a maximum-security prison, where he should have spent the rest of his life, to a medium-security prison. We see, on the other, side feigned outrage. We see crocodile tears. We hear “How could this happen? We're going to look into this”, but now we are finding out every day that the Minister of Public Safety knew. Now we are finding out that the Prime Minister knew.

Why did it happen in the first place? Part of the reason it happened is the government's own legislation. When the government brought in Bill C-83, which amended section 28 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, it meant that, when considering transfers from one institution to another, the litmus test brought in by the government is that offenders have to be held in the least restrictive environment. When the Liberals passed that legislation, and when they refused to act when they found out about this transfer, they made this an inevitability. This is on the Liberal government.

I also want to address bail in this country. This came up again and again in our victims study. There are victims who are unnecessarily victimized. They are victims because our justice system has failed to protect them from repeat violent offenders. Just last week, we had a witness at justice committee, and what she said left an impression on me. She said that we do not have a justice system; we have a legal system, but many victims do not see justice in our system.

Canadians fail to see justice when this government, through Bill C-75, put in a principle of restraint when it comes to bail. It has led to the outrageous situation of individuals who are repeat violent offenders, individuals who have been caught for firearms offences and are out on bail, committing another firearms offence. This is happening in Toronto, and the Toronto police helpfully provided us with the statistics. While out on bail for a firearms offence, offenders commit another firearms offence and get bail again. This is outrageous. The Liberals will say, “This is too bad. It is unfortunate that gun crime is taking place”, but it is taking place as a direct result of both their actions and their inaction, their failure to respond to a revolving-door justice system. I can tell members that Canadians are fed up with it.

There is only one party that is committed to ending the revolving door, committed to ensuring that victims voices are heard, committed to appealing the measures in Bill C-75 that have led to this revolving door, committed to ending the outrageous situation in which individuals who commit gun crime are given no more than a slap on the wrist, and committed to ensuring that individuals who commit arson and burn down someone's home are not eligible to serve their sentence with a conditional sentence. What is a conditional sentence? It is house arrest. Under our Criminal Code, somebody could burn down a house and serve their so-called sentence playing video games from the comfort of their own home.

When we were in government, we brought in legislation to change that, to end the revolving door, to have consequences for criminal actions and to protect the most vulnerable. We made sure that sex offenders were listed on the sex offender registry. We made sure that sex offenders served their sentence in prison and not in the community where they offended.

However, under the current government, with both actions and failure to take action, we have a situation where communities are more and more in danger. Members do not have to take my word for it; this information is publicly available. Violent crime is up 32% in this country. Gang-related homicides are up almost 100% in this country. The approach of the revolving door, of allowing repeat offenders to continue to offend, is not working, and a Conservative government, led by Pierre Poilievre, will address—

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

moved that Bill C-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, as I rise to speak to Bill C-320, I would like to talk about a special event that took place on Saturday, May 27, in which I was honoured to take part. Durham Region Remembers was a victim awareness and candlelight vigil that provided community support for those bereaved by homicide and to remember those we have lost. This very important event, which will now become an annual occurrence, was organized by Lisa Freeman, and I am happy to say that Lisa is here in Ottawa with me today. She is the person who inspired Bill C-320, a bill that we like to call the “truth in sentencing act”.

Since 2019, Lisa and I have made efforts to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act regarding disclosure of information to victims; at Durham Region Remembers, Lisa and I had the opportunity to share our efforts with the families of victims who were present. I can say that this was well received, with murmurs of hope that we might be able to help families that are plunged unasked into unfathomable situations. These families have then been further demoralized and retraumatized by the actions of the government through the Parole Board of Canada and Correctional Services, institutions that say they are supportive of victims of crime. Unfortunately, at best, this is an illusion.

Lisa is an inspiration not only to me but also to a very special community. This is a community, sadly, that has been forgotten by our criminal justice system. It is made up of victims, families and friends who have had to endure and re-endure trauma, emotional pain and endless suffering regarding their families' safety. Ms. Freeman is the author of the 2016 book, She Won't Be Silenced, described as the “story of my father's murder and my struggle to find justice WITHIN the Parole Board of Canada.”

After years of fighting to have her family's voice heard, while decisions were made about parole and the passage of information concerning her father's murderer, Ms. Freeman has petitioned the federal government to amend the ineffective Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and the opaque Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide improved transparency to victims of violent crime and their families.

This “truth in sentencing” bill was first tabled in the House of Commons as Bill C-466 by the Hon. Lisa Raitt in June 2019 and then again in the Senate by the Hon. Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu in December 2020 as Bill S-219. I want to thank Ms. Raitt and Senator Boisvenu for their work on this file. Now, I am hoping that I am three times lucky, and that this bill will finally make it through our process and become the law of the land.

It is important to recognize that this bill is a short bill; it would add just a few words, a common-sense phrase. It may make a small change in the law, but it would make a huge difference to victims. This bill would add the following words: “and an explanation of how that date has been determined”.

The aim of Bill C-320 is twofold. It would amend the current Canadian legislation to better meet the needs of victims of crime by providing timely and accurate information upon sentencing of an offender and avoiding the false comfort of misleading parole eligibility dates. It would also ensure that the victims of crime are provided with improved transparency and passage of information from the Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board of Canada. I admit that these changes would not fix the system, but they would certainly be a step in the right direction, and they could not occur at a better time.

In Canada we are now starting to see the effects of changes made to our justice system through the government's bill, Bill C-75, the bill that accelerated the government's catch-and-release bail system and bail policies. This change has unleashed a wave of violent crime across the country. We are hearing from Canadians that they do not feel safe walking down the street or taking transit. Canadians are telling us that our communities feel less safe. It is our responsibility to turn this trend around and avoid making the situation worse. We cannot allow violent offenders to repeat—

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by recognizing the hard work done by the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles on this bill and on the issue of public safety.

Our justice system is broken. The catch-and-release policies that the Liberal Party introduced in Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 have led to a 32% spike in violent crime across the country.

As the Conservative Party's shadow minister for public safety, I meet with public safety workers from all across the country. What am I hearing from police officers? They tell me we need to increase funding. However, what they really need is to stop arresting the same repeat offenders and violent offenders every weekend. Sometimes the police are on a first-name basis with these individuals because they have arrested them so many times. Sometimes they arrest them again the very next day. These repeat offenders get back out on the streets and go right back to terrorizing innocent Canadians by committing violent crimes.

We are seeing this in Vancouver. Last year, 40 individuals were responsible for 6,000 violent crimes. It is easy to imagine how much better police officers could do if those 40 individuals could be kept behind bars. How many networks of drug traffickers, gun smugglers, human traffickers and other complex criminal networks could be dismantled if police were not forced to deal with the 40 people responsible for 6,000 incidents who are spreading fear among Vancouverites?

It is the same thing in all the towns that I have heard about. Police officers are exhausted and are suffering serious PTSD because they are overworked. No amount of money can solve this problem. The only solution is a government that focuses on fighting crime, on jail, not bail, for violent repeat offenders, and on improving the parole system to keep dangerous criminals behind bars.

Measures like those would definitely help the police fight violent crime and would really bolster the fight against gun violence. That is what the Toronto Police Service and the premiers of every province and territory are saying. They all agree. They have written to the Prime Minister many times calling for bail reform. These kinds of measures would really have an impact on reducing gun violence.

Instead, the Liberal government is spending an estimated $6 billion on its so-called firearms buyback program, which is really a confiscation program. That is where the Liberals are sending resources. That is their priority. A Conservative government led by the member for Carleton would get Canadians results, clean up our streets and reduce gun violence. That is our commitment to Canadians.

We need a complete overhaul of the Liberal system, which has caused violent crime to skyrocket across the country and has led to innocent Canadians being killed by repeat violent offenders. The member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles introduced Bill C-325 a few weeks ago. This bill would fix the major flaws in Bill C-5, which allows repeat violent offenders to serve their sentences at home, and would keep Canadians safe in their communities.

The bill makes three important changes to our justice system. The first has to do with parole. Some inmates are charged with serious and violent crimes, including drug trafficking or worse, yet they are granted parole and face no consequences if they breach their release conditions. The police may catch an offender breaching their conditions, but all they can do is submit a report to the parole officer. This bill amends the law to introduce consequences for non-compliance with release conditions.

As far as parole officers are concerned, the bill requires them to notify the authorities when one of their parolees breaches their conditions. If that happens, the parole officer must inform the police so that an arrest can be made. These are violent offenders. This seems like a common-sense policy to us. However, the reality is that it is not currently mandatory to report repeat violent offenders who breach their conditions.

Finally, this bill fixes the “Netflix sentences” created by Bill C‑5. The third component of the bill seeks to correct the problem created by Bill C‑5, that of allowing violent criminals to serve their sentences in the community by sitting at home watching Netflix. Bill C-325 would strengthen the parole system by creating a new offence for breaching conditions. It would require parole officers to report breaches of conditions and would reinstate the old version of section 742.1 of the Criminal Code, which was repealed by the Liberals' Bill C-5.

That bill made it possible for criminals convicted of aggravated sexual assault to serve their sentence in the community. That is very serious. I hope that this monumental error will be fixed and that the Bloc Québécois and NDP members will support Bill C‑325. Those violent criminals should not get to serve their sentences at home while watching Netflix. They should be behind bars. I remind members that because of Bill C‑5, a 42-year-old man managed to avoid prison after committing a violent sexual assault.

Even a Quebec Crown prosecutor criticized the government for Bill C‑5. He said that, right now, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice probably owe victims of sexual assault an explanation, and that he could not remain silent about this regressive situation.

It is clear that we cannot trust the Liberals to protect women and children from violent repeat offenders. With the support of the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, the Liberals are putting Canadians at increasing risk of becoming victims of violent crimes.

Only a Conservative government led by the member for Carleton will make legislative changes to improve public safety with bills such as Bill C‑325, proposed by the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague could see from the description I gave of the support that Bill C‑325 has received, it is pretty unanimous.

However, there is a distinction to be made. I think we often confuse things when we talk about bail. I know that the government is in the process of making changes to the law with Bill C‑75. For my part, I am adapting what was problematic with Bill C‑5. I am also introducing something new that does not exist anywhere else in the Criminal Code, namely making it an offence to fail to comply with release conditions. That is parole, which is different from bail. Bill C‑325 is not at all similar to what the government is currently proposing.

Justice

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of these Liberals, violent crime is up 32%. Recently, in Toronto, a 75-year-old woman was approached from behind and stabbed in the neck.

This Liberal bail legislation fails on bail reform. Under the proposed bill, the accused killer of OPP Constable Greg Pierzchala and countless other repeat violent offenders would still have been released on bail.

Will the government stop the catch-and-release agenda, stop making our streets more dangerous and undo its irresponsible changes in Bill C-75?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-75 codified a number of Supreme Court of Canada decisions and did not fundamentally change the law of bail in Canada.

However, listening to provincial premiers, provincial ministers of justice and public safety, and police officers, we have proposed amendments to the bail regime to answer their concerns.

Here is the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police: “We commend the government for acting on the urgency for legislative change and for recognizing that our...amendments were not calling for a complete overhaul of Canada's bail system”.

We are listening and we are getting results.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I spent most of my adult life working in the criminal justice system and I can say, unequivocally, that I have never seen bail in such a precarious state. After eight years of the Liberal government, violent crime is up 32%.

The wheels really started to fall off with the passing of Bill C-75 and now the Liberals have tabled amendments to bail that, in my reading, would not have applied to Constable Pierzchala's alleged killer.

When will the Liberal government undo the harmful effects of Bill C-75, to end catch-and-release and keep Canadians safe?

Sitting Resumed

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Banff—Airdrie.

I rise in strong opposition to Bill C-21, the latest ideological, evidence-free attack by the Liberals on law-abiding firearms owners.

Canada is facing a crime wave after eight years of this disastrous Liberal government. Violent crime is up 32%. Gang-related homicides have nearly doubled, up a staggering 94%. An unprecedented 10 police officers since September have been murdered in the line of duty. Random violent attacks on public transit and on the streets are now commonplace in cities right across Canada. More and more Canadians are feeling less safe in their communities, and that is because more communities that once were safe are no longer safe or are less safe now than when the Liberals took office.

By contrast to the staggering 32% increase in violent crime under the Liberals, under Prime Minister Harper's Conservatives, violent crime went down 33%. In fact, the Liberals have managed to do something that no government has done, which is to reverse a 30-year trend in which Canada, until the Liberals came to power, saw a downward spiral in crime. Now it is up 32%.

I say that because this violent crime wave did not happen in a vacuum, it did not happen by accident and it did not even happen as a result of inaction on the part of the Liberals. It happened as a result of very deliberate and very specific policies regarding Canada's criminal justice system embraced by the Liberals.

The Prime Minister has embraced, full stop, a series of virtue-signalling, woke criminal justice policies. These are policies that the Prime Minister has imported from the United States. They are disastrous policies that have been implemented south of the border by radical, left-wing, big-city mayors and district attorneys. They are policies that have resulted in large swaths of once great American cities, such as Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle and Portland, Oregon, turning into crime no-go zones. It is these American-style policies that the Prime Minister is importing to Canada.

Let us look at the disastrous record of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, in 2018, was responsible for passing Bill C-75, which established catch-and-release bail. Thanks to the Prime Minister, a judge is now required to make it the primary consideration that an accused be released at the earliest opportunity with the least onerous conditions possible. This has resulted in a revolving door. It has meant that, in many instances, criminals are released back onto the streets and are out committing crimes the very same day they were arrested for the crimes they committed. That is catch-and-release Liberal bail.

Let us look at some of the statistics as a consequence.

In the city of Vancouver, 40 hard-core criminals are responsible for 6,000 arrests a year. That is 150 arrests per offender. Liberal catch-and-release bail has meant that a small number of hard-core criminals are overwhelmingly and disproportionately responsible for a significant number of criminal incidents.

In Edmonton, a community I am proud to represent in this place, a young mother, Carolann Robillard, and her 11-year-old daughter, Sara, are now dead thanks to Liberal catch-and-release bail. Carolann and Sara were brutally murdered, stabbed to death at a park, of all places, at an elementary school.

They were brutally stabbed to death by who? It was a total stranger who happen to be a hard-core violent criminal, who, thanks to Liberal catch-and-release, had been released on bail just 18 days prior. Who was this violent offender who stabbed to death an 11-year-old girl and her young mother outside an elementary school? He was someone who had a 14-year rap sheet of committing violent attacks.

He had been convicted multiple times of serious offences such as aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, multiple robberies and assaulting a correctional officer. Last year, he attacked a 12-year-old girl on an LRT in Edmonton. That is who was released thanks to Liberal catch-and-release bail. He never should have been released. He should have been kept behind bars. He never should have been on bail. It is outrageous that he was.

It is outrageous that the folks across the way can so sanctimoniously defend a series of policies that are indefensible. They are putting lives at risk and endangering public safety. How dare they.

It is not just catch and release. This is a government that, last year, passed Bill C-5, the fourth piece of legislation the government introduced in this Parliament. It is obviously a top priority for the government. What does Bill C-5 do? It significantly expands house arrest for some very serious offences, including sexual assault, kidnapping and human trafficking. In other words, criminals convicted of such offences will not have to spend a single day in jail.

What about firearms? We hear a lot about the Liberals' professed concern about firearms. It seems they are obsessed with firearms as objects, but they have not figured out that firearms do not commit crimes; criminals with firearms commit crimes. What have the Liberals done about criminals who go out and commit offences with guns? Bill C-5 actually eliminates mandatory jail time for serious gun crime, including robbery with a gun, using a firearm in the commission of an offence, discharging a firearm with the intent to injure and weapons trafficking. That is the approach of the Liberals.

It is a policy of the woke. It is a policy grounded in absurdity. Compounding that absurdity is Bill C-21, which is now before the House. It is a bill that does not take illegal firearms off the streets. It does not keep repeat offenders behind bars where they belong. Incredibly, it goes after law-abiding, licensed firearms owners, who are among the group of Canadians least likely to commit a crime.

Those are the people the Liberals are going after. It could not be more absurd. The government's set of priorities could not be more backwards.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to measure up to my colleague. It is not easy to speak after the official opposition whip. She gave a wonderful speech and did a great job of illustrating the challenges we face.

Today, I am speaking to Bill C-21, this government's flawed gun bill. Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge the hard work my colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul has done on this file, as well as the work put in by all of my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Since the bill was introduced in the House, the Liberal Party has changed direction so often that it is difficult to keep up. The Liberals' inordinate attacks on the Canadian people have not gone unnoticed. The Liberals have shown their true colours to Canadians. Instead of cracking down on illegal guns and gang members, this government has introduced legislation targeting hunters, farmers and indigenous communities.

As usual, the Liberal government is completely out of touch with rural Canada, widening the all-too-real divide in our country. No one believes that going after hunters will reduce violent crime across the country. This is part of the Liberal plan to divide Canadians.

As Conservatives, we support common-sense gun policies that prevent guns from falling into the hands of dangerous criminals. The most important thing we can do is to crack down on smugglers at the borders and prevent illegal weapons from getting into Canada and falling into the hands of criminals and gang members.

I have had the opportunity to talk with many citizens in my riding about this bill. I talked to Mr. Vachon from Saint‑Georges, who served in the army for 14 years and who is very worried about the impact this bill will have on him and his ability to hunt and sport shoot. He is an advocate for the safe use of firearms and understands very well that those who commit crimes with illegal firearms will not be concerned at all about this bill. The only people who are worried about it are law-abiding hunters and sport shooters.

I also talked to Mr. Deschênes from Sainte‑Marie, who is extremely concerned about the impact this bill will have on shooting clubs in the region. They may have to close their doors in the future. He is a federal agent and needs to regularly train at these shooting ranges to keep up his skills and keep himself safe. He emphasized the importance of these shooting ranges for public safety because many police services use them to perfect their skills and maintain their accreditation, and they also educate other Canadians about gun safety.

Finally, Ms. Turcotte from Beauceville contacted my office just last week to express her dissatisfaction with amendments G‑4 and G‑46. These amendments were completely inappropriate and were subsequently withdrawn. However, hunters still worry about what the Liberal government will do next. How far is it prepared to go? Will it amend the same bill once it comes into force, introduce those amendments and shut down debate again?

In my riding, countless farmers also contacted me for fear that they would no longer be able to protect their livestock, which is their livelihood. The problem with this government is that it has a strange way of sending messages. It claims to have discussed this bill with stakeholders, but when the text of the bill and the amendments were published, many groups, such as hunters, indigenous groups and professional sport shooters were taken completely by surprise.

A member of the Alberta Mounted Shooters Association said that they are a very safety-conscious group. She added that before they can become mounted shooters, they must complete training, testing and background checks to obtain their restricted gun licences. They want more Canadians to practice their sport. They want to grow and develop skilled target shooters and equestrians. They also want the ability to continue the legacy for our youth and produce more world champions.

At the rate this bill is going, I do not know if there will be any sport shooters left when this is all over. New athletes will have so many regulatory hurdles to overcome that any shooting discipline outside of the Olympics will be eradicated. Even Canadian Olympians will be forced to spend countless hours obtaining the necessary licences to travel with their sporting equipment.

This lack of comprehensive consultation has not just affected hunters and sport shooters; it has also affected the most important segment of the Canadian population, indigenous communities. As Chief Jessica Lazare of the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake put it, the lack of thorough and comprehensive consultation with indigenous communities is demonstrated by the incoherence and inconsistency of the proposed legislation, the amendments and the lack of recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples.

This is further proof of the complete ignorance shown by this government and the Minister of Public Safety.

Let us talk about how the Prime Minister continues to fail Canadians when it comes to public safety. With bills like C-5, the government is making our country less safe. Bill C-5 removes mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes. How backwards can this government be?

For people who are guilty of armed robbery or firearms trafficking or who recklessly discharge a weapon, it is easier to get away with it thanks to the Prime Minister's soft on crime approach. This government has made things twice as bad with Bill C‑75. The Prime Minister's bail policy has triggered a wave of violent crime in our country.

Our communities feel less safe, and the Liberal government is responsible for making the situation worse. A common-sense Conservative government will ensure that violent reoffenders stay behind bars while awaiting trial, and it will bring back the mandatory sentences for serious violent crimes that were cut by this government.

The bail reform measures that were announced this week are reactive and respond to weeks of news about the dramatic increase in violent crime in this country. Why does the government always have to play catch-up? It is incapable of getting ahead on anything. A Conservative government will ensure Canadians' safety and introduce bills that will truly keep Canadians safe.

Does the government realize that illegal guns are used in 99% of gun crimes? More than 85% of those guns are smuggled in from the United States. Why are they not allocating more resources at the borders to prevent these firearms from entering?

In my riding, there are two border crossings that do not even have CBSA officers. Truckers coming into Canada simply pick up the phone and call the nearest border service officer to open the gate and the shipments come into Canada without any screening. I am sure this may surprise some members of the House, but it shows just how low a priority border security is for the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety.

In conclusion, I think everyone in this House wants to make Canada a safer place to live, but Bill C-21 was never the right way to go about it. This bill was flawed from the start, and the government has completely missed the mark.

I also think the NDP has a lot to do with this failure, as the New Democrats continue to support the government in this process. However, many of the NDP members are from rural ridings. I hope their constituents have been watching them all this time and will remember this failure. Conservatives will always be there to keep Canadians safe and to protect law-abiding gun owners, whether they are hunters, farmers, sport shooters or indigenous people.

We will always protect their right to own and use firearms safely and lawfully. We will ensure that violent criminals and smugglers are prosecuted, instead of our law-abiding neighbours and farmers.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to speak to Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

I want to speak today in solidarity with all the honest, law-abiding people in Lévis—Lotbinière who legally own guns for reasons other than committing violent crimes.

My colleagues will no doubt understand that I have come here to defend honest hunters and shooters, farmers, and collectors who own guns passed down from one generation to another.

The absurd thing about the Liberal government is that their bills miss their targets most of the time—that is probably a bad pun—as does their budget, for that matter.

How will legalizing drugs prevent or reduce crime? That is utter nonsense. How can anyone believe that restricting the use of certain registered and legal weapons is going to reduce the same criminal activity that continues to rise because of bad Liberal decisions?

The solution to the ever-increasing crime is quite simple, and it is the same for everything else that has not worked in our country since 2015. We are headed straight for a cliff because the Liberals are in power and they are making bad decisions.

The goal of the new Liberal amendments to Bill C‑21 is not to protect us, but to score political points and instill a false sense of security in the population. The facts prove otherwise and nothing will change.

I would like to talk about academic and government stakeholders, such as Dr. Caillin Langmann, assistant clinical professor at McMaster University. He stated that available research has demonstrated that the proposed ban on handguns and semi-automatic weapons would not reduce the rates of homicide and mass homicide.

Someone who wants to inflict harm has the imagination and means to do so. What causes an individual to commit the irreparable quite often begins with the family violence that children witness. These children will become uncontrollable adults who abuse drugs that have become legal and who commit increasingly serious crimes.

The rehabilitation system for these individuals is not working and the Liberal Party encourages this scourge through bad policies and complacency. As proof, the Liberal Party's catch-and-release policies are not working. After eight years of Liberal governance, violent crimes have increased by 32% and gang-related homicides have doubled.

Rather than cracking down on the illegal guns used by criminals and street gangs, the Prime Minister is working to take hunting rifles away from law-abiding farmers, hunters and indigenous peoples.

Let us be clear. The Liberals' new definition is the same as the old one. The commonly used hunting firearms targeted by the Liberals in the fall will likely be added to the ban by the new Liberal firearms advisory panel.

Let there be no mistake. There is nothing new in the amendments proposed by the Liberals. They have just wrapped the initial amendments up in a new package. Hunters, farmers and indigenous peoples are not naive, and neither are the Conservatives. The Conservatives do not support taking guns away from law-abiding farmers, hunters and indigenous peoples. When the Liberals say that they are banning so-called assault-style firearms, they really mean that they are banning hunting rifles. The Prime Minister even admitted as much a few months ago.

No one believes that the government is going to reduce violent crime across the country by going after hunters and legitimate hunting rifles. That is part of the Liberal government's plan to distract Canadians from the real issues our country is facing and to divide them.

For eight years now, have the Liberals been aware that they are making life easier for violent criminals by repealing mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes with legislation stemming from Bill C‑5?

Are the Liberals aware that they are making it easier for violent criminals to get bail with legislation stemming from Bill C‑75?

Are the Liberals aware that they are making life easier for violent criminals by not stopping the flow of illegal guns across the U.S. border?

Conservatives support common-sense gun policies, policies that will stop dangerous criminals from getting guns. That is why a Conservative government will invest in policing and securing our borders rather than spending billions of dollars confiscating guns from farmers, hunters, indigenous people and law-abiding Canadians.

Let us not be fooled. The Liberals are the champions of wishful thinking. The Liberals are also the champions of empty gestures, empty words and wasting our hard-earned money.

Quality of life has gone down considerably in Canada in the past eight years in every area of daily life and not just because of the increasing crime rate, which, again, jumped by 32%. When we look at the facts, the current situation and the numbers, we see that this is no longer working. One just needs to look at the number of available jobs, the backlog in immigration cases, the applications for temporary foreign workers that are blocked and have caused businesses back home such as Olymel to shut down.

I am thinking about the Liberals' rejection of my Bill C‑215, which sought to promote life by allowing people with a serious disease such as cancer to be entitled to 52 weeks of employment insurance to get back on their feet. I am thinking about all these young people to whom the Liberal Party is offering addiction to dangerous substances as a life work; as we all know, using hard drugs brings more problems. That is obvious and it only makes sense to acknowledge it.

I have a hard time seeing how Bill C‑21 will achieve the Liberal Party's murky goal of lowering the crime rate and making our streets safer.

In closing, in Lévis—Lotbinière, the majority of us are responsible, law-abiding people. More than ever, we need a return to a Conservative government to restore order in our country and in our politics, and to put money back in our pockets.

Criminal Code

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that I am happy to be rising today to discuss this piece of legislation, but I am happy to be rising as a law-abiding firearms owner to defend my fellow law-abiding firearms owners.

How did we get here? I will put things in context so the people who might be watching at home know whom they are listening to. I am a member of Parliament for an urban-rural split riding in central Alberta. Half of my constituents live in Red Deer, the third-largest city in Alberta, and the other half live on a first nation reserve, or in a rural setting in Red Deer County, Lacombe County or Ponoka County, or in a small town, city or village therein.

I would consider the people I represent to be honest, hard-working, law-abiding folks who want their tax dollars spent wisely and want the freedom to pursue whatever they want to pursue in life. Many of them pursue various things that involve firearms, including hunting, farming on farms like the one I grew up on, where firearms are just a tool and an everyday part of life, or sport shooting. This is very popular in my constituency. There are numerous stores and vendors in central Alberta that supply firearms, ammunition and parts because of the demand that is there.

I can tell members that we do not have the problems that my colleague who just spoke talked about in her large urban centre, because we respect the law. We put policies in place at the provincial level, and when we are the governing party, we put laws in place that actually crack down on criminals. That is where the actual issue lies.

I can assure Canadians who might be watching at home that the firearms I own are doing nothing right now. They do not do anything until someone picks them up. The issue at hand is violent crime and who has access to firearms. There are numerous provisions in this bill, Bill C-21, that do not address, penalize or in any way affect the outcome of dealing with the wrong people getting a hold of firearms.

How did we get here? Over the course of the preceding decades, Canada was a country that was a rugged place to settle, and it is still a rugged place for some who live in rural areas or adjacent to wild areas or who are farming, involved in forestry, or doing something as seemingly innocuous as keeping beehives. Anybody watching at home who grew up with cartoon books would know that Winnie-the-Pooh was addicted to honey. This is not by chance. Bears often frequent these places, and good, honest people have bought firearms to protect themselves, many of whom were caught up in the order in council that came out a number of years ago.

It all started in the 1930s. If we go back that far, every single firearm and handgun in this country has been put in a registry, but that does not stop criminals from obtaining guns illegally. The government of the day, whenever it is Liberal or Liberal-leaning, seems to want to blame the law-abiding citizen, so, for decades, we have had a firearms registry and the government knows where all the lawfully owned handguns in this country are. Changes were brought in back when Jean Chrétien was the prime minister, including a long-gun registry, which was wasteful and ineffective. The government of the day said it would cost only $2 million, but it was actually closer to $2 billion. Of course, it did not do anything to address violent crime.

We have seen the current government, in its first mandate, put in place Bill C-75, which basically codified in law bail provisions that would let people out in the shortest amount of time with the smallest number of restrictions, and now we see what has happened with that.

What did Bill C-21 originally do? When the members of this House were invited to speak to the bill, it was simply the codification in law of an order in council to ban the transfer of handguns. Then, sneakily, the government decided to table-drop, back in November, a huge stack of amendments that had absolutely nothing to do with handguns. They were all about long guns, and of course the government bit off far more than it could chew.

The government managed to alienate almost all of its voting base when it comes to indigenous Canadians, who were offended by the fact that the firearms used by indigenous people were largely going to be caught up in amendment G-46, taking away their ability to use that firearm.

There was also an evergreen clause in G-4, and I am sorry to report that there is a new evergreen clause put in place that does virtually the same thing, with a minor exception, which I will explain in a few minutes, when I get back to what the problem actually is with the government's notions going forward on its new evergreen clause.

We all remember what happened. It was pretty obvious, because we heard the recordings from the Mass Casualty Commission. The government actually interfered. It took this mass casualty event in Nova Scotia and interfered in the investigation by demanding that the officers who were investigating at the time turn over information to advance a political agenda of the government of the day.

We know it is not about evidence. It is not evidence-based policy-making; it is policy-based evidence-making and evidence-finding, even if it interferes with a police investigation. That is why there is very little trust by law-abiding firearms owners in the intentions of the Liberal government, which is supported by the NDP, and what it is doing.

What is the problem? The problem is violent crime. In the last eight years, violent crime has risen because of the provisions that have been passed by the government when it had a majority and with the support of other left-leaning parties in this place. They passed numerous pieces of legislation, such as Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, that have basically eliminated any consequences whatsoever for people who commit crimes, so much so that violent crime in the last eight years is up 32% over what it was when the Prime Minister and his government inherited the government offices of this place.

More astonishing is this number: 94% increase in gang-related homicides. One would think that an almost doubling of the number of homicides by gang members would trigger a response from the government to crack down on organized crime, but it actually has done the opposite. The passages and clauses in the Criminal Code that would deal with people who are repeat violent offenders have largely been removed, as well as any semblance of a minimum sentence. I am not even talking about mandatory minimum sentences put in place by Stephen Harper when he was prime minister, and by the way crime went down over those 10 years, but I am getting to the point of the fact that numerous basic minimum sentences were removed.

These were put in place by people like Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Jean Chrétien. Of the 12 firearms-related clauses in that piece of legislation, 11 were actually put in place by previous Liberal governments, and the current version of the Liberal government has removed even the most basic minimum sentences for violent crime, including smuggling, firing a gun irresponsibly or even holding a gun to somebody's head for the purpose of extortion. It has removed any mandatory jail time whatsoever for those.

That is the tone and the signal Liberals have sent to the country. Why would criminals not want to increase their activity? There are no consequences, and this is the problem.

I will give an example of the illogic of what the government is doing right now. According to the RCMP's website, there are approximately 430 gangs in Canada with 7,000 members in those gangs. If we look at the average number of homicides committed by people associated with gangs over the last five or six years, it is about 50% of murders. Fifty per cent of murders are committed by gang members, or about 125 a year. There are 2.2 million licensed gun owners in this country. If we look over that same time period, we will see that they are charged for homicide about 12 times a year.

That is 12 out of 2.2 million people versus 125 out of 7,000 people. Who does the government go after? It goes after the 2.2 million. It does not make any sense whatsoever. If we do the math, a gang member is 3,300 times more likely to commit murder with a firearm than a law-abiding firearm owner is, yet the government focuses only on the law-abiding firearm owner.

Gary Mauser, professor emeritus, did an analysis for Statistics Canada that shows that Canadians who are not licensed firearms owners are still three times more likely to commit a homicide than a vetted, licensed gun owner is. For the people who are watching at home, the safest people in Canada for them to be with are legally vetted, law-abiding firearm owners who, at any time, could have their firearms taken away with any complaint lodged against them. That means that every firearm owner meticulously follows the laws of storage, the laws of transportation and the laws of safe discharge. As a matter of fact, we jokingly quip sometimes that gun control meetings are about making sure one's muzzle is always pointed downrange. That is what gun control is to a law-abiding gun owner. We follow all the rules because we do not want to risk losing our privileges, because the fact is that every firearm in Canada is illegal unless it is in the possession of somebody with a licence who is authorized to have that firearm.

We have to go through a renewal process every five years, during which our entire history, including our mental health history, our medical history and anything that might have happened before the courts is reviewed in detail. We wait months to get our licence renewed. Sometimes it is not renewed on time. This puts us in a situation, as law-abiding firearm owners, where we are now in possession of our firearms, which were legal one day, but of which, because of the incompetence of the government to process an application on time, we are now technically, according to the law, illegally in possession. We actually had a clause, when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, where people had a six-month grace period. I am very frustrated by the removal of that grace period, and I will get to that in a minute.

In committee, Dr. Caillin Langmann from McMaster University basically laid it out for everybody to see. His brief states:

The foregoing research papers are peer reviewed and conclude that Canadian legislation to regulate and control firearm possession and acquisition does not have a corresponding effect on homicide and suicide rates.

It also states:

I was asked to produce a review paper for the Journal of Preventive Medicine in 2021. This paper entitled, “Suicide, firearms, and legislation: A review of the Canadian evidence” reviewed 13 studies regarding suicide and legislative efforts and found an associated reduction in suicide by firearm in men aged 45 and older but demonstrated an equivalent increase in suicide by other methods such as hanging. Factors such as unemployment, low income, and indigenous populations were associated with suicide rates....

My conclusions are based on sound statistical analysis and information specifically related to Canada. I am not aware of any other Canadian research which uses reliable statistical models to dispute or disagree with my conclusions.

The brief also states:

Bans of military-appearing firearms, semiautomatic rifles and handguns, short barrel handguns and Saturday night specials in the 1990s has resulted in no associated reduction in homicide rates.

To summarize the results, no statistically significant beneficial associations were found between firearms legislation and homicide by firearm, as well as spousal homicide by firearms, and the criminal charge of “Discharge of a Firearm with Intent”....

Other studies have demonstrated agreement with my studies that laws targeting restricted firearms such as handguns and certain semi-automatic and full automatic firearms in Canada also had no associated effect with homicide rates. Canadian studies by Leenaars and Lester 2001, Mauser and Holmes 1992, and McPhedran and Mauser 2013, are all in general agreement with my study.

The issue is violent crime. It is about controlling violent criminals, controlling those people. One can control inanimate objects all one wants, but it will not change anything. Therefore, the “who” is not the problem. It is not hunters. Over eight million people in this country hunt and fish, contributing $19 billion annually to the GDP, and the order in council has already banned rifles used for hunting, some that even conservation officers use. I was a conservation officer. I was a national park warden and I was issued firearms for my duties. I was a park ranger in charge of a park in the province of Alberta and I was issued firearms for those duties as well. Every person I dealt with as a conservation officer was at least a camper who had an axe, a fisherman who had a knife or a hunter who had either a rifle or a bow and arrow. I had no trouble with those good people, no trouble whatsoever.

We are going to ban the very guns that conservation officers use, but they do not have those firearms. The Yukon government actually had to go around the order in council to buy firearms for its conservation officers, because those are the best firearms available to protect its officers from bears, mountain lions and all of the other issues that conservation officers face, because that is where the real issue lies.

It is very clear to me as a hunter, that, with the changes the Liberals have made, they are weasel words, especially the evergreen clause that deals with magazines. I laid it out very clearly at committee that anybody who wants to interpret it that way can say that, as long as a firearm can take a magazine that holds more than five rounds, it shall be banned. After this becomes law, we would end up in a situation in which, with guns that are functionally identical, one from 10 years ago and a new firearm, one would be prohibited and the other would still be legal. This is because of the clear lack of knowledge and understanding, when it comes to firearms, of people who do not own guns, making laws that simply do not work. We are going to have that scenario again.

However, if people think their gun is safe because they have an older gun that is not included in the new evergreen clause, they should think again, because the firearms committee that would be struck would still have the same authority to do a firearms reference table analysis and ban whatever guns it does not like.

I have news for everybody in this room. If we look at all of the hunting regulations in all of the provinces and territories in this country, a hunting rifle is a rifle that is in the hands of a hunter, used for the purposes of the hunt. It does not matter what it looks like; it just matters what the calibre of the bullet is, so the animal can be safely dispatched.

I could go on for literally a couple more hours and talk about the end of cowboy mounted shooting, cowboy action shooting, IPSC, all of these sports for all of these good people. They are mostly Filipinos there, by the way, when I go to an IPSC event. They are people who have moved here from a country that never allowed them to own firearms, but they have come here and taken up this sport and activity. They are frustrated because, when we take away the ability to transfer these handguns between law-abiding citizens, it will be the end of thousands of people's enjoyment of the sports that involve handguns. I look forward to answering some hopefully logical questions from around the room.

Before I conclude, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for the purpose of reconsidering clauses 0.1, 1.1 and 17, with a view to ensure that the government cannot take away hunting rifles from law-abiding farmers, hunters and Indigenous peoples.”

Justice

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when he starts talking about his interest in improving public safety, the Prime Minister will say anything. His actions tell a different story, though.

To start with, he passed Bill C-75, which makes it easier for violent criminals to obtain bail. After that, he passed Bill C‑5 to get rid of mandatory jail sentences for serious crimes. Now he has a bail reform bill, which was tabled yesterday, that is so weak that even the person charged with murdering police officer Greg Pierzchala would still have gotten bail.

Can the Prime Minister admit to his mistakes and simply repeal the law arising from Bill C‑75?

Criminal Code

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country, including, in this very late hour, to talk about an important piece of legislation, Bill C-21.

I would like to express my concerns about this legislation and the potential consequences of it. While the intention of this bill may be to address issues of public safety, it is crucial that we critically examine its provisions and the implications they may have on our society as a whole, especially for law-abiding citizens.

It is important to prioritize public safety. However, this bill fails to acknowledge that attacking responsible law-abiding firearms owners is not a solution to the 32% increase in violent crime we have seen since the Liberals took office. Casting a wide net and imposing bans on firearms owned legally infringes upon the rights of law-abiding citizens, who use firearms for legitimate purposes such as sport shooting and hunting.

This firearms legislation, Bill C-21, is one of the biggest topics I have heard about during my time as a member of Parliament. There is so much about this bill that does not make sense. It treats law-abiding firearms owners as criminals, undermining the principles of due process and fairness. The overwhelming majority of firearms owners in Canada are law-abiding citizens who have undergone thorough background checks and are responsible in their use, transport and storage of firearms.

This bill has wide-reaching effects on law-abiding farmers, sport shooters, hunters and indigenous peoples. Instead of going after illegal firearms used by criminals and street gangs, the Liberals are focused on going after law-abiding farmers, hunters and indigenous peoples.

This is from Blane, a resident from Kelowna—Lake Country who reached out to me:

The gun buy back and focus is a bad idea and I reject it. I would hope that you would too. The program targets people who are not the typical culprits in violent crimes. Go after the criminals. And the cost to implement and maintain the proposed program is outrageous! I protest the Liberal program and even its intent because it will neither alleviate nor change violent crimes with guns. Criminals, as a reminder, don't follow the rules.

This bill does not adequately address the root causes of gun violence in our society. Instead of focusing on addressing mental health issues, improving law enforcement and strengthening border controls to combat illegal firearms trafficking, Bill C-21 targets legal firearms owners. No one believes that going after hunters and legal firearms owners will reduce violent crime across the country. This is part of the Liberal plan to distract and divide Canadians.

The Liberals' approach on firearms fails to address the core issues and instead burdens law-abiding citizens with unnecessary restrictions. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police pointed out that restrictions on legal firearms would not “meaningfully address the real issue” about gun violence, as it is illegal weapons that have led to gun violence.

Recent reports have shown that about 85% of handguns used in crimes are imported from the United States illegally. Criminals do not adhere to laws or regulations, and they will continue to access firearms through illicit means regardless of the restrictions imposed on law-abiding citizens. In essence, the bill penalizes responsible gun owners while doing little to address the criminal elements driving gun violence.

A comprehensive approach to reducing gun violence should involve measures that address underlying causes, such as poverty, inequality and mental health issues, while also targeting illegal firearms trafficking and strengthening law enforcement efforts. While the goal of enhancing public safety is important, the Liberals' Bill C-21 misses the mark by imposing ineffective measures that infringe upon the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens.

If we are truly committed to addressing the issue of gun violence, we must invest in comprehensive solutions. They include strengthening mental health services, focusing on addiction treatment and recovery, getting tough on criminals through bail reform and securing our borders against firearms smuggling. By focusing on these efforts, we can address the root causes of violence and ensure that firearms are used responsibly and safely by law-abiding citizens.

Since the Prime Minister took office, violent crime has increased by 32% and gang-related homicides have nearly doubled. The Liberals are making life easier for violent criminals by repealing mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes with Bill C-5. They have also made it easier to get bail with Bill C-75 and are failing to stop the flow of illegal guns across the U.S. border.

If the Liberals were serious about addressing public safety, they would listen to Canadians. Recently, I sent out a survey in my community in Kelowna—Lake Country, and the results were astonishing. More than 91% of people said that living in Kelowna—Lake Country had become less safe in the last eight years. This is not due to law-abiding local firearms owners.

Canadians are no longer feeling safe in their own country. There is a demand to get tough on crime, and these Liberals refuse to. Ninety-four per cent of people who filled out my survey said that our bail system is broken, and the overwhelming majority of respondents called for stronger sentencing, the return of minimum sentences and no bail for repeat offenders. A legacy of these Liberals will be disorder and a crime wave on Canada made worse by the Liberal, revolving door bail system.

Here is another part of the firearm legislation that will continue to evolve into the future with no debate in Parliament. There will be a firearms advisory council that will continue to add firearms to the banned list, and this group will be set up by the Liberals. That is the order in council list from May 2020. Regardless of what may be in this legislation, the list will continue to grow with no public consultation.

This firearms legislation has been a disaster from the beginning. It created so much uncertainty from the very moment the order in council occurred in 2020. Then there was the legislation and the dropping of last minute amendments at committee. There was public outcry, government backbenchers speaking out, and many law-abiding residents in my community and across Canada getting involved. This is how the Liberals govern: It is always a mess.

There are so many people that the government did not even consider when it was initially putting this legislation together. A resident reached out to me very concerned as he stated he was a local elite athlete competing in the sport of target shooting. Another issue that has been bought up to me by my local fish and game clubs is that law enforcement officers use the local ranges to train. If these local clubs are not able to sustain themselves because this legislation is making it just too difficult for residents to continue with their sport shooting and training for hunting, this could put in jeopardy the ability for law enforcement members to train. This is a real concern for the clubs and RCMP members I have spoken with.

I have heard from law-abiding firearms owners in Kelowna-Lake Country, who are licensed and follow all the rules. They are concerned with turning in firearms they have collected, and in many cases they have said that they have never used, as they may have been passed on from a deceased family member. They have them stored properly, and they say they have not been anywhere outside of proper areas.

We must strive for a balanced approach that respects the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens while addressing the underlying causes of gun violence. Rather than imposing blanket bans and restrictions, we should focus on comprehensive solutions that promote responsible firearm ownership, address mental health concerns, strengthen law enforcement efforts and combat the illegal trafficking of firearms. Canadians are suffering, and everything feels broken.

Conservatives support common-sense firearms policies that keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals and secure our borders rather than spending billions confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand tonight and speak to the debate on Bill C-21, discussing firearms in this nation of ours, Canada. I am not simply standing here as a Conservative member of Parliament. I do not want to improperly represent anything or anybody, because the people I am representing here tonight are amazing people. They are not just people from my riding; they are people from right across this country who see this legislation as something nefarious, quite honestly.

I look at the whole process that the government, the NDP-Liberal coalition, has gone through in contortions of creating an order in council that banned certain firearms, then moving to handguns and then bringing in amendments to add in a huge plethora of other firearms to that list. Then it reneged on that and took the list away, and now it just has a definition. Whoever made that list up for the government had fun doing it, because it is clear they really did not understand the breadth of firearms on that list and how ridiculous it is that so many of them were even there.

When I am speaking here tonight, I am speaking on behalf of people across this country who truly understand firearms and know exactly what this legislation is. I get the impression that Liberals are talking about firearms owners, hunters, farmers and even indigenous people as those who do not really know what is going on here, and they are the ones who are speaking out.

As with so many issues in this House, we are standing on this side of the floor and I firmly believe we are the ones who are representing the majority of Canadians in this place, who see legislation brought forward that says one thing but suddenly there are all these additional amendments, or it is a bill brought in with nothing and everything needs to be added in after they have made their speeches about what it is.

It is very clear that what we have here is a government and its partner turning themselves into pretzels trying to figure out how to carry on with what they truly want to do. I can say very confidently that I hear over and over again that this emperor has no clothes. Canadians are seeing through what their intentions are. It is so clear because common sense does not exist in the majority of this legislation.

What we are supposedly talking about here is public safety and protecting Canadians, yet as the government is introducing this legislation and other pieces, crime in Canada has grown exponentially. There is no clear rational reason to focus on hunters, farmers and indigenous people who use firearms responsibly, safely and legally as a means of dealing with the violence we are facing, which is growing in our nation.

It is really clear that this legislation would not impact the important things in regard to violence in our country. Catch-and-release policies of the government have been brutal, where Canadians have become victims because it has been so poorly laid out. Now all of a sudden Liberals will say they are fixing this and fixing that. My word, it never should have gotten to where it needs to be fixed to this extent eight years into the government's mandate. Violent crime has increased 32%. Gang-related murders have doubled. People have been killed across this country in all kinds of scenarios in larger numbers, with no relation to the person who was attacking them in any way.

It seems the only focus of the legislation before us is on the law-abiding people in Canada, so that is a question that comes to me all the time, not just from people in my riding, but quite honestly from rural ridings right across the country. We know that on that side of the floor there are Liberal members who have barely won their ridings in rural Canada. We pit east against west, but rural Canada is rural Canada, and firearms owned by respectable, honest Canadians, rurally, should not even be considered by the government in trying to deal with the issues it has with growing violence in this country. It is the Liberals' poor mandates and it is their poor legislation that are opening up crime more and more in our country.

The new Liberal definition is exactly the same as the old one. It is simply under a new look and a new package, because that definition still describes many of the firearms that are used legally, that are used properly and that are not part of the dynamics of violence in our country. We do not support confiscating the firearms of law-abiding farmers, hunters and indigenous people, and we are on the right side of the Canadian public on this issue.

No one believes that going after hunters and legitimate hunting rifles would reduce violent crime across this country. This is part of the Liberals' plan to distract and divide Canadians, and we refuse to be divided on this issue. Right across the nation, the majority of Canadians agree that this emperor has no clothes. There is some reason behind this mandate that the Liberals want to press onto Canadians to remove the freedoms we have in this country to be law-abiding firearms owners.

The Liberals are making life easier for violent criminals by repealing mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes with Bill C-5. How in the world does that make sense next to removing firearms from law-abiding Canadians? The Liberals have made it easier to get bail with Bill C-75, and they are failing to stop the flow of illegal guns across the U.S. border. I would suggest that they focus their energies on doing what would make the big difference on violence in this country, because as we have heard, and it is true, in cases where a firearm is used illegally and violently, it is about the person holding that firearm.

Maybe we need to do more research on who commits these crimes and why we let them out of jail over and over again to the point that, as we heard earlier today, the majority of crimes in our large cities, and New York City was actually mentioned as well, are committed by repeat offenders who get out and do it again, and then get out and do it again. The focus here is on law-abiding firearms owners: hunters, farmers and indigenous people. We support common-sense firearms policies that keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals.

I am going to switch to some comments where there is unity in this country on firearms. I am going to quote Vice-Chief Heather Bear from the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations. She said:

When you go out to hunt, you're not just hunting. You're teaching your child courage and you're bonding. You are passing on protocols, ceremonial protocols, of how to look after your kill. There are the rites of passage, the reverence to the animal and the tobacco. Along with that tool come many teachings and also matters of safety. When you take a gun away, you take away the opportunity for that oral tradition to happen.

I am just going to quote something I said at the Parkland Outdoor Show & Expo in Yorkton, the largest outdoor show in Canada, where the focus is on outdoor activities. I said, “The Parkland Outdoor Show & Expo champions our great outdoors heritage by celebrating nature, environment, hunting, angling, trapping, hiking, camping and more. What impacted me the most as I reflected on my experiences year after year with this event is the visible passion and joy I see for those who spend quality time with family and friends while they are teaching skills, respect and how to deeply enjoy the great outdoors to the next generation.”

“On behalf of the federal Government of Canada,” I said, “and as the member of Parliament for Yorkton—Melville, serving His Majesty's Official Opposition, with an amazing group of people, under the servant leadership of the Leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition, I thank them for enjoying, promoting and valuing Canada's natural beauty, our heritage and outdoor traditions— ”

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is an interesting evening and an interesting debate, but we need a little history when we are talking about guns.

The Chinese invented gunpowder, and by the 10th century they figured out how to put it in bamboo and invented guns. By the 13th century, we had the old metal barrels attached to them. By the 17th century, we figured out how to do muzzle loaders. By the 20th century, there was the Lee-Enfield gun and the Ross rifle. In the First World War, Canadians were quickly dumping the Ross rifle, a beautifully made Canadian gun that had no place in the trenches of World War I, so they could find a Lee-Enfield. By the way, we still use that rifle in an indigenous context, and the rangers in the north are still using the Lee-Enfield rifle. The Canadian Ross rifle is long gone. Today, the most popular hunting rifle in Canada is the .30-06 Springfield gun.

I have shot a .30-06. I am not an avid hunter, but I have shot most guns. When I grew up, as kids we started with air rifles and then moved up to BB guns. Yes, we had those, and our mothers always warned us that we were going shoot each other's eyes out eventually with those things. We were pretty good at taking them apart, putting them back together, finding other parts and making them work. However, we did progress to the bigger guns as we got older.

To the point we are talking about, the Prime Minister has said, “there are some guns, yes, that we're going to have to take away from people who were using them to hunt”. That is concerning, in a sense. Some people say we are out there spreading falsehoods and not talking about the truth, but when the Prime Minister says that, people get a little concerned.

There is a list of places in my riding. There is the Bassano Gun Club, the Brooks & District Fish & Game Association, the Brooks Pistol & Smallbore Rifle Club, the Mossleigh Gun Club, the Taber Pistol & Revolver Club, the Taber Shooting Foundation, the Vauxhall Fish & Game—Rod & Gun Club, the Hussar Fish and Game Club, the Milo gun range and the Vulcan and District Gun Club. These are shooting groups within my riding.

There is a report out there about violent crime. It said that of all instances of violent crime in Canada, a rifle or shotgun was present in 0.4% of cases. There is a lot of violent crime, a 32% increase, but very little has a rifle or shotgun.

It has been said many times in the House today that the Liberals introduced legislation by order in council. They have put about 1,500 types of guns in there. That did not go so well, so finally they introduced legislation, Bill C-21, about a year later. Then it headed to committee stage, and at the end of the committee stage, the Liberals dropped in a bunch of amendments, 500 pages' worth of them. We pushed back, and they withdrew those. Then they finally introduced more legislation.

We can tell that legislation is really flawed when the government brings in a zillion amendments to its own legislation. It is nuts. We can tell how flawed it is through the process that has been going on for three years. It is not well-designed legislation and will not work in the end.

Last, the Liberals put in an advisory committee. What is the advisory committee for? It would get to define more stuff afterwards. What? It is not in the legislation, other than that it is there. More consultants are going to be hired to figure out how to do an advisory committee.

The root cause of this, in my mind, is legislation that has been passed, Bill C-75, on bail reform. The police, whom I have met with a lot over the years, for rural crime in particular, work really hard to solve crimes and find criminals. However, after the police get the criminals charged and go to all that work, those guys are out in the parking lot in their vehicles before the police can get out of the courthouse. They are out there stealing another car before the police can get out of there.

The bail reform bill the minister announced today does not go anywhere near covering the problems we have with Bill C-75. Violent crime is up 32%.

I want to talk a bit more about the organizations in my riding. One of them is the Brooks Pistol & Smallbore Rifle Club. It had an economic study done. It found that for events in 2021, $337,000 came in from non-residents to this one gun club in my riding. The economic output for that year for one gun club was $1,088,000. That is one club out of the many I listed. Some 46% of people spent more than $500 a person in my community on accommodations and food. This is what those organizations do and this is what the government wants to get rid of.

Sport shooting furthers youth in firearms training, local hunter education, and safety in firearms and handling courses. There is a place where the local police and conservation officers come for their training and recertification, but this legislation would get rid of it. Sport shooting is a huge part of our communities. I listed the different places in my riding where people learn how to properly use sport shooting equipment. What this piece of legislation is going to do is eliminate them.

How about Canada-wide, as that is one constituency? Regarding the impact on sport shooters in Canada, according to a survey conducted in 2018, Canadians spent an estimated $8.5 billion on hunting and sport shooting, with Albertans accounting for more than $1 billion of that number. A survey also found that the recreational firearms industry accounted for 48,000 jobs. Small businesses that have an inventory of things to support sport shooting are now going to lose part of their businesses. Part of their businesses, the government says, is going to be illegal. Sport shooting is done.

Sure, we will grandfather the people who have them. However, what we will have is a bunch of old people like me left in the gun clubs because that is who will be left with the guns. New youth will not be trained, will not know how to use them and will not be involved in competitions. This hurts small businesses in this country.

I want to go back to my quote one more time. The Prime Minister said, “there are some guns, yes, that we're going to have to take away from people who were using them to hunt”. The problem we have here is that people do not understand sport shooting. In a rural area like mine, guns are tools that families grow up with. They are tools in the ranching business and in the farming business. They are useful tools and needed tools.

This piece of legislation is flawed. It has been three years making its journey to where it is now, and it will not work in the end. It is not going to deal with illegal handguns. The problem we have is gang violence and criminal activity, and this will continue on. This legislation will not stop it. In fact, handguns will become more valuable on the black market, and the criminal element is going to make money off that. This is a flawed piece of legislation and it will not solve crime.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to be joining this debate at this late hour. I have been sitting through many hours of debate on this particular subject of Bill C-21.

I will begin by thanking constituents again for returning me to Parliament. It has been a few years now since the election, but I am thankful every single day that I can represent them in this House. Part of my thanks for them will be that I am going to read into the record later many of the emails I have received with respect to Bill C-21 from hunters and sport shooters who are upset that the government is continuing on with Bill C-21.

I want to begin, though, with a quote from someone I consider an expert on firearms legislation, Dr. Teri Bryant, Alberta's chief firearms officer:

Even after the withdrawal of G-4 and G-46, Bill C-21 continues to undermine confidence in our firearms control system while contributing nothing to reducing the violent misuse of firearms. Bill C-21 is built on a fundamentally flawed premise. Prohibiting specific types of firearms is not an effective way of improving public safety. It will waste billions of taxpayer dollars that could have been used on more effective approaches, such as the enforcement of firearms prohibition orders, reinforcing the border or combatting the drug trade and gang activity.

That is just common-sense Alberta right there from a well-known Albertan, for many of us.

The original definition of a firearm, or what I will call the old definition used by the government, was: “...a rifle or shotgun, that is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner and that is designed to accept a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity greater than five cartridges of the type for which the firearm was originally designed,...”.

That original definition alone was in proposed clause G-4, and I have rarely seen so many emails received in my constituency office, that were written by people who were upset that they were being targeted after having done nothing. They were simply sport shooters and hunters who, through no fault of their own, were being targeted by the Minister of Public Safety. Now the Liberals have changed the definition to something new.

It says now, “It would include a firearm that is not a handgun...”, and I draw attention to “not a handgun”. It continues, “...in a semi-automatic manner and that was originally designed with a detachable magazine with a capacity of six cartridges or more.”

I will note also that in the French version of the legislation they have dropped the reference to fusil de chasse, and now are using a very odd wording that looks like bad French maybe, but fusil de chasse for most francophones anywhere would mean hunting rifle, which is what the Prime Minister said was the intent of Bill C-21. It was exactly to go after hunters. He himself said, outside of the House, that some hunters would have to lose their hunting rifles. That was the purpose of Bill C-21.

I go on now to some of the comments made by my colleague, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, again drawing attention of people to comments made by the public safety minister. I have more to expand on that, too. He called into question the fact that in the future, they will have to do something about “permanent alteration of magazines”. Now, permanent alteration to magazines of any sort would go a step further than what is being done now and would impact many firearms.

I want to draw attention of the House to the fact that changing magazines would also require changes to a firearm like the Lee-Enfield, a very popular British firearm until about the 1950s. It was used broadly in World War I. It is a firearm widely used in Canada by many indigenous hunters. Many hunters in my riding have these firearms that were passed down through generations. Requiring them to alter that magazine would basically destroy the firearm. That is something the public safety minister is musing publicly. When I see other members of different parties say to trust them and it is written in the legislation, why would we trust them? Why should any hunter or any sport shooter trust them? There are 2.3 million firearms owners in Canada. Why should any of them trust what the Liberals have said so far?

I will draw attention to one more fact that kind of disturbs me. It is that the public safety minister, when Bill C-21 first came in, said there was a public safety crisis across Canada. He said that there were these “assault-style rifles” and then said it was a public emergency that Bill C-21 needed to be passed right away. Now in this legislation, months and months later after so much public blowback, the Liberals are grandfathering all previous firearms. Therefore, now it is okay to have these so-called by his own words assault-style rifles and now they are grandfathered in. They are not affected; only future firearms are affected. It is actually a point that has been made by several members of the Bloc and by the New Democrats as well that it is only future firearms that have not been manufactured yet, and hunters should be satisfied with that.

One, two or three generations from now, these firearms will get older, break down, be lost or damaged through use or misuse or simply be sold off due to families not wanting to keep them anymore because there is so much licensing involved. The Liberals are talking about the future. There will be a dwindling number of hunters, and the intention of the government is to dwindle them down. The public safety minister claimed there was this crisis going on, that we must seize these firearms from lawful firearms owners, that they should be taken away from hunters, and now, suddenly, we do not have this crisis. Now it is suddenly okay. Now they are grandfathered. I find that interesting. Constituents pointed it out to me.

More seriously, though, a member is a former member of the RCMP, in I Division. We used to joke in our caucus that decades ago, if we heard a cough at the end of our analog phone line, it was probably I Division listening in. The member was an RCMP officer. I was looking at the statistics for how many peace officers and police officers have been killed. In the past 20 years, 40 police officers and peace officers have been killed in the line of duty, 11 in the last 30 months and eight in the last nine months.

The reason we are going down this dark path is government legislation that has been passed since 2015. Bill C-21 is trying to make up for the errors the Liberals have made in criminal justice legislation, from Bill C-75 that hybridized a bunch of offences to Bill C-5. In Bill C-5, they changed things like extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, importing or exporting, knowing the firearm is unauthorized, discharging a firearm with intent, including things like drive-by shootings, possession of a firearm, knowing its possession is unauthorized or illegally possessing a firearm. None of those have mandatory prison time any longer. The offenders serve their time at home if the judge determines that is appropriate.

I have a Yiddish proverb, before I read some thoughts from my constituents, who are my bosses. The proverb is, “The truth comes out like oil on water.” It percolates right to the top. I have been listening to the speeches and interventions by different members so far in this House. Again, we were told by the public safety minister that there was an urgent public safety crisis on our streets with these Black Stock firearms that should be taken off our streets, and now, suddenly, they are all grandfathered in. That has now become a talking point with some members. Something has changed. What has changed is low polling numbers and bad emails from upset constituents.

I will read some emails from my constituents, but I will only use their first names because I do not want the government to go after them. Ryan said, “Today, the federal Liberal government and their disgusting coalition with the federal NDP, as well as the Bloc, shut down the possibility of any further debate around their proposed amendments to C-21. The plan moving forward will be to appoint a meaningless panel that will essentially prohibit any firearm that they see fit.” A wise man is this Ryan. He knows exactly where this is going with this so-called firearms advisory committee. He went on to say, “All whilst completely disregarding the long heritage and tradition of firearms in Canada. This is a vicious slap in the face to the millions of responsible PAL and RPAL holders in Canada.”

I should probably disclose to Ryan and other constituents that I do not have a PAL or an RPAL, but I do appreciate the fact that they have a right to hunt and sharp shoot.

Christina and Maury said, “Considering the unethical and unconstitutional implementation of Bill C-21 originally, I would suggest that the bill be scrapped in its entirety.” Terence said, “Stop motion on Bill C-21.” Matthew said, “I'm not asking to kill the bill but vote against the Liberals' motion to ram the bill through the House without proper representation and debate.”

Craig said, “What the Liberals are doing is not democratic or constitutional. As a law-abiding firearms owner I feel insulted this bill is before us in the first place. We are not the issue, the criminals are the issue and yet it feels like they are getting a free pass.” Darren said, “This federal government is circumventing democratic and parliamentary due process and it must be stopped.” Another Matthew said, “I want it also to be known that I strongly oppose bills C-11, C-15 and C-21.”

When the general public knows the numbers of the bills, we know that there is a problem. We know that the oil has floated up to the top of the water, and the common-sense Canadian is seeing that Bill C-21 makes no sense.

An email from Brian said, “Like the many law-abiding hunters, farmers, sport shooters and indigenous peoples in this country I feel betrayed [by the Liberal government].” Pat said, “It will cost taxpayers upwards of a billion dollars, money that would be better spent on increased monitoring of our borders to prevent gun trafficking.” Lee-Ann said, “Those of us who own guns have gone through training and vetting to be able to legally purchase and own these guns. We are responsible members of society who are being unfairly penalized because of leftist ideology, and it needs to be stopped.”

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak out today concerning Bill C-21.

It is National Police Week, and today we stand with the women and men of the OPP, their families and their friends, who have seen three of their own shot, one of whom, sadly, has passed away. Since September 2022, we have seen 10 Canadian police officers killed in the line of duty. This trend cannot be allowed to continue. One soul taken is one too many. There is an illegal gun problem in Canada that needs to be addressed. Police officers go to work every day, leaving their families behind, to protect Canadians. They know they might not make it home at the end of the day. It is the responsibility of lawmakers and the House to do what we can to support and defend the police who protect us all.

Unfortunately, the current government is all set this week to point its ideologically driven legislative guns at law-abiding Canadian hunters, sport shooters, guides, outfitters and farmers to solve the problem. That will not work. It appears that the government, with the support of the NDP, has replaced an evidence-based system with a politically driven, ideologically based system void of evidence. How else can we explain the war on hunters in Kootenay—Columbia? The constituents in my riding are perplexed by this, so, on their behalf, I recently asked the Minister of Public Safety if he could share with me what percentage of crimes were committed by criminals with illegal guns versus the percentage committed by law-abiding Canadians who have legal guns. In an evidence-based legislative system, this is a logical question to ask. It requires a logical answer based on the facts of what is actually happening on the streets and communities across our country. I received a non-answer from the minister.

Today, I would like to answer that question for all Canadians, and specifically those in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia who have been in contact with my office expressing concern over the actions of the government. After 35 years of policing, I know the answer: very few legal gun owners using legal guns. This is the truthful answer that the public safety minister refused to provide Canadians. The facts and evidence around gun crime are inconvenient for the current government, so it conveniently ignores them.

Conservatives will not ignore them, and will continue to stand up for law-abiding Canadians. We will go after gangs and organized crime and will provide our policing agencies and border services with the funds needed to effectively stem the importation of illegal guns. Targeting hunters like Bill in Yahk, who uses a legal firearm to put food on his family's table, will not solve the problem. Targeting responsible sport shooters like Ron in Salmo, who uses a legal restricted firearm for sport and competes internationally, will not solve the problem. Targeting hard-working farmers like Mike, who uses a legal firearm to protect himself from bears while out in the field, will not solve the problem.

I agree we need to have gun laws, but the government is targeting Canadians who have legal guns. Why does it not go after the ones who have illegal guns, the criminals? Why does it not redirect the billions of dollars it plans to spend on the confiscation program into education programs? Successful crime prevention, again, not directed at lawful Canadians but at gangs and organized crime, starts with youth and must continue throughout their life. Education programs steering our youth away from gangs and organized crime can be successful when delivered at the right time.

The government should scrap Bill C-21. It is not effective and will not be successful. Once again, there is a fundamental difference in approach between the current government and the government-in-waiting. On this side, we have an evidence-based approach, and on that side they have a politically driven, ideological approach. It is not just with respect to guns that we see this approach failing, but also on housing, violent crimes, bail policies and addictions. After eight years, it all feels broken. The evidence will not be found on the front step of Sussex Drive but is happening in real time in cities like Cranbrook and Nelson, in my riding, where chaos and disorder are rampant.

Over the last eight years, our communities, people and brave police have become less safe, with a 32% increase in violent crime and a doubling of gang murders. We need to immediately bring in tougher laws to address serious, violent offenders. We must end the catch-and-release bail system. We need serious sentencing laws to ensure that violent offenders are kept in prison. We need to support our police by giving them the laws and tools they need to do their job and keep them safe. Several high-profile violent street crimes are in the news. These crimes are often committed by offenders released on bail or parole. This crime wave is causing Canadians to feel less safe taking transit or simply being out in their community. Police associations, provinces and other stakeholder groups have called, for months, for significant bail reforms, stricter penalties and other measures to enhance safety.

Just recently, a man in B.C. was given only 67 days in jail before becoming eligible for release after a violent, random assault on a 70-year-old person who was on a bus. Our communities feel less safe, and the government is doing nothing to stop it. Under current justice laws, mandatory minimums on some gun crimes have been reduced, and we see violent offenders released back on the streets, sometimes the same hour they are arrested. The catch-and-release system puts everyone at risk.

Canadians deserve to feel safe in their community, and repeat violent offenders deserve jail, not bail. The government-in-waiting would bring back mandatory jail time for serious violent crimes, which was repealed by the government, and would crack down on the easy access to bail in Bill C-75, which makes these tragedies more likely. We would bring in bail rules that would ensure serious repeat violent offenders remain behind bars as they await trial. We would put the safety of Canadians first and we would do what is necessary to keep violent criminals, gangs and organized crime, those who are perpetuating gun violence, where they belong, behind bars.

To my constituents, I would say that the government has tried a few variations of Bill C-21, using legislative tricks and last-minute amendments. Each time, the Conservatives have forced them to be accountable to Canadians. However, the public safety minister recently introduced new amendments to the bill to create a definition by which new firearms would be banned. The minister also announced that he would appoint a firearms advisory committee, which would determine future bans of firearms that are presently owned by law-abiding Canadian gun owners. It is expected that, between these measures, most of the firearms previously targeted by the Liberal amendments last year, including hunting rifles, would also be targeted for future bans.

The government passed Bill C-21 through committee late in the night by heavily limiting debate on clauses and amendments. Let me be very clear. The Liberals have not changed their ideology; they are simply changing their approach to this legislation, which would allow them to decide, without consultation with the members of the House, the people's representatives, which hunting firearms they would confiscate and which ones they would allow. The Prime Minister already admitted that taking hunting rifles is his goal, when he said, “Our focus now is on saying okay...yes...we're going to have to take [them] away from people who were using them to hunt.”

Instead of going after the illegal guns used by criminals and street gangs, the Prime Minister is focused on taking hunting rifles and shotguns from law-abiding farmers, hunters, sport shooters and indigenous peoples, with the support of the NDP. The new definition of firearms to be banned is the same as the old one. It is safe to assume that the commonly used hunting firearms targeted by the government this past fall would be added to a ban by the new government-appointed firearms advisory panel.

Ramming the bill through committee in the dead of night is evidence that the government wants to circumvent democracy, stifle debate and take firearms away from law-abiding Canadians without their knowledge. This ban is not about handguns or so-called assault-style firearms; it is about the government taking steps to confiscate hunting rifles. Canadians are wide awake to these tactics. Conservatives support common-sense firearm policies that keep guns out of the hands of criminals. The government-in-waiting would invest in policing and a secure border rather than spending billions confiscating firearms from law-abiding farmers, hunters, sport shooters and indigenous Canadians. We would crack down on border smuggling and stop the flow of illegal guns to criminals and gangs in Canada.

If the House is serious about returning safe streets to Canadians, we will vote on Bill C-21 based on evidence, not ideology, and we will lay responsibility of gun crime and lost souls at the feet of those responsible: criminals who use illegal guns.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to imagine I waited an extra hour for that question.

The problem with the Liberal government is that it hides one or two small, good parts in a massively flawed bill. If it was so concerned with the so-called ghost guns, the government should introduce legislation to address that, not hide it in this overall package so it could fundraise in municipalities and urban areas, pretending Liberals are against gun crime, when in fact they are promoting it with Bill C-75 and other actions on their part.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-21. It is an act to make certain consequential amendments in relation to firearms, which is really the government's way of saying that this is a bill to confiscate hunting rifles from law-abiding farmers, hunters and indigenous people, and distract from the real issue of the crime wave that is going on in Canada right now. That is really what this bill is. It is purely a distraction to distract from what is going on in our streets, on our subways and in some of our schoolyards right now. It is another virtue-signalling bill from the current government, to pretend it is going to do something about smuggled handguns, illegally attained guns and gang violence, but not actually do anything.

It is a distraction bill to take the focus away from the disastrous result of the Liberals' soft-on-crime bills, Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. It is a distraction from the multiple police officers who have fallen on the job very recently and the random stabbings in Toronto, the Lower Mainland and my hometown of Edmonton. All these random attacks hurt, but the one in Edmonton strikes very close to home. A mother and her 11-year-old child were stabbed to death in a schoolyard park. EPS police chief, Dale McFee, commented on the attack. He said it was “completely random. In no way could the victims have anticipated what would happen to them. There is no making sense of this.” This was a mother and her daughter who were in the playground of a schoolyard. A person drove up, got out of his car, stabbed them to death and just left. It was completely random. The police chief said, “There is no making sense of this.” I agree with Chief McFee that it makes zero sense that this would happen. He also said that the victims could not have anticipated the attack, and I agree with that as well.

However, here is the kicker: The court system could have anticipated this attack, and should have, and we should have had laws to protect this family. The killer had been released just 18 days earlier, on bail from a previous assault. He had a record. The killer was only 33 years old, and he had a record going back 14 years, having been in and out of jail, released on bail, and having had constant charges of assault with a weapon. He was in and out of prison repeatedly. There were robberies. He had stabbed someone who was just sitting on a bus bench. His parole documents stated to him, “You were armed with a knife and stabbed your victim once in the upper back. You then fled on foot. Your victim's injuries include a punctured aorta and a laceration to his spinal cord.” These are not simple injuries. This is attempted murder, yet he was back out on the streets. Between committing that crime and committing the murders in Edmonton, the attacker assaulted a corrections officer and two inmates, and was released, despite the warnings from parole officers. We have to ask where we have heard this before. He was sent back to prison after testing positive for meth, but was released again and assaulted four more people; three of them were assaulted with weapons. He attacked a 12-year-old on the bus just last year, and on the same day was charged with assaulting someone else. Then, he assaulted someone else with a weapon. He was sent to prison on April 14 for another assault and then released on bail. He then went on to murder someone and her young child.

That is what the Liberals are trying to distract from with this bill. It is to distract from their disastrous catch-and-release laws that they have inflicted upon Canadians. The Liberal government will sit and say that it fixed catch-and-release today. However, for five or six years now, the Liberals have denied it was a problem. I want to quote the present public safety minister, in debate. He said that this would simplify the release process “so that police and judges are required to consider the least restrictive and alternative means of responding to a breach, rather than automatically detaining an accused” and that “police would...be required to impose the least onerous conditions necessary if an accused is released.”

A mother and her child are dead in Edmonton because of this law. The Liberals can claim that they are fixing it, but they had half a decade to do something, with warnings from the police chief, warnings from the opposition bench and warnings from the premiers. It is not good enough that they are saying, “Well, we're going to play around with it today. Everything is fine.” It is not fine.

I want to go back to Edmonton police chief Dale McFee. We are talking about the catch-and-release program. For a three-year period, Edmonton saw a 30% increase in shooting victims. Chief McFee stated that the biggest problem is building to attack gang violence, and that most of the problem is gangs and organized crime. It is not a law-abiding hunter going out for a catch. It is not a farmer with his shotgun plinking away at varmints or pests. The police chief says it is organized crime and gangs. Subsequent to Bill C-75 being introduced, 3,600 individuals were arrested for violent crimes in Edmonton in a one-year period. Two years after that, 2,400 of those 3,600 reoffended, a total of 19,000 times, including 26 homicides. That is the result of Bill C-75, the catch-and-release program of the government. That is what this government is trying to distract from. Instead of going after criminals, repeat offenders, they want to confiscate shotguns and hunting rifles from hunters, farmers and indigenous people. The government should be going after the criminals and trying to make life miserable for them, not trying to make life miserable for law-abiding hunters and farmers.

Canadians should not be fooled by this new bill, Bill C-21. The Liberals brought in some amendments and said, “Oh, we fixed all your concerns.” Canadians should not be fooled by this. The Liberals' so-called new definitions are basically the same as the old ones that are targeting hunting rifles. The same ones that they went after before, they will go after again. I do not think anyone should believe that this new Liberal firearms advisory panel would be any different than what they had proposed previously.

This is the same government, members will remember, that politicized the Nova Scotia shooting tragedy. It is the same government that said that it was the police forces that recommended the Emergency Act, but we asked the Ottawa Police Service and the RCMP, and they both said no.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise to speak to Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments, firearms, at report stage. The bill has gone through quite the journey in this place, filled with huge backtracks, misleading statements from the government, and the repackaging and introduction of previously repealed amendments.

As a reminder, let us look at that journey. The introduction of Bill C-21 was first announced at the end of May last year, with all the fanfare that the government could muster when trotting out yet another misguided and ineffective policy. The Liberals claimed the bill would, among other things, ban the future legal sale of handguns in Canada, increase the allowable penalties for gun smuggling and trafficking, and introduce new red-flag provisions that may allow law enforcement to remove firearms from a dangerous domestic situation more quickly.

Shortly after seeing the bill, Conservatives attempted to introduce the following motion:

...that given that the debate on combatting gun violence needs to be depoliticized and centred on the rights of victims and the safety of communities, the House should call on the government to divide Bill C-21 into two parts to allow for those measures where there is broad support across all parties to proceed separately, namely curbing domestic violence and tackling the flow of guns over the Canada-U.S. border, from those aspects of the bill that divide the House.

Conservatives were clear. We supported the elements of Bill C-21 that were focused on protecting potential victims of gun crime and tightening up laws that address gun smuggling. Unfortunately, the Liberals were not willing to back down on their political agenda and separate the ineffective and divisive parts of their bill that would do nothing to stop gun violence and provide no benefit to vulnerable Canadians. They blocked this common-sense motion, proving they were more interested in playing division politics than addressing gun violence in Canada.

I will fast-forward to November, 2022, when the Liberal government introduced amendments to Bill C-21 that would have banned millions of hunting rifles with a new prohibition of any “rifle or shotgun, that is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner and that is designed to accept a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity greater than five cartridges”.

For weeks, the Liberals denied that their amendments would outlaw any hunting rifles, then the Prime Minister finally came clean, this past December, and admitted that the government’s amendments would outlaw hunting rifles. While speaking to CTV News he said, “there are some guns, yes, that we’re going to have to take away from people who were using them to hunt.”

The Prime Minister finally admitted what the Liberals had been denying the whole time, which was that the Liberal government, with the support of their NDP allies, were going after law-abiding Canadians. Thanks to the leadership and hard work of the member for Kildonan—St. Paul and my Conservative colleagues on the committee, Canadians were made aware of these attempts by the government to attack the rights of law-abiding citizens. The backlash to the attempts of the government was rightly fierce, and the Liberals retracted their amendments, supposedly learning a lesson.

However, we soon learned that they were just biding their time, waiting to try to catch Canadians off guard. Earlier this month, the public safety minister announced new amendments to Bill C-21 to create a definition by which new firearms would be banned. The minister also announced that he would appoint a firearms advisory committee that would determine future bans of firearms that are presently owned by law-abiding Canadian gun owners.

To be clear, the new Liberal definition is the same as the old one, and the new amendments that were brought to the committee were simply original amendments in a new package. It is expected that, between these measures, most of the firearms previously targeted by Liberal amendments late last year, including hunting rifles, would once again be targeted for future bans. It would seem the only lesson the Liberals learned was to give Canadians less time to object to their amendments, so they could force them through and try to cover it up.

That is why the government used some of the most heavy-handed tactics the House has seen, by moving to limit debate on Bill C-21 at committee in an attempt to pass the bill before the break week at the end of May. The Liberals forced multiple midnight sittings of the public safety committee, two of which I did sit in on. They passed Bill C-21 through committee in the wee hours of Friday morning last week by heavily limiting debate on over 140 clauses and amendments.

Even more surprising, both the NDP and the Bloc supported this heavy-handed attempt to pass the bill. They supported the government in enforcing strict time limits at the public safety committee and shutting down debate in the House. It would appear the governing party has suddenly grown by 57 members, which brings us to today and midnight sittings again being scheduled for this week to ram this bill through report stage.

I represent a rural riding. I represent thousands of hunters, farmers, sport shooters and indigenous Canadians. I know they are not supportive of this bill. They have told me. The sentiment from my constituents has been clear. They do not support Bill C-21, and they think it will do more harm than good.

Betty from Delisle raised concerns with the bill that many of my constituents have raised with me. She noted that this bill would target and severely handicap hunters who are trying to feed their families, noting it would cause another skill, which was a staple of our ancestors, to disappear. She also noted this bill would go after target shooting, stating that this bill would have negative consequences for gun clubs that offer training to young people as an activity that keeps them off the streets and away from bad influences. These sentiments are the same as those of rural Canadians across the country.

In fact, the backlash from rural Canadians forced the NDP to backtrack on its support for the government’s initial amendments last time. There are several NDP MPs who represent rural ridings, and my hope, although it is waning, is that they will stand up to the Liberals, stand up for their constituents on this issue, and fight for them here in Ottawa.

The truth of the matter is that this bill is an attack on law-abiding citizens who are legal gun owners. Hunters, farmers and indigenous Canadians will not be fooled. They know this is part of the Liberal plan to distract and divide Canadians. No one believes going after hunters and legitimate hunting rifles will reduce violent crime across this country.

This bill is also a distraction, another attempt for the government to distract and divide. It is targeting law-abiding gun owners to distract from its failures on public safety. The Liberal government has given easier access to bail for violent, repeat offenders through Bill C-75. In doing so, it ensured that violent offenders are able to get back onto the streets more quickly. It has removed mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes with Bill C-5, and it has failed to stop the flow of illegal firearms coming across the U.S. border.

Instead of going after the illegal guns used by criminals and street gangs, the Prime Minister is focused on taking hunting rifles and shotguns away from law-abiding farmers, hunters and indigenous peoples. We know going after hunters and hunting rifles will not reduce crime across the country. The government needs to come clean with Canadians. The only thing worse than doing nothing is pretending to be doing something when one is not.

Conservatives believe we must ensure at-risk and vulnerable Canadians are protected. We must target the criminals and gangs responsible for rising gun violence in Canada. That is why, under the leadership of the member for Carleton, we will continue to support common-sense firearms policies that keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals and ensure there are strong consequences for those who commit gun crimes to make our communities safer.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I read the bill this morning and was shocked at its lack of understanding of the total issue. If we look at what is actually being proposed in the legislation, it barely begins to scratch the surface of the issues affecting Canadians with the violence in our communities.

If we look at the restrictions placed on the types of offences that are going to be covered, it is a start. With Bill C-75, the Liberals were warned to begin with about what exactly it was going to cause and were told to stop it. They did not, and now they have to backtrack and try to fix it.

It does not go far enough. It is a beginning, and it certainly is not something that I can support in its entirety. It needs a lot more work.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise again to continue speaking to Bill C-21.

I mentioned before that I do not think there could be any more stark a contrast between Conservatives and all the other parties in the House, as Conservatives are the only ones who will defend the rights of law-abiding firearm owners in this country. I said earlier, and I have said many times in this debate about Bill C-21, that Liberals and the members of all the other parties seem dedicated to eliminating firearm ownership in this country by one small cut after another, particularly hunting rifles.

We have been saying that the Liberals have been going after Canadians' hunting rifles, which the Liberals have adamantly denied. Then, just before Christmas, when nobody was working and nobody was watching, the Liberals introduced an amendment to Bill C-21 that would have, in fact, banned many hunting rifles in Canada.

The Liberals were caught with that, so they repealed, or pulled back, that amendment. It is no longer a part of this bill. The Liberals have been quick to point that out, but we know that their true intention is to ensure that firearm ownership is onerous, if not outright illegal over time, in Canada. I must say this more often: Only Conservatives will stand up for the rights of law-abiding firearms owners in Canada.

It was fascinating to watch the NDP members do somersaults on this particular bill. Initially, the New Democrats were supportive of the amendment, and then they were not supportive of the amendment. It took them some time to come to this position, so we are happy to see that they came to, saying that they did not support that amendment, but here we are.

Again, members might be wondering what the major difference between Conservatives and Liberals is when it comes to this particular bill. It goes back to the idea of right and wrong, good and evil, and the fact that Conservatives believe that good and evil live inside of everyone. The line between good and evil cuts through the heart of humankind. It is not instruments that are inherently evil, but it is the actions or thoughts of humanity that can be evil. That is what we need to deal with in this.

We have seen that the Liberals, time and again, every time there is a tragedy that involves firearms in this country, right away want to ban firearms, yet when it comes to treating hardened or violent criminals in this country, they introduce bills, such as Bill C-75, that reverse the onus on bail, let violent criminals out of jail quicker and reduce minimum sentences. They talk about maximum sentences, but one of the things we need in this country are minimum sentences, where people who do the crime would go to jail for a minimum amount of time. Over and over again, we have seen the government remove those minimum sentences, and some of those minimum sentences were brought in by previous Liberal governments in the 1990s. The Chrétien Liberals brought in these minimum sentences. It is only now that the current Liberal government removed them with Bill C-75.

We see that there is a misunderstanding of where evil comes from. Evil does not come from instruments. It does not come from inanimate objects. It comes from human beings who enact evil. The Christian world view talks about sin and that there is a missing of the mark, a right way to live and a wrong way to live. That is what we are living with when it comes to violent criminals who are using firearms in terrible ways.

Firearms have been in long-standing use in Canada. I have to say that they are a big part of our history and a big part of our heritage. Firearm ownership ought to continue to be available to Canadians across the country. I am excited to pass that heritage on to my own children.

Bill C-21 would do nothing to enhance public safety here in Canada, as Canada has some of the most well-regulated firearms—

Justice

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times, the justice system and the penal system cannot be reduced to a mere slogan. To improve the system and ensure that Canadians have confidence in the system, we must work with the provinces, territories, stakeholders and police associations.

That is exactly what we did for Bill C‑75. That is exactly what we have done for Bill C‑48. That is exactly the government's approach, and it will yield results.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all the government is trying to do is fix the mistakes it has made in the past few years.

The legislation resulting from Bill C‑75 is a mistake; the government is trying to fix it, but has not yet succeeded. Bill C-5 is a serious mistake; it must be fixed. All the government is doing at this time is making mistakes that cause problems in the system of checks and balances for public safety.

Can the minister confirm today that the bill he introduced will completely solve the legal problem arising from Bill C‑75, yes or no?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, ever since Bill C‑75 was passed by the NDP-Liberal coalition, criminals no longer fear law enforcement officers because they know they will be released the same day.

We are currently marking Victims and Survivors of Crime Week. Since 2015, under the Liberal government, this seems to be the era of repeat offenders, while victims come second.

The premiers are certainly going to ask that the Prime Minister fix this colossal mistake, this legislation resulting from C‑75. Will he do it?

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

Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that this minister celebrated when the Liberal government's catch-and-release policies were brought in by Bill C-75. We need an entire overhaul of the Liberal system that has created the violent crime surge across the country and has led to the deaths and harm of innocent Canadians from violent repeat offenders.

The reality is that the only way this gets fixed, the only way that violent repeat offenders get jail, and not bail, and the only way that the rights of victims are put first, is with a Conservative majority government. Is that not right?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' Bill C-75 entrenched the catch-and-release bail system that is devastating Canadian communities. Violent crime has shot up 32% under the Prime Minister's watch. Premiers, police officers and victims groups have been desperately calling on the government to fix their broken bail system, but the bill they introduced today is nothing more than a slap in the face. It will not keep repeat violent offenders behind bars. The Liberals' catch-and-release system remains in effect.

When will these Liberals finally end catch-and-release for violent criminals?

Criminal Code

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak on behalf of my constituents of Niagara West once again. I never take this privilege for granted and I always want to thank them for their trust in me.

This time I rise to relay my constituents' concerns on the Liberal government bill, Bill C-21. My office received hundreds of regular mail, phone calls and emails disagreeing with what this bill would do. Since its introduction, Bill C-21 has had a long journey. I want to assure folks in my riding who are watching today that I have fought against this bill every step of the way.

Let me start by acknowledging something that always comes up in conversations around firearms, perhaps rightly so. Yes, gun crime in Canada is a real problem, but let us not forget that gun crime in Canada is almost always committed with illegal guns, trafficked and smuggled over the border from the United States. Last month, a police operation in Toronto seized 173 firearms and over 1,400 rounds of ammunition. All of that was smuggled across the border.

Since the Liberals were elected in 2015, violent crime has increased by 32%, and gang-related murders have doubled. Let us contrast that with the previous Conservative government, which saw a record 33% drop in gun crimes. That is a huge difference and a huge difference in approaches. Today, in cities like Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, there is a real and concerning gang presence.

Criminals and their illegal guns put Canadians at risk every single day. This is a problem that needs to be addressed, yet somehow the Prime Minister cannot seem to figure it out or does not want to. In fact, the government is making life easier for violent criminals by repealing mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes with Bill C-5, and made it easier to get bail with Bill C-75. On top of everything, the Liberals continue to fail to stop the flow of illegal guns across the U.S. border.

We also need to acknowledge that legal firearms in Canada are very tightly regulated. The process to obtain one is long and can take several months. Someone who wants to obtain a firearm legally must take safety courses, exams and go through rigorous background checks. After the process is complete, the firearm can only be used at a range and to hunt.

We would think that with all these safety precautions, legal gun owners would be the least of the government's worry. However, they are not. The government seems to think that gang members are attending firearms safety classes and studying diligently for their exams so they can go hunting or shooting on the range after.

The logic of the Liberals use on legal firearm owners is mind-boggling. It does not seem like they understand a simple fact, which I will repeat. The overwhelming majority of guns used to commit crimes are smuggled into Canada through the U.S. border and are obtained illegally.

Instead of addressing the root cause of gun crime, the Prime Minister takes the easy route and groups our law-abiding gun-owning grandpas with some of Canada's worst criminals. While the government attacks hunters and sport shooters, criminals and gang members stock up on guns and continue to use them to cause mayhem on our streets. For some reason, the government believes that taking away legal guns will solve crimes committed by illegal guns.

Over eight long years of the tired government, it seems the Prime Minister just cannot stop taking things for himself. He wants to take Canadians' money by skyrocketing taxes, their freedoms and, now, their legal firearms.

Back in 2020, the then Minister of Public Safety's office said the government would not target guns designed for hunting. In 2023, it has done exactly the opposite. In 2020, it also said it would treat law-abiding gun owners with fairness and respect. In 2023, that could not be further from the truth.

For millions of Canadians, legal firearms ownership is a way of life. It is a culture that feeds families and ties communities together.

For example, sport shooting clubs in my riding and across the country provide opportunities for people to learn about firearms. They train and learn how to use them safely and responsibly. These clubs are not a hub for criminal activity, but rather they give both recreation and education to folks who are interested in hunting or sports shooting.

For hunters, guns are not just a tool of recreation, but also a tool with which they feed their families. For millions of Canadians, hunting is a means to feed their family, bond with others and connect with their culture. Humans have lived off the land by hunting for many generations, but the Prime Minister wants to end this lifestyle. Hunters, farmers, sport shooters, indigenous people and so many others all use their firearms for benefit, yet the government seems to think they are one of Canada's biggest threats.

As I mentioned earlier, I have received an incredible volume of correspondence from constituents who are all against this bill. These are usually folks who acknowledge the risk illegal and smuggled firearms pose to the safety of our communities. However, they are also very clear that legal gun ownership is not the issue. These folks are also confused as to why they are being targeted and are worried their legally obtained hunting rifles will be taken away.

As we heard throughout the day, the opposition to this misguided bill is not just in my riding but also across the country, and even in some ridings of the Liberal Party. Even some NDP members oppose it. However, do they admit that anymore? They will need to answer to their constituents when they return to their ridings. I would love to hear the reasons they will give their constituents. More than likely it will just be Liberal talking points.

In the face of the strong opposition to the bill, the Prime Minister is trying to do everything he can to ram this bill through Parliament. He knows Canadians are against it. In my view, I think he is just desperate to make it seem like he is in control. It is a destructive pattern I have noticed over the last eight years of trying to gain control over the lives of Canadians, while simultaneously infringing on some of their most basic freedoms.

This is where I will repeat something I said many times in this place, especially in the last three years, which is to let folks live their lives. Leave them alone. At this point, the Liberals have pushed and rushed Bill C-21 through committee because they do not want to hear some of the views and opinions of hunters, farmers and indigenous people. The government knows what committee witnesses will say about the bill.

However, this is not happening just in committee. The Liberals are rushing Bill C-21 through the House, to have as little debate as possible here as well. What is even more interesting is their ever-changing terminology. To dodge scrutiny, they are redefining Bill C-21 as a ban on “assault-style” firearms when they are just trying to take the firearms away from law-abiding gun owners. It is that simple.

The government is trying to make it seem as if this new definition will save hunters and legal gun owners. Instead, all this definition does is give the Liberals more time to reapproach the issue in the fall and come up with another ill-defined and ineffective ban. All this definition does is put hunting rifles and shotguns at risk of being confiscated in the future.

I also need to mention that farmers are also deeply affected. Farmers use firearms for various important purposes on the family farm, such as protecting cattle from predators or handling pests. Let us be clear that Bill C-21 is not about stopping criminals and it is not about fighting gang violence. The Prime Minister has already admitted and is on record that he wants to ban legal hunting guns, and he said so himself in an interview on CTV.

This is about the Prime Minister doing everything he can to take more rights away from Canadians. He is not satisfied after three years of wedging, dividing and stigmatizing Canadians at every opportunity possible. If it really were about fighting crime, the Prime Minister would stop removing mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes. It is that simple. He would stop making it easier for criminals to get bail and get back on the streets. Once again, it is that simple.

Already in 2023, half of the murder suspects in Toronto were out on release. The Liberals try to paint Bill C-21 as being tough on crime. This is ridiculous and they know it. They want the country to believe they are coming in like a knight in shining armour to save the country from an evil dragon, the hunting rifle of one's uncle.

Canadians see this bill exactly for what it is, a fairy tale. Canadians are tired of the government's fairy tales. They are tired of seeing their rights be diminished and stepped on by the power-hungry, overreaching and intrusive government.

Let me share what Bill Baranick, a volunteer firearms safety instructor, said about Bill C-21. Bill lives in my riding and he is also a grape grower. He said, “Bill C-21 appears to be nothing more than a wedge issue to be used in the next election. By banning the sale and transfer of legally owned handguns, entire collections and family heirlooms etc. have zero value now, taking hundreds of millions of dollars out of the economy. These firearms cannot be passed down to the next generation or sold. It's a devastating blow to shooting sports in this country as well as affecting thousands of jobs in the firearms industry. C-21 in it's current form needs to be redrafted to be tougher on criminals and addressing root causes of gun violence, and not going after the safest demographic in Canada...legally licensed, daily vetted women and men of the hunting and sport shooting community.”

I am absolutely in when it comes to fighting crime with tough measures. None of us on this side of the House do not support that issue. We very much thing that when it comes to fighting crime we need to have tough measures.

I think I can speak for my Conservative colleagues that we must work together as a country to fight gun violence and work toward safer streets. However, how do we do this? It is simple. We need to do this by tackling illegal guns used in criminal activities, targeting gun smugglers and being tough on gang activity. We must bring back serious sentences for violent gun offenders, while supporting common-sense policies for farmers, sports shooters and indigenous peoples.

What we must not do is take away the rights and freedoms of lawful Canadians. The rights of lawful gun-owning Canadians must be respected.

Justice

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I obviously share the hon. member's concern.

Bill C-75 did not fundamentally change the law on bail in Canada. It codified a number of Canada's Supreme Court decisions, and in certain cases with respect to sexual assault made it harder to get bail by adding another reverse onus provision in that particular bill.

We have heard the call with respect to repeat violent offenders. We have heard the call with respect to offences with weapons. We have promised to act. It is a complicated problem, but we are doing it together with the provinces and territories.

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

Mr. Speaker, the challenging thing is this. How can Canadians trust the Liberal minister when it is his Liberal government that created the problem, and it is not just us saying this?

If we look at last month, the Victoria Police Department warned the public that a man charged with 10 counts of sexual assault with a weapon had been released on bail. Why was this vile rapist released on bail, we may ask. The Victoria Police Department pointed to Bill C-75, a Liberal bill from 2019, that reformed the bail system.

Again, I am asking if the Liberals will reverse all their reckless and dangerous catch-and-release bail policies and keep Canadians safe once and for all. Will they do that?

Government Business No. 25—Proceedings on Bill C-21

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

Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the member very sincerely for working hard on this alongside all the Conservatives to fight against what the Liberals are doing to law-abiding citizens while ignoring and abetting the easy release of criminals on our streets.

As the member mentioned, and she told me this earlier as well, the police in her community are so desperate because the bail system is weak that they are having to turn to social media. They say, “Here is a picture on social media, moms and dads, and hopefully you notice it. This is a vile criminal on the streets, and there is nothing we can do about it, because the bail system has been made so weak by the Liberals with Bill C-75.” It is unbelievable that this is the case for members in her community. It is unacceptable.

Lastly, I would say that this is a Liberal government that has spent more money than any government in the country's history. If the government cared about youth diversion, it would be showing it. Yet, the government will spend over $6 billion going after law-abiding citizens and not impact public safety one bit.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be resuming, in the remaining time that the Liberals and the NDP have permitted me. Of course, they are silencing me in this debate in the House and they are going to be further silencing us in committee on Bill C-21, despite the millions of people whom this bill impacts.

I want to acknowledge that it has been a terrible year for police, to say the least. This comes during a violent crime wave across the country. We have seen a 32% increase in violent crime since the Liberals formed government about eight years ago. We are seeing the result of their soft-on-crime, catch-and-release policies that they work very closely on with the NDP. Those are coming home to roost, and people are being violently assaulted and murdered on public transit.

Our police officers, of course, are on the front lines, fighting these violent criminals. Often it is the same criminals every single weekend whom our brave, dedicated men and women in uniform are putting their lives at risk to deal with. They actually sometimes know these violent repeat offenders on a first-name basis.

I think it is important that we acknowledge, in the House, the failures of the policies of the current government, working with the NDP, and the consequences of that in real life.

Of course, there are multiple factors that contribute to violent crime, but we know, from police, that Bill C-75, which was a Liberal bill from a number of years ago, exacerbated the catch-and-release policies. This was evident on a Victoria police department news release that was talking about a vile rapist who committed 10 counts of sexual assault with a weapon, rapes with a weapon. On the bottom of the press release, because the police wanted to ensure that the public knew that it was not their fault that this horrible, vile man was being released, they said that this person was being released because of Bill C-75, the Liberal bill from a number of years ago.

The Liberals just passed Bill C-5, which I alluded to yesterday, and I talked about the series of violent crimes that no longer will have mandatory prison time as a result of Bill C-5. Talking about rapists, one result of Bill C-5 is that a man in Quebec who violently raped a woman will get zero days in prison, and gets to serve his sentence, a conditional sentence for 20 months, from the comforts of his home.

These are real consequences. As I mentioned, I know that there are a multitude of factors in violent crime, but we are hearing directly from police that the Liberal bills have impacted these things.

It has been a very tough year for police, and Bill C-21 would do nothing to solve the violent crime problem in Canada, because, when it talks about firearms, it goes after law-abiding citizens, who, of course, by definition, are law-abiding. That is why they have the ability to own firearms, because they have been proven and vetted to be law-abiding. They are the only people who would be impacted by the firearm measures in this bill.

Meanwhile, while this is happening, with all of these resources and all of this time and all of these announcements from the Liberals, who are targeting law-abiding citizens, we have had many police officers, just in the past few months, who have been murdered.

I would like to name them today: Constable Andrew Hong, September 12, 2022, murdered by gunshot on the job; Constable Morgan Russell, October 12, 2022, gunshot; Constable Devon Northrup, October 12, 2022, gunshot; Constable Shaelyn Yang, October 18, 2022, stabbing; and Constable Greg Pierzchala, whom I talked about yesterday. He was murdered on December 27, 2022, by gunshot, by a man who was out on bail and had a lifetime prohibition against owning firearms and a very long rap sheet of violent crimes, yet was out on bail.

This is the state of public safety and crime under the Liberal government. Greg Pierzchala is dead because of our weak bail system. This is what we have heard from Toronto police, who deal with this on the front lines more than anybody else. There are more: Constable Travis Jordan, March 16, 2023; Constable Brett Ryan, March 16, 2023; Sergeant Maureen Breau, March 27, 2023; and Constable Harvinder Singh Dhami, April 10, 2023.

It has been a rough couple of years for police. The morale is very low. Recruitment numbers are very low, and, at the same time, Canada is dealing with 124,000 more violent crime incidents in 2021 than in 2015.

That is the record of this Liberal government. It does not like to acknowledge it. It does not like to talk about it. It likes to brush off responsibility and blame everybody else.

The fact is that, compared to 2015, there are 124,000 more violent crime incidents per year in Canada. Meanwhile, police morale is in crisis, recruitment and retention are in crisis, and police officers are being murdered every other week. However, we hear more announcements from the Minister of Public Safety about going after law-abiding citizens than about going after anybody else. I do not know how many times we have to say this. The Liberals are going after, and spending resources and precious time on, the wrong people, the most vetted people in the country, who, statistically, are one-third as likely to cause crimes as anybody else, than non-firearm owners. It is insane, if someone just looks at the raw data. These are heavily vetted, tested and trained Canadian citizens.

The Conservative Party firmly supports responsible gun ownership laws. We are talking about licensing, vetting and safe storage. These things are very important. Only responsible Canadians should ever come near a firearm. If there are any gaps in that, we are happy to have that discussion, but we have a very robust system in Canada.

We are seeing 124,000 additional violent crimes and hundreds of thousands of other violent crimes every year. They are going up every year as a result of the Liberal government's policies, as pointed out by many police forces. Of the hundreds of thousands of violent crimes that happen every year, do members want to know how many are as a result of long guns, for example, which have been the primary target of the Liberal government in recent months? I am referring to long guns belonging to law-abiding citizens, not criminals, because, of course, they do not listen to the laws. Do people know how many are a factor in those hundreds of thousands of violent crimes? It is less than 0.5%.

We also know that, of those who do commit violent crimes with firearms, the vast majority are not legally allowed to own firearms. Therefore, any law and all this time wasted would have no impact on them whatsoever. We are talking about a fraction of a fraction of people whom the Liberals are spending all this time and resources on.

I will remind the House that the Liberals are bringing forward phase two of their regime of confiscation of private property from law-abiding citizens. They call it a “buyback” program. They never owned the firearms in the first place, so I am not sure how they are buying them back. They are going to be spending billions of dollars on it.

There is an estimate from the Fraser Institute. Before the latest round of long gun bans coming forward with this so-called new definition and the hidden list that is being passed over sneakily to the firearms advisory committee, which would add hundreds of firearms to the ban list, the Fraser Institute estimated that the original May 2020 order in council, in essence, would be $6 billion.

Do people know how much good could be done in fighting violent crime and gun crime by criminals and gangsters with $6 billion? We could equip every port of entry with scanning technology. We could hire so many more police officers. We could heavily invest in youth diversion programs. We have seen that, in addition to the responsible gun ownership measures I have mentioned that have been in Canada for a number of years, which Conservatives firmly support, other measures that are important are getting youth when they are just getting led down the path of crime.

If we can get a 12-year-old when he is romanced by the gang to steal his first car, if we could just catch him then, extend a hand and show him a better way, speak to him in a way that is relatable, and have members of his community have the resources to support him, that young man could have a real life. He could have a family and a job, and be a responsible contributing member to his community. That is when we have to catch them.

If we could just take all the money the Liberals would be wasting, which would do nothing, as it says right in the data, to prevent violent crime and gun violence, we could do a lot of good. However, the Liberals are not open to that conversation. They do not want to talk about that. They are too busy fearmongering.

I mentioned this earlier, and I got a bit emotional about it, but the turn that the Minister of Public Safety has taken with his rhetoric against me and members of my party is very concerning. We can have a professional debate. We can have this factual discussion. We can have our viewpoints. They do not want anyone to own firearms, no matter how vetted they are. We believe in protecting the culture and heritage of Canadians. We can have that robust debate; we have been having it for decades. For him to have taken the turn he has taken, to go so dirty on this when I have done my best, as have members of our party, to ensure that this is a professional conversation and that we are leading and protecting people who are being kicked by the government and used as a political wedge on a daily basis, particularly in rural Canada, is very upsetting. I mean that very honestly.

I called him out on it today, and he did not apologize for his disgusting remarks. I found it very disappointing. Why can we not have a civilized conversation based on facts when it comes to this? I do not know. Maybe it is because they are not doing so well in the polls and we are doing pretty well. Maybe they want an election soon and this is a real winner for them, or has been in the past.

Now that we are building on the work of all the Conservative members and we are talking about the people this really impacts, it is resonating with people. Nobody believes it in the suburbs. Nobody believes it in Winnipeg. I represent an urban riding, and no one believes that Grandpa Joe and his hunting rifle are responsible for the gangsters in Toronto who are 3D-printing guns, smuggling guns, wreaking havoc and murdering innocent people and police officers. No one believes that going after hunters is going to solve that, yet we are seeing billions of dollars, countless resources, misinformation, disinformation and disgusting rhetoric from the public safety minister and others on the Liberal benches. It does not make any sense. There is no science or data to back it up whatsoever.

I could go on for quite some time, but of course I have been silenced by the Liberal-NDP coalition. In my remaining moments, I will move an amendment to the motion.

I move, seconded by the member for Peterborough—Kawartha:

In paragraph (a) by deleting all the words after the words “expand its scope” and substituting the following: “to (i) address illegal guns used by criminals and street gangs, (ii) modify provisions relating to bail rules in offences involving firearms to ensure serious, repeat, violent offenders remain behind bars as they await trial, (iii) bring in measures to crack down on border smuggling and stop the flow of illegal guns to criminals and gangs in Canada”;

In paragraph (b) by deleting all the words after the words “by the committee” and substituting the following: “the Prime Minister, the Minister of Public Safety, other ministers of the Crown and senior officials be invited to appear as witnesses from time to time as the committee sees fit,”;

In paragraph (c) by deleting all the words and substituting the following: “Standing Orders 57 and 78 shall not apply to the consideration at the report stage and the third reading stage of the bill”; and

by deleting paragraphs (d) and (e).

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to continue my remarks concerning what is, in my opinion, a very undemocratic motion put forward by the Liberals.

What just transpired in this House was a closure motion to basically shut me up and stop the discussion we began as a result of the Liberals and the NDP working together. They did not like that I was going on and on. I had a lot to say, so they voted to keep me quiet. I will be silenced, in essence, after these 20 minutes by the Liberals and the NDP, who are working together to ultimately ensure the slow and painful removal of hunting rifles from everyday Canadians who are trained, tested and vetted by police. That is just the context for folks so they know what is going on in this House.

Ultimately, Motion No. 25 is a time allocation motion, in essence. At committee, we are talking about Bill C-21 and the many amendments brought forward by the Liberals, the NDP and other parties, which are worthy of discussion, debate and questions for officials. If the motion passes, which it is sure to do because the NDP and the Liberals are working together so closely on this, it will severely limit our ability as opposition members to heavily scrutinize a bill that would impact 2.3 million gun owners, hundreds of millions of dollars in our economy and tens of thousands of jobs, not to mention the hundreds of years of culture and heritage in Canada. Just to be clear, that is what the Liberals and the NDP are working together on today.

The Conservatives have been relentless in standing up for rural Canadians and for law-abiding citizens. Certainly, I have been honoured to be given this role by our leader, the member for Carleton, but there are many other members in our caucus who have done extraordinary work for all firearms owners, hunters, farmers, sport shooters and indigenous Canadians. I want to make sure they are acknowledged, because they only reason we are here and have mobilized the country to pay attention to this injustice by the Liberals and the NDP working together is the work that has come from people before me and the work of committee members now. I just want to acknowledge them.

At the public safety committee, I have worked very closely with the members for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner and Sturgeon River—Parkland, and recently we also had on committee the member for Langley—Aldergrove. We have worked very hard over the last six months and over the year and a half I have been on committee. Certainly, we have gotten a lot of expertise from folks in our caucus who really live and breath this culture in Canada. They are a true testament to how important it is in Canada that we fight for this to maintain it. They are the members for Red Deer—Lacombe and Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies.

I come after very strong members of Parliament who have done extraordinary work. I have been able to stand on the shoulders of those who have come before me. Notably, the member for Lakeland is an extraordinary woman and did incredible work on this file. I am very honoured to follow her and follow in her footsteps in this role. There is also the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

We have a team of Conservatives who are working on the right side of this debate. They are making history to stand up for a culture that continues to be kicked like a football, a political wedge, by the Liberals. Every time they are not doing well in the polls and every time our message is resonating, it is like they break out an emergency, and firearms is one of them. They spread misinformation, when really we know all of what they are doing does not impact the criminals who are shooting up the streets, and does not impact the gangsters who are in highly organized smuggling rings across the border to bring in the nine out of 10 firearms used in Toronto. The drugs and human trafficking are related.

This is rather than attacking those issues and repeat violent offenders, and it is a result of the government's catch-and-release bail system from Bill C-75 a few years ago, a Liberal bill that the police tell us over and over again is causing what is happening on our streets. We see all these repeat violent offenders stabbing people and wreaking havoc on our streets. Forty individuals in Vancouver were responsible for 6,000 interactions with police last year. This is a result of the reckless catch-and-release policies the Liberals brought in, and they were heavily supported, in lockstep, by the NDP.

While all of this is happening, our message is resonating and the public is concerned about public safety. However, what do the Liberals do? They bring in gun control, which we know really means they are going after heavily vetted, trained and tested individuals who are licensed to own firearms. They hunt, protect their livestock and represent us at the Olympics in sport shooting. These are the kinds of people the Liberals are targeting with Bill C-21, and the NDP is working in lockstep to slowly but surely, step by step, destroy this way of life in Canada.

Shame on the NDP. The New Democrats have plenty of rural and northern members whom they are failing given what they are doing with the Liberals. I am going to name a few of those members. There are so many, honestly. These are good rural people who are being failed by what the NDP is doing here.

We have the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing in Ontario; the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski from Manitoba, which is all of northern Manitoba, where they live off hunting; and the member for Elmwood—Transcona. I know there are a lot of hunters and sport shooters in his riding. We have the member for Courtenay—Alberni and the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford in B.C., and we have the members for North Island—Powell River, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, Timmins—James Bay and Nunavut. People are being failed by their members of Parliament in this regard.

For a moment, we thought there was a light, and the NDP members were supportive, saying, “No, this is crazy.” I do not know what the Liberals are offering them, but then, all of a sudden, they completely abandoned the rural people they are supposed to represent, who are continuously kicked by the Liberal government. It is disgusting.

I have a lot to say with my remaining time. Again, I have been silenced and limited to 20 minutes now because the Liberals and the New Democrats do not want to hear the facts. All they want to do is work together to destroy a way of life in this country that the Conservatives are very proud to protect and fight for. We will continue to do so.

Honestly, I had four binders of facts and data, which the Liberals pretend they care about while they follow the science. We will never get to that. We will never get to have the opportunity to talk about that because they have voted to silence the debate on this. I wonder why. They are running, perhaps, from the reality of what they are facing. They do not want to face the facts on the ground of what this means to the Canadians it impacts and what it means to let criminals off the hook yet again.

It is very disappointing that the Liberals are working with the New Democrats and that the New Democrats are going along with this. They should be ashamed. They should be ashamed that they are letting down rural Canadians in this way, who thought they had a voice when they voted NDP. Clearly they were wrong. I am very sorry to those voters, but we will have their backs. We will continue to have their backs, and we will also have the backs of all the folks in cities who are being misrepresented by the Liberals.

We will pick this back up in an hour.

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

Madam Speaker, I will remind the Liberal member that, if he is looking to throw me off, he is severely underestimating me, just like many a man before him. I have a lot to say, and I will be here for quite some time, so hopefully he is hydrated and fed because he is going to be waiting a long time.

I have more to say on the announcement last week, which was impacted by Bill C-21. The minister at the same time announced the firearms advisory committee, the so-called new definition, but with the old definition, but sneakier.

He also announced that there is going to be something about a permanent alteration to magazines, which we have already, but the way he worded it would signify to me that there is going to be a change in what that means. When we tried to ask about it at committee, we did not get any answers because apparently it was not technically within Bill C-21, but he announced it at the same time he was talking about the bill. The Liberals and officials would not answer our question, but what was taken from that in the firearms community is that the permanent alteration of magazines would go a step further than what is being done now and would impact many a firearm that really is Grandpa Joe's hunting rifle.

For example, the Lee Enfield, is a very popular firearm. It was the British firearm until about the 1950s. It is well made and has been passed down through generations. It is made completely from wood stock and is exactly what we would think of and picture when we think about Grandpa Joe going out to hunt deer. However, one cannot permanently alter the magazine capabilities of that firearm without destroying it. There is no way. Therefore, is the minister now saying that he is going to destroy the Lee Enfield? He will not answer. I have urged people to write to the minister to ask him about that because he will not answer our questions, nor will the Liberals on the public safety committee.

I will also note that the tubular magazine hunting rifle, where the bullet goes right into the tube because there is no magazine, as in the image the Liberals are trying to bring forward, is an old school, 1800s-level technology. For example, the Winchester 1873, I think it is called, is a tubular magazine firearm that holds seven to 14 cartridges or bullets. It cannot be altered in any way, as that would destroy the firearm.

These are heirloom firearms. I am pretty sure my grandfather had one in the closet for when coyotes would try to get into the chicken coop. That is how old school these firearms are. There are hundreds of versions of these in rural Canada. It is owned by collectors, and certainly by hunters and indigenous Canadians. If the SKS is popular in indigenous communities, so too is the Lee Enfield, so why would the Liberals not be clear on what they are talking about with respect to these permanent alterations to magazines? Why are they being so cagey about that? Is it because they do not know? Is it ignorance, or are they hiding something? I do not know.

I have given them the benefit of the doubt before. However, here we are, and they are forcing an end to the democratic discussion and scrutiny that is needed on this bill at committee today, so I really do not trust anything they are about to say on that, if they say anything at all, because they have refused to answer my questions and our questions at the public safety committee about the Lee Enfield and tubular magazine long guns.

While this has been going on, and we have heard so much about this, the Liberals are attacking us, particularly me. I suppose it is because I have been the lead on firearms. They talk about the Conservatives more in their announcements than they talk about the crime that is wreaking havoc in our communities, which they are not doing a lot about.

I want to say that I know this debate is very heated and very personal to people on all sides. I have always done my best to lead this discussion from our perspective, from a professional and authentic standpoint, and what really shocked me was last week, or it might have been the week before, when the minister was announcing phase one of his so-called buyback, which I will get to. He said, in essence, that Conservatives were at fault and bear some of the responsibility for the abuse the Liberals are getting from what they say are gun owners. I have no idea, as I have not seen that.

It is interesting that they talk about it as if we have not received any abuse from people who do not agree with our position. I can tell members that I have certainly received very threatening abuse for the position we have taken. I am the lead on this file. I have received many threats and have been concerned for my safety in this debate, so I was very offended when I heard them trying to blame Conservatives, particularly me because I am the lead in this regard, when I have not been spared or kept from any of that abuse myself.

I am undeterred. I will continue on. I will not be bullied into silence on this. However, just to be clear, the rhetoric from the Liberals is trumping up a lot of hate toward me and others on this side of the House as well. I do not like talking about it. We do not want copycats. We do not want any heroes from these evil, sadistic people, but when I heard something like that, I thought that I had to say something.

I have kept quiet, but I will not stand idly by while the Minister of Public Safety blames me for the abuse he has gotten for his underhanded policies, when I too have suffered abuse because of his rhetoric. I just wanted to put that on the record. I hope to speak to the minister personally about that.

We are talking a lot about firearms. Of course, exclusively, Bill C-21 only impacts, with the so-called handgun freeze or ban, which is really not any of that, people who follow the law. They are the trained, tested and vetted Canadian citizens who are approved by the RCMP to own firearms. Those are really the only people who are impacted by all of these measures since the May 2020 OIC and Bill C-71 before it. It only impacts regular, everyday Canadians who are legally allowed to own firearms. They are heavily vetted Canadians, who are legally allowed to own firearms.

However, the government continues to bring forward measure after measure to attack this group of people. Meanwhile, criminals are running rampant on our streets. I have talked at length about the crime issues. Canadians know full well what has been going on, on public transit and on the streets of Toronto. Everywhere we go in Canada there seems to be horrific headlines of innocent people being attacked by complete strangers who are deranged.

We are facing very serious issues, yet the Liberal budget 2023 really failed to address those violent crime issues. In fact, violent crime was not mentioned once, zero times, in that budget.

Do members know what else was not mentioned once in that budget? Bail reform was not mentioned once in the budget and has not been mentioned in the priorities of that budget from the Minister of Public Safety, despite the fact that every premier of every province and territory in Canada has written two letters to the Prime Minister demanding bail reform because of what is happening in their provinces and territories with crime and repeat violent offenders continuing to get bail and getting back on our streets, hurting Canadians.

When have we ever heard every premier in the country agreeing on a letter? It is very rare. Maybe when they are asking for health care funding, but aside from that, it is a very rare occurrence. There have now been two letters sent to the Prime Minister.

There are also municipal police forces. I just spoke at the big ten police conference, which included every major police association, municipal police forces across the country. I just flew to Calgary last week to speak to them. They are demanding bail reform. Every big city mayor in Ontario is demanding bail reform. While everyone seems to agree on bail reform, there has been no meaningful action or change taken by the Minister of Public Safety on bail reform. I will remind those watching of violent crime in this country, which is up 32% from 2015 to 2021.

When we get to 2022 stats, it will be deeply concerning, I am going to guess that they are going to be way up, just based on the headlines, but they are up 32% between 2015 and 2021. It equates to 124,000 more violent crime incidents per year, which is an insane amount of additional crime that the police are having to deal with, despite police numbers really suffering, which I will talk more about in a minute. We are seeing that crime wave steadily increase, year by year, under the Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety's watch. That is all happening.

On that, bail reform is a huge issue. If we look at Vancouver, there were 6,000 crime incidents, interactions with police, for crime. Of these, 40 people were responsible for 6,000 interactions with police. Those 40 people are sure keeping police busy in Vancouver. These are violent repeat offenders causing havoc on transit, when we walk down the street with one's family and when we are trying to enjoy the parks. There are 40 people causing 6,000 interactions with police in one year, yet there are crickets about bail reform. They say, “Oh, we are meeting and talking about it”, but that is all we hear. It has been months.

In fact, the Victoria police recently put out a news release about a vile rapist who committed 10 sexual assaults with a weapon. Why was he released? The police wanted to make sure the public knew why it was not their fault he was released. At the bottom of the news release, there is a question that asks, “Why was this person released?” I think this is consistent on their news releases, when it is relevant. It was because of Bill C-75. That is a Liberal bill from a few years ago that made bail, in essence, the default for violent repeat offenders. They got bail by default.

Now the chickens are coming home to roost. We are seeing a massive crime surge, and this is one of the reasons police are underlining this and making this heard by MPs over and over again. That is all going on. We are hearing through Toronto police statistics that of the 44 murders, I think it was either last year or in 2021, in over half, 24 or 26 of the 44 murders, the murderers were out on bail at the time. Over half of 44 murders could have been prevented if the Liberals had not brought in such a weak bail regime. They are getting up at the mike and talking about how this so-called new definition, old definition, no list, sneaky list given to the firearms advisory council is going to solve crime, or is one of the things that are going to solve crime.

It is not going to do anything about the people in Toronto who are getting out on bail and murdering people. Toronto police will remind us that about nine out of 10 firearms used in crime in Toronto, mostly handguns, are smuggled in from the U.S. We could outlaw, and I am sure the Liberals are working on it, every single handgun legally owned in this country, and the situation will get worse in cities. The statistics will continue to go up because these criminals are not legally owning the guns. Most of them are prohibited from ever going near a firearm.

Most repeat violent offenders should be in jail, because they smuggle the firearms in quite easily through the Prime Minister's very porous border, through which he has allowed all these drugs and guns to come into the country. That includes human trafficking and all kinds of other things he has allowed under his watch. They are flowing into Toronto and other big cities, such as Montreal and Winnipeg. I have seen the firearms myself, as the Winnipeg police have shown me smuggled ones. There are 3-D-printed guns as well. People are using 3-D printers and printing plastic handguns that are going for $7,000 a pop on the streets of Winnipeg. Bill C-21 would really not do a lot about that.

We worked together on an amendment to perhaps give police a teeny extra tool, which I supported, but going after lawful firearms owners is not going to do anything about the problems in Toronto. Nothing in Bill C-21 would really have stopped the murders of those 20-odd people who were murdered by those on bail who smuggled guns in or printed them. The Liberals say they are increasing maximum sentencing on gun smugglers. That is technically true, but in reality it is baloney. One of my Conservative colleagues, who did great work, made an information request to the government asking how many people have received the maximum sentence, up to right now, for gun smuggling. Do members know, for the eight years that the Prime Minister has ruled the country, how many people got the maximum 10-year sentence for gun smuggling activities? Zero people have gotten the maximum, so to increase it to 14 years is really not going to do a whole heck of a lot.

Perhaps what they should have done is to bring in mandatory minimums for gun smuggling. That would have taken criminals off the street. That would have actually done something, maybe. Conservatives were looking at maybe doing that with an amendment, but we were told it was out of scope so we could not bring forward mandatory maximums. Maybe that is something the member for Carleton, as prime minister of the country, will look at, because that would make a real, actual difference in cracking down on gun smuggling.

I will remind the House that, at the same time as the Liberals were going after lawful firearms owners to such a degree, with so many taxpayer dollars and so much effort by the Minister of Public Safety, in the fall, the Minister of Justice brought forward a bill, which he apparently celebrated quite excitedly when it was passed, to remove mandatory minimum sentences for serious gun crimes and violent crimes. Does everyone want to know what the list of those crimes is? On the list is robbery with a gun. Someone can rob a store with a gun, and it is no longer guaranteed that they will go to jail. That is the Liberal Prime Minister's vision of what we should do about crime: People can rob someone at gunpoint, and there is no longer a mandatory minimum for them.

The list continues with extortion with a firearm; weapons trafficking; importing or exporting, knowing the firearm is unauthorized; and discharging a firearm with intent, including things like drive-by shootings. There is no longer mandatory prison time for the people who commit these offences. Also on the list, there is using a firearm in the commission of an offence, or breaking the law with a gun; there is no longer a mandatory prison time for this. For possession of a firearm, knowing its possession is unauthorized, or illegally possessing a firearm, there is no longer mandatory prison time. For all those criminals in Toronto, it was a good day when Bill C-5 passed.

There is also possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition. A person could have a prohibited gun with a whole bunch of ammunition, and there is no longer mandatory prison time for them. Again, gangs are celebrating every time the Liberal Prime Minister is elected. For possession of a weapon obtained by commission of an offence, stealing one, in essence, there is no longer mandatory prison time. For possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, excluding firearms ammunition, there is no mandatory prison time.

For discharging a firearm recklessly, there is no longer mandatory prison time. People die in cities because there are gangsters discharging firearms recklessly all the time, firearms they have smuggled in or 3D-printed. There is no longer mandatory prison time for them. In fact, in that same bill, Bill C-5, the Liberals brought forward a supposedly improved option for people who commit sexual assault. Now the law ensures that people who commit sexual assault, rape, do not have to go to prison. They can actually serve house arrest in the comfort of their homes. Rapists can serve their sentence playing video games, with their feet up, in their own homes. It is unreal. I should not be laughing about it, but it is so outrageous and ridiculous that it is hard for me, as a woman, to wrap my head around a so-called feminist government saying that rapists can serve house arrest for their sentence. This just happened in Quebec, where a vile rapist violently raped a woman and got zero days in prison and only 20 months under house arrest.

This is all in the scope of what the Liberals view as their crime priorities. They are getting up at the mike every other day, announcing new gun control measures to go after folks who are lawfully allowed to own firearms, and saying that that is going to make a difference. What would make a difference is repealing Bill C-5 and making sure violent criminals and rapists go to jail. That would make a difference in public safety.

It is not just about firearms. In fact, a lot of the crime we are seeing involves knives. Where is the conversation about knives? We just had what I believe was the third-largest mass killing in Canadian history, and we barely heard a peep about that, certainly not from the Liberals. We tried to study it at committee, and they would not let us. It was in the fall, the third-largest mass killing in Canadian history. A man who got out on parole despite—

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

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

Madam Speaker, today we are talking about budget 2023, and there are many serious issues facing Canada. Unfortunately, I do believe that many of them are not addressed in the federal 2023 Liberal budget.

I am the shadow minister for public safety and the vice-chair of the public safety and national security committee for Canada, and so when I was looking at the budget, I was looking at it through a public safety lens: How is this budget going to improve public safety in Canada? Again, there are very serious issues in public safety that need dire and immediate attention from the Liberal government, and I do not feel that they were given that attention in budget 2023.

We are facing a 32% rise in violent crime since 2015, which is the 2015-21 statistic. I am confident that, unfortunately, the 2022 statistic is going to be even worse, given the headlines that we have seen over the past year and a half. Also, 32% is not just a number. In fact, it represents 124,000 more very serious violent crime incidents that have impacted innocent Canadians across the country. That is how many more violent crime incidents per year we experienced in 2021 versus 2015, when the Liberal Prime Minister first came to power. So, there are very serious issues not being addressed, from my perspective, in the budget.

Many of us read the news and watch the headlines, and we have seen a lot of very concerning stabbings, shootings, murders, assaults on innocent Canadians and stranger attacks on public safety, and a lot of it has to do with repeat violent offenders in our community who continue to get bail and wreak havoc on innocent Canadians. For example, there was a violent knife attack on a Surrey SkyTrain, which is its public transit, that left a young man in hospital. The attempted murderer was released on bail less than two weeks later. A man was almost stabbed to death, and the culprit was back on the streets. This follows the death of a 17 year old who was murdered, stabbed to death, in B.C. on a bus. This follows a 16-year-old boy who was stabbed to death in a Toronto public transit station. There are countless other examples of these horrific attacks in Canada. It seems that there are more and more every day.

It is not just civilians; it is also police. In fact, 10 police officers have died in the past year, eight of them on the job, and notably repeat violent offenders is a theme in many of the murders. Of course, everyone has heard of OPP Officer Greg Pierzchala, a young OPP officer who was murdered just after Christmas this past year. He walked up to a vehicle in a ditch and the driver shot and murdered him. That driver, that murderer, was out on bail and had a lifetime prohibition from ever owning a gun. Yet, he got out on bail, got a gun and shot and murdered that young police officer. We mourn the loss of Greg Pierzchala with his family.

Notably, his death sparked a necessary national conversation about bail reform, which is not mentioned once in the federal budget, despite every premier in the country joining in on one letter, which is very rare, and sending it to the Prime Minister demanding bail reform. Despite big-city mayors and municipal police forces across the country demanding bail reform, we see no action, no results on bail reform from this government. It is not mentioned in the budget at all. I find it very concerning, and it is very serious. Last year, in Toronto, of the 44 murders when someone used a gun to murder someone, 24 of the murderers were out on bail at the time, and so 24 of 44 could have been prevented if our bail system was a bit tougher. It is quite serious.

In B.C., the NDP provincial government has written urgently to the Prime Minister just in the last few weeks outlining what they are facing in terms of bail and violent crime. Only about 16% to 17% of those who are going through a trial for a violent crime actually get detained. I was shocked at these statistics, and I had to read them a number of times. Fewer than 20% of violent criminals are being denied bail in B.C. Something is seriously wrong, and the B.C. NDP government is demanding bail reform as a solution from the Liberal government, and yet it is not mentioned as a priority in the Liberal budget. I found that very disappointing, given the national conversation and the deaths that we have seen. We could say that maybe bail will be mentioned somewhere else, but violent crime was not mentioned as a priority. Members can google it themselves; it was not in the budget.

Again, folks at home need to understand that a government's budget is telling Canadians what its values are and what it is prioritizing for the year ahead with the billions of taxpayer dollars it accumulates over the year. If violent crime is not mentioned, then clearly it is not a priority for the Liberals to fight violent crime or to deal with bail and repeat violent offenders. There are issues in our parole system as well.

What is in the budget? It is not something that is answering the calls of police. Before I move on, I want to say I found something quite shocking this week. The Victoria Police Department, just to drive this point home, recently released a news release about a vile rapist who was charged with 10 counts of sexual assault with a weapon. It says, “Why was this person released? Bill C-75....”

Bill C-75 was a Liberal bill from a couple years ago. Where is the mention of fixing this problem in the budget? Where are the resources to fix this problem in the budget? Why was it not prioritized by the Minister of Public Safety? I have not received any answers for these questions yet.

There are a few things in the budget that I did find notable in the public safety realm. There is $29 million over five years for an IT computer program for the government's so-called buyback program of long guns. I know this is very contentious. I have talked about this extensively elsewhere.

There is no evidence to suggest that long gun confiscation is going to do anything for all the issues I have outlined. In fact, of the multitude of violent crimes in this country, fewer than 0.5% are committed with long guns. We know the majority of crime committed with firearms is committed by people who are not legally allowed to own them.

Spending millions of dollars on an IT program, millions of dollars buying inventory from small gun shops and then billions of dollars buying property from law-abiding citizens who have been trained, tested and vetted by police to own firearms, is not going to make any difference to everything that I have been talking about.

However, it is a top priority for Canadians that it get solved. I put this to the minister. He said there are a lot of ways to fight gun violence. I said sure there are, but I asked what they were in his opinion. He said he is investing money in the border. Is he doing that?

I took a closer look at the budget since the Liberals formed government. In 2015, there were 8,400 frontline officers and investigators working for CBSA, our border agency. We know, as Toronto Police have told us, about nine out of 10 guns that are used in crime in Toronto are smuggled in from the U.S. We hear this quite universally from police departments across the country. It is a gun-smuggling problem from the U.S.

In 2015, we had 8,400 frontline workers who were tasked with stopping things like this from happening and stopping the gun smugglers. The Minister of Public Safety has said to Canadians multiple times, every time he gets a microphone, that he is spending all this money on the border to stop gun smuggling.

However, eight years later, there are only 25 more frontline officers, yet a lot of money has been spent. There are only 25 more frontline officers to fight gun smuggling, which is the source of violent crime in this country. Every chance he gets, he boasts about how much money he has invested.

Where is that money going? A closer look at the employees at CBSA shows that middle management has gone from approximately 2,000 people in 2015 to 4,000 people in 2023. It has doubled middle management, not the frontline workers who are working hard and putting their lives at risk to apprehend gun smugglers at the border, but the middle managers.

I greatly respect all of our middle managers in public safety, but the point is that it has doubled, while there has been almost no movement of the frontline officer numbers. How serious is he about cracking down on gun smuggling? The numbers are not telling me that the results are going to be there.

We know the RCMP is facing significant issues as well. Recruitment is way down, as is morale, across the country. Police say this is an issue, yet there is not any new money in the budget to encourage recruitment or for new recruits. We are seeing serious declines in recruitment in our police forces. Why is that not being addressed? We need more frontline police officers to fight violent crime.

We also know there has been a 12% funding cut to the Parole Board and a 36% decrease in staff at the Parole Board. Perhaps that is why we have major mass casualties like the murderer in Saskatchewan who murdered, with a knife, 11 people and sent 17 more people to hospital. He was out on parole with 59 prior convictions.

After all that, we see cuts to parole and no increase in this budget, yet increases everywhere else. Public safety is not a priority for the government from what I have seen in the budget.

I do feel very strongly about this, as does the Conservative Party. We know Canadians care about public safety. I call on the Minister of Public Safety and the Liberal government to bring forward real measures to address public safety because so far, they are getting a failing grade from me.

Public Safety

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve to feel safe, and as a government, we are taking action so that they will.

Bill C-75 already reduced the burden of proof in intimate partner violence cases when it came to bail. We are going beyond that. We have met with our provincial and territorial counterparts to bring reform to the bail system.

We recognize that this is something we have to work on with the provinces. Obviously we will take action in areas of our jurisdiction. We will move, and we will find a solution together.

Justice and Human Rights

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-75 was introduced four years ago. One of its stated purposes was to reduce the number of indigenous people in our criminal justice system and in our prisons. However, our correctional investigator, Dr. Zinger, said in his latest report that the number is going in the wrong direction, particularly for indigenous women. Could my colleague comment on that?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a Friday afternoon, and my friend from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke has brought forward a very important conversation today.

I do not really want to get into a political debate, but I want to put on the record that the member and the party opposite have consistently spoken out against Bill C-75, which in many ways addresses the issue of gender-based violence. Many provisions were brought in that were not available in protecting victims, so I find it a little disingenuous when the party opposite starts going into a political discussion on timing of an appointment, where the real issues are addressed in Criminal Code amendments we have brought forward as a government, which they continuously criticize, demean and in fact misinform the public on.

Telecommunications Act

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this House on behalf of the people of my riding of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan.

The safety and security of our nation is of paramount importance, and I understand the need to enhance the safety and security of Canadians, both here at home and abroad. This would include many of our international corporations, which are large contributors to our economic base, and of course our own government institutions and interests. Having the opportunity to speak to cybersecurity in Canada gives us an opportunity to enhance or increase our country's ability to protect us from cyber-threats.

A significant concern for all Canadians is security. This concern has increased in recent times, as we see the rise in organized crime and gang-related offences, which have gone up 92%. The question I ask myself when I see this increase is this: Will the Liberal government be led by evidence and act on the evidence that has been reported?

Cybersecurity is extremely important for our nation to protect itself from inside and outside threats. I welcome Bill C-26, but I do have some concerns pertaining to the success of the bill, and one concern is about accountability. This is a question that we in opposition bring up every day in this House and regularly.

Bill C-26 is essentially divided into two different parts. The first part is to amend the Telecommunications Act to promote the security of the Canadian telecommunications system, adding security as a policy objective; to bring the telecommunications sector in line with other infrastructure sectors; and to secure Canada's telecommunications system and prohibit the use of products and services provided by specific telecommunications service providers. This amendment would enforce the ban on Huawei Technologies and ZTE from Canada's 5G infrastructure and would remove or terminate 4G equipment by the year 2027. What stands out to me, which has been a concern, is the time that it took the government to react to enforce the ban on Huawei.

The second portion of this bill is to enact the critical cyber systems protection act, or CCSPA, designed to protect critical cyber systems and “systems that are vital to national security or public safety and that are delivered or operated...within the legislative authority of Parliament.” As a report by Norton Rose Fulbright notes, the purpose of the CCSPA is, first, to “[e]nsure the identification and effective management of any cybersecurity risks, including risks associated with supply chains and using third-party products and services”; second, to “[p]rotect critical cyber systems from being compromised”; third, to “[e]nsure the proper detection of cybersecurity incidents”; and finally, to “[m]inimize the impacts of any cybersecurity incidents on critical cyber systems.”

The impacts of this bill would be far-reaching, and here are the things that need to be considered when this bill is in place. The government would have the power to receive, review, assess and even intervene in cyber-compliance and operational situations within critical industries in Canada; to make mandatory cybersecurity programs for critical industries; and to enforce regulations through regulatory and legal enforcement, with potential financial penalties. With this in place, the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry would be afforded additional powers.

As the report notes:

If any cybersecurity risks associated with the operator’s supply chain or its use of third-party products and services are identified, the operator must take reasonable steps to mitigate those risks. While the Act doesn’t give any indication of what kind of steps will be required from operators, such steps may be prescribed by the regulations [at committee].

It goes on:

The Act also addresses cybersecurity incidents, which are defined as incidents, including acts, omissions or circumstances, that interfere or could interfere with the continuity or security of vital services and systems, or the confidentiality, integrity or availability of the critical cyber systems touching upon these vital services and systems. No indication is given as to what would constitute interference under the Act. In the event of a cybersecurity incident, a designated operator must immediately report the incident to the CSE and the appropriate regulator. At present, the Act does not prescribe any timeline or give other indication as to how “immediately” should be interpreted.

Some deficiencies in Bill C-26, as it is presently drafted, can be listed as follows:

The breadth of what the government might order a telecommunications provider to do is not sufficiently bounded.

The secrecy and confidentiality provisions imposed on telecommunications providers threaten to establish a class of secret law and regulations.

There is a potential for excessive information sharing within the federal government and with international partners.

The costs associated with compliance with reforms may endanger the viability of smaller providers.

The vague drafting language means that the full contours of the legislation cannot be assessed.

There exists no recognition of privacy or other charter-protected rights as a counterbalance to the proposed security requirements, nor are appropriate accountability or transparency requirements imposed on the government.

Should these recommendations or ones derived from them not be taken up, the government could be creating legislation that would require the public and telecommunications providers to simply trust that it knows what it is doing and that its actions are in the best interests of everyone.

Is it reaching the right decision to say that no need exists for broader public discussion concerning the kinds of protections that should be in place to protect the cybersecurity of Canada's telecommunications and networks? The government could amend its legislation to ensure its activities conform with Canada's democratic values and norms, as well as transparency and accountability.

If the government is truly focused on security for Canadians, should we not start by reviewing the gang and organized crime evidence showing that our present policies have failed? Should we not look at safety and security in our bail reform to protect innocent Canadians who become victims?

If Bill C-26 is a step in protecting Canada from cybersecurity threats, what is the review process to ensure compliance? What is the review process to ensure effectiveness and goals are met when we look at Bill C-75 regarding bail reform? The NDP-Liberal government is not interested in reviewing bail reform even though the evidence clearly shows that Bill C-75 failed.

Cybersecurity is important to our country's security, as are the victims of crime after their safety and security are violated. I am deeply concerned that the government is struggling with evidence-based information to review Bill C-26, as Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 are not supported by evidence. In fact, offenders and criminals are a higher priority than their victims are. My concern is if Bill C-26 requires amendment or review.

Bill C-26 proposes compliance measures intended to protect cybersecurity in sectors that are deemed vital to Canadian security. Therefore, although late out of the gate, Bill C-26 is a start.

In conclusion, I would like to see some clear accountability to ensure the objectives of this bill are met and that a proper review process is conducted that holds individuals, corporations, and most importantly, our government accountable.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, in the last several months, we have seen accountability raise its head here in Parliament with Bill C-5, Bill C-75 and Bill C-11. Without accountability, it is as though the government does not actually care what we are doing because with a majority government, the NDP and Liberals can make decisions based on what they think is right and there is no accountability.

With Bill C-5, the evidence is not there. Bill C-21, taking legal guns from legal gun owners, is another non-evidence-based process. With Bill C-26, which we are talking about today, it is time that we start building in some processes for accountability so the government is actually accountable for what it is doing.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House, especially when I can talk about safety and security.

I always try to enhance safety and security for Canadians at home and abroad, for our corporations that are major contributors to our economic base, and of course, for government institutions. Today, discussing cybersecurity in Canada is an opportunity to enhance our country's ability to protect us from cyber-threats.

Security is a significant concern for all Canadians. Lately, with the rise in organized crime and gang offences to the tune of a 92% increase in gang crime, I have to wonder when the government will be led by evidence, or in other words, provide evidence-based action. It is extremely important for our country to have cybersecurity to protect itself from threats, and I welcome Bill C-26. However, I am apprehensive about how successful this bill may be since accountability is a question that the opposition brings up every day in this House.

Bill C-26 is basically divided into two parts. The first part aims to amend the Telecommunications Act to promote the security of the Canadian telecommunications system. It aims to do this by adding security as a policy objective to bring the telecommunications sector into line with other infrastructure sectors.

By amending the Telecommunications Act to secure Canada's telecommunications systems and prohibit the use of products and services provided by specific telecommunications service providers, the amendment would enforce the ban on Huawei Technologies and ZTE from Canada's 5G infrastructure, as well as the removal and termination of related 4G equipment by 2027. Of concern is the time it took the government to react to enforce the ban on Huawei.

The second part aims to enact the critical cyber systems protection act, the CCSPA, which is designed to protect critical cybersecurity and systems that are vital to national security or public safety or are delivered or operated within the legislative authority of Parliament. The purpose of the CCSPA is to ensure the identification and effective management of any cybersecurity risks, including risks associated with supply chains and using third party products and services; protect critical cyber systems from being compromised; ensure the proper detection of cybersecurity incidents; and minimize the impacts of any cybersecurity incidents on our critical cyber systems.

The effects of this bill will be far-reaching, and there are some points to consider: The government would have the power to review, receive, assess and even intervene in cyber-compliance and operational situations within critical industries in Canada. There would also be mandatory cybersecurity programs for critical industries, as well as the enforcement of regulations through regulatory and law enforcement with potential financial penalties.

Under both provisions, the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry would be afforded additional powers.

If any cybersecurity risks associated with the operator's supply chain or its use of third party products and services are identified, the operator must take reasonable steps to mitigate these risks. While the bill does not indicate what steps would be required from the operators, such steps may be prescribed by the regulations during a committee review.

The act also addresses cybersecurity incidents; a cybersecurity incident is defined as an:

incident, including an act, omission or circumstance, that interferes or may interfere with

(a) the continuity or security of a vital service or vital system; or

(b) the confidentiality, integrity or availability of the critical cyber system

touching upon these vital services. It does not indicate what would constitute interference under the act.

In the event of a cybersecurity incident, a designated operator must immediately report the incident to the CSE and the appropriate regulator. At present, the act does not prescribe any timeline or indicate how “immediately” should be interpreted. Again, there is an opportunity to address this at committee.

There are some concerns with Bill C-26 as it is presently drafted. What the government might order a telecommunications provider to do is not clearly identified. Moreover, the secrecy and confidentiality provisions of the telecommunications providers to establish law and regulations are not clearly defined.

As has been brought up today, potential exists for information sharing with other federal governments and international partners, but it is just not defined. Costs associated with compliance with reforms may endanger the viability of small providers. Drafting language needs to be in the full contours of legislation, and that could be discussed at committee as well. In addition, there should be recognition that privacy or other charter-protected rights exist as a counterbalance to proposed security requirements, which will ensure that the government is accountable.

Some recommendations, or ones derived from them, should not be taken up, such as that the government should create legislation requiring the public and telecommunication providers to simply trust that the government knows what it is doing. Of course, this is a challenge. Telecommunications networks and the government must enact legislation to ensure its activities support Canada's democratic values and norms of transparency and accountability.

If the government is truly focused on security for Canadians, should we not be reviewing our gang and organized crime evidence? Our present policies have failed. Should we not look at the safety and security of our bail reform in an effort to prevent innocent Canadians from becoming victims?

Bill C-26 is a step in protecting Canada from cybersecurity threats. What is the review process to ensure compliance and effectiveness, as well as that goals are met?

In terms of bail reform, even though the evidence clearly shows that Bill C-75 has failed, we see that the NDP-Liberal government is not interested in reviewing bail reform. Cybersecurity is important to our country's security; so are victims of crime after their safety and security has been violated.

I am concerned that the government is struggling with evidence-based information to review Bill C-26, as it has with Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. These bills are not supported by evidence. In fact, offenders and criminals have a higher priority than victims do. My concern is as follows: If Bill C-26 requires amendments and review, will the government follow up? It is so important to be flexible and to be able to address changes, especially in a cybersecurity world, which changes so rapidly.

Bill C-26 proposes compliance measures intended to protect cybersecurity in sectors that are deemed vital to Canadian security. Therefore, although late out of the gate, Bill C-26 is a start. However, since this bill proposes compliance measures intended to protect cybersecurity in sectors that are deemed vital to Canadian security, I would like to see individuals, corporations, and most importantly, the government held accountable. There should also be measures to ensure that the objectives of the bill are met and that there is a proper review process.

As I have stated, government accountability has not been a priority. For the proposed bill to succeed, there have to be processes for review and for updating the critical cyber systems protection act.

The failure of Bill C-75 on bail reform is clear with recent violent acts by murderers and individuals who should never have been out on bail. Today we are debating Bill C-26, and I would hope that there are lessons learned from our failure to review Bill C-75. In addition, we can learn from the failure of Bill C-5, as gang violence and organized crime rates are up 92%. Surely the government will open a door for review and making required changes to Bill C-26 on cybersecurity.

I am thankful for the time to speak on the responsibilities related to cybersecurity.

Canadian Heritage

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that everything the Bloc-centralist-Liberal alliance is currently doing for Quebec is not working. Just think of Bill C‑5, which allows rapists to stay at home, or Bill C‑75, which lets criminals who have been released to obtain bail even if they are still violent. Now, there is Bill C‑11.

To add insult to injury, they are refusing to consider the motion that was adopted unanimously. Even the Bloc voted unanimously for the federal government to move on Bill C‑11.

Can the minister tell us if Bill C‑11 will be sent to committee to be studied together with the amendments?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who often says that the Bloc is picking fights, all of sudden say that the Bloc is his biggest ally. As was the case for several bills, bills C‑5, C‑75 and C‑11, the Bloc is a great ally to the Liberals.

Can the minister give us an answer? Will the government send Bill C‑11 to committee so it can study the request of the Government of Quebec?

Criminal Code

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak here today to an important bill.

We have to ask ourselves: why are we here this evening debating Bill C-39? What brought us to this place?

What brought us to this place was a government, once again, that had acted completely irresponsibly and with great overreach, ignoring the experts, ignoring Parliament and ignoring the most vulnerable.

We will back up a little bit. Bill C-7, which expanded medical assistance in dying in this country, went through the House of Commons and went through our committee, the justice committee.

Accompanying any piece of government legislation is a charter statement from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. A charter statement is the government's certification that the legislation complies with our Canadian Charter of Rights.

I want to read, just briefly, from that charter statement. The minister's charter statement stated, for Bill C-7, that it excluded individuals with mental illness from eligibility to access MAID, because of:

the inherent risks and complexity that the availability of MAID would present for individuals who suffer solely from mental illness. First, evidence suggests that screening for decision-making capacity is particularly difficult, and subject to a high degree of error, in relation to persons who suffer from a mental illness serious enough to ground a request for MAID.

At the time, the minister said that there was not the public support nor was the infrastructure in place to allow medical assistance in dying for individuals whose sole underlying condition is mental illness.

The bill, Bill C-7, then goes to the Senate, the unelected Senate. The Senate amends the bill to include mental illness with no safeguards, no accounting for the fact that it was an extreme broadening of Canada's MAID legislation and would, in fact, lead Canada to become an outlier.

That bill came back to the House and was passed by the government, with the opposition from our Conservative caucus members. Conservative parliamentarians were strongly opposed, because we knew that MAID should not be expanded to those who are suffering with mental illness.

When we are reaching out to those who are struggling, for example through Bell Let's Talk, and I see members of Parliament posting that on their social media, the terrible message that it sends is that we as a Parliament think that, for those suffering with mental illness, offering them death should be an option.

One may say, well, that is not what this is about. Unfortunately, that is exactly what it is about. It is already happening. Many of us were horrified to hear of bureaucrats from the Canadian government in a department to which we entrust vulnerable veterans, veterans suffering with post-traumatic stress disorder. Can one imagine the family of a veteran who goes to Veterans Affairs for help and, without even mentioning the issue, is offered the opportunity to explore medical assistance in dying, when they are suffering from PTSD?

Imagine how that would make one feel, for someone who is struggling and who is trying to stay motivated to stay alive. The Minister of Veterans Affairs said that this was a one-off, that this was just one problematic situation.

Unfortunately, we found out that it was not a one-off and that it had happened many times, an untold number of times. We do not know how many times it happened. This is before medical assistance in dying is officially expanded to those suffering with mental illness.

Why are we here today? We are here because the Minister of Justice supported this and pushed this forward in spite of, we know, the Liberal caucus members who are very uncomfortable with this, because they know it is wrong.

Just today, we read an article saying that only three in 10 Canadians support the idea of allowing patients to seek MAID based purely on mental illness. Seven in 10 Canadians, the constituents that these Liberal caucus members represent, do not support this going forward.

The Minister of Justice said, in the same article, “To be honest, we could have gone forward with the original date, but we want to be sure. We want to be safe. We want everybody to be on the same page.”

The government is saying that it needs everyone to think like it does and that everyone needs to warm up to the idea. We do not accept that. We are going to continue to fight for the most vulnerable. This is happening right now in Canada. It is very upsetting for many of us.

Then we read, in the same article, of a report that noted that an Ontario man recently made news after he requested MAID, not because he wanted to die, but because he thought it was a preferable alternative to being homeless. A disabled Ontario woman also applied for MAID after seven years of applying for affordable housing in Toronto with no luck.

The abuse of this system is happening in real time. It is happening now. Because of the passage of the amended Bill C-7, we were set for next month to have, without any safeguards, those suffering from mental illness be eligible for MAID. Bill C-39 is the government's attempt to kick this down the road another year.

Where have we seen these U-turns? We saw them with Bill C-75 on bail changes. The government overstepped, and now it is reversing course. On the gun legislation, the government realized there was a big overreach, and now it is time to climb down from that.

Canadians suffering with mental illness deserve better. They deserve a thoughtful approach. I stood in the House not long ago, back in October 2020, and Parliament was observing mental health week. Unfortunately, at that time, parliamentarians did not know that the Liberal government would soon include mental illness in its planned expansion.

The point in that speech was that one of the key foundations of Canadian society, in our collective identity, is that we are a caring and compassionate country. Canadians, many in this chamber, do not see anything caring or compassionate about making people who are living with mental illness eligible for medically assisted death.

What message does it send to Canadians who live with mental illness? They are not people who are at the end of their lives. These are not people who would otherwise die. Why is the Liberal government pushing to include them in its medical assistance in dying regime?

The president of the Canadian Medical Association said, “We have a responsibility, we believe, as physicians and as society, to make sure that all vulnerable Canadians have access to proper care and the support they need.” I listed two scenarios, and we all have these scenarios in our ridings of individuals in need who are not getting the help they need.

If we have not succeeded to make sure that every Canadian living with mental illness has access to timely mental health care or adequate support, how is it that the government and the minister were comfortable in proceeding with broadening medical assistance in dying in such a radical way to take effect next month? All this despite the fact that this radical expansion of MAID was passed in early 2021. Conservatives have not given up the fight to do what is right and to protect vulnerable Canadians. We will not give up that fight.

The government failed to conduct a mandatory review of its own MAID legislation. That was supposed to happen, and it did not happen. The minister was to complete a charter statement. He did that on Bill C-7. The Bill C-7 charter statement very clearly rationalized why individuals suffering with mental illness were not included in Bill C-7. That is how they arrived at the constitutionality of the bill.

With this massive change, we do not see the updated charter statement. We do not hear the minister talking about the charter rights of those who are suffering. This is remarkable because the statement was written over two years ago.

A few days ago, more than 25 legal experts signed a letter addressed to the Prime Minister and members of the cabinet, challenging them to do better on this.

This expansion is wrong. Conservatives will support extending the coming into force by this year, but in that time, we will not give up the fight to protect the most vulnerable.

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding Clause

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, typically, I think our answers are supposed to be as long as the questions, which means that I am going to be making another speech given how long my colleague's question was.

First of all, I could respond to the member for Drummond that his question does not matter to me one bit either, but I will try to be a little more polite than he is on that front.

As I said in my speech, it is clear that the Bloc Québécois wants sovereignty; it is a left-wing party that supports the Parti Québécois. There is no denying it.

The Government of Quebec is not the Parti Québécois. The Bloc Québécois does not have the sole authority to speak for all Quebeckers. That is patently untrue. I am a Quebecker and proud of it, as are my Conservative colleagues and even several Liberal members. We are all Quebeckers and we all speak for Quebec.

When I make connections between Bloc Québécois positions, I look at their platform and I look at the state of affairs, such as bills C-5, C-75 and C-21. I could go on and name more, but I do not have enough time.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Perth—Wellington.

After eight years of the Prime Minister's dismal governance, he is now trying to turn attention away from his record, the cost of living crisis of his own making, the highest spikes in inflation in 40 years and the doubling of the price of rent and the cost of mortgages. He wants to turn Canadians' attention away from the record use of food banks, the record credit card debt and the fact that he tripled the carbon tax. He wants Canadians to forget that violent crimes have increased by 32%, that gang-related homicides have increased by 92%, that he has close ties to lobbyists who cost a fortune and that he has violated ethics rules.

The Prime Minister is trying once again to sow division in Canada. He is also trying to create a fake constitutional crisis. That is his latest attempt at dividing people and turning attention away from his failures.

The Bloc Québécois has no solutions for Quebec's real problems. On June 15, 1991, more than 30 years ago, in protest at the failure of the Meech Lake accord, Lucien Bouchard and a few other MPs founded the Bloc Québécois for a “temporary” period. Would I have been part of that group? Perhaps. However, the temporary Bloc Québécois of 1991 in no way resembles the Bloc Québécois of 2023. In any case, this was not what Lucien Bouchard intended at the time.

Today, we understand why the Bloc Québécois, like the Liberal Party of Canada, is completely out of touch with the reality of Quebec residents. It is using a full day, an opposition day, to talk about the Constitution, when there are so many other matters that are more important to Quebeckers.

As the Quebec lieutenant for the Conservative Party of Canada, I am trying to understand where the Bloc Québécois is going with its sometimes nebulous strategies. I want to make it clear that I am not criticizing the duly elected members, but rather the political party, which only cares about Quebec sovereignty and which, despite the rhetorical flourishes of its leader, has only one thing in mind: to bring down the Canadian federation.

This is why I question its strategic decision to devote a full day of debate to a subject that does not interest Quebeckers: the Canadian Constitution. Are there no topics that are more important to Quebeckers nowadays?

Despite its grand patriotic speeches, I sense that the Bloc Québécois is only focused on the Liberal government and its leftist agenda.

In the last eight years, we have seen a disoriented Bloc Québécois trying to score political points on various issues, but the people of Quebec expect their federal members of the House to work for them.

Article 070 of the main proposal prepared for the Bloc Québécois' upcoming national convention in May states: “We have the right to make mistakes, rethink our positions and change our minds”. That being the case, it should take this opportunity to course correct.

I can think of several examples of questionable choices made by the Bloc Québécois. Was it a good idea to support the Liberal government's Bill C-5, the infamous bill that allows street thugs to avoid prison time and sex offenders to serve their sentence at home instead of in jail where they belong? Was it a good idea to vote with the Liberal government in favour of Bill C-75, which allows the worst criminals to be released on bail when they are still a threat to society? Was it a good idea to punish hunters and indigenous people by supporting the Liberals' Bill C-21?

The Bloc has a very leftist agenda. It is the Liberal government' best ally. Are Quebeckers aware of that?

I hear members laughing. They can go ahead and laugh all they like, but facts are facts.

When Lucien Bouchard formed the Bloc Québécois, he clearly indicated that the party was meant to be a temporary measure. Over 30 years later, we are really seeing the wear and tear. Paragraph 018 of the Bloc Québécois's main position paper states, and I quote, “We, like the vast majority of Quebeckers, naturally think of the Quebec National Assembly when we talk about our government.” We see here a party that is still trying to find itself.

This political party claims to support the Quebec National Assembly and the Government of Quebec. However, during the most recent Quebec election campaign, the Bloc Québécois put all of its energy and resources into supporting the Parti Québécois and working against Coalition Avenir Québec, the party that won the election by a landslide and now forms the government. How can the Bloc claim to be an ally of the Quebec government when its objective is to get PQ members elected? Also, how can it be recognized as an effective voice for Quebec when it only managed to get three PQ members elected?

Justice

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice will continue to work with his provincial counterparts to see what improvements can be made, but while the members opposite continue to attack the improvements that were made to the system, they are misinforming Canadians.

When we brought out, for example, the criteria for when accused persons can be released, they were not changed by Bill C-75. The law is clear that people should be detained if that is necessary to protect public safety. The bill also put in place a reverse onus for certain firearms offences, meaning it is up to the accused to prove they can be released.

We are going to continue to stand up for Canadians.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue to be there for victims of crime. We will continue to ensure there is less violent crime so that fewer people are made victims.

When we moved forward on our bill, Bill C-75, we did not change the criteria for when accused persons can be released. The bill put in place a reverse onus for certain firearms offences, meaning it is up to the accused to prove they can be released. The law is clear that people should be detained if that is necessary to protect public safety.

I know the Minister of Justice will continue to work with his counterparts across the country to ensure we are keeping people safe.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will surely know from his experience, what Bill C-75 did was codify Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence and it tightened bail provisions by adding a reverse onus for intimate partner violence. There was already a reverse onus on prohibited weapons.

Notwithstanding that, we are willing to work with the provinces to see if there are additional measures we can take. Certainly, we will help the provinces in the administration of the bail—

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I assure my colleague and all members in this chamber that we are introducing common-sense policies, like Bill C-75, that allow us to concentrate on the most serious offenders so we can protect our communities.

I would also point out to my Conservative colleagues that this government has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to support law enforcement and to address the root causes of crime so that we can stop it before it starts. What have the Conservatives done? In each of those instances, they have voted against.

If they are serious about taking crime seriously, they should get serious about supporting this government's policies.

Public Safety

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am here tonight to elaborate on something that is related to our opposition day motion today. It was a question I put to the government back in November about violent crime, Bill C-5 and the current Liberal government's soft-on-crime approach, which is not doing anything to make Canada safer.

In particular, I talked about how violent crime has risen 32% since the Liberals formed government, which equates to over 124,000 more violent crimes since they have been in government. I talked about local headlines of people “arrested again” for participation in a criminal organization, failure to comply with a probation order, 11 counts of knowledge of possession of a firearm while prohibited, two counts of disobeying a court order and two counts of breaching a weapons prohibition.

I am going to provide more local statistics from my own riding, because this is a prevalent problem. We see the media coverage all the time in our urban centres, but this problem of repeat offenders committing crimes is pervasive right across Canada.

Here is something from December 16, 2022, in my riding: “Charges laid in drive-by shooting”. Charges included possession of a weapon for dangerous purpose, careless use of firearm, assault with a weapon and discharging a firearm with intent. The key point is possession of a firearm contrary to a probation order. This individual also faces an attempted murder charge after a shooting in my riding back in August.

Here is another one: “Man suffers fractured skull in Hanover hammer attack”. I know the Prime Minister likes to speak about banning assault weapons. Well, guess what. A hammer used in an assault is an assault weapon, and good luck trying to ban all the hammers in the country. I do not think that is going to achieve much for public safety either. This happened at a convenience store. There were seven different charges, including several counts of breaching probation.

I have another one here, just miles from my own farm. It required significant resources from our law enforcement in the local area. A 53-year-old woman and a 48-year-old man were each charged with countless drug trafficking issues. The woman was additionally charged with two counts of disobeying a court order and failure to comply with a probation order. The man was additionally charged with two counts of breach of a weapons prohibition.

The fourth example is of a man in my riding. He has 25 weapons charges, with 15 different counts of a restricted or prohibited firearm and two breaches of a firearms prohibition.

Finally, I have one more example that required multiple police units to be involved. A 40-year-old man, a 63-year-old woman and a 24-year-old woman all got drug charges, and one was in possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order.

What is the government's solution? It removed mandatory minimum sentences for repeat offenders, including 10 of the 12 that were introduced by two former Liberal prime ministers, Trudeau senior and Chrétien. I do not know what the Liberal government had so wrong back in those days, but now we have seen every premier in this country table a letter to the government demanding bail reform. We also have police groups calling for stricter rules against these violent repeat offenders.

When are the Liberals going to repeal portions of Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 and stop targeting law-abiding firearms owners, sport shooters and farmers?

Opposition Motion—Bail Reform

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the current Liberal government's soft-on-crime agenda that perpetuates a catch-and-release revolving door of repeat offenders, the brutal reality is that crime is up and Canadians are less safe.

I am grateful to Conservative MPs from every part of Canada who have always been and continue to be steadfast advocates for victims of crime, law-abiding innocent Canadians, and real measures to combat criminals and gangsters while reducing recidivism. I particularly want recognize the work of the members for Fundy Royal and Kildonan—St. Paul for bringing forward this motion today.

Five years ago yesterday, I brought forward my private member's motion, Motion No. 167, which called on the Liberals to undertake a comprehensive assessment of factors related to skyrocketing rural crime, which had the highest spike in rural Alberta and was steadily increasing across Canada at the time, and to make it a priority in the House of Commons.

Over several months, thousands of Canadians expressed support for Motion No. 167, along with more than a hundred victims advocacy groups, rural crime watch associations and municipalities from all across Canada. Alberta Conservative MPs at the time were actively working with rural constituents, law enforcement and others to highlight growing rural crime and push for action. It was heartening when Motion No. 167 passed with unanimous support from all parties, and I truly believe there was concern and goodwill from all MPs at that time.

The motion was wide-ranging. It included important amendments that I accepted from the NDP, and pushed for a deep dive into several factors, including but not limited to rural crime rates and trends; existing RCMP and other policing resources and policies in rural, remote and indigenous communities, particularly in relation to population density, policing geographic area and staff shortages; partnerships with provincial, municipal and indigenous police forces; possible recommendations to improve rural crime prevention and to curb emerging crime rates; measures to increase the tactical and operational effectiveness of indigenous police forces; strategies and resources dedicated to the judicial and rehabilitation systems in rural areas; and improved support for victims of rural crime.

What followed was a drawn-out, disappointing and rude awakening. When the final report from the Liberal-dominated public safety committee was dragged out beyond the six-month timeline that the motion set for reporting on real action, to the point that I had to ask the Speaker to get the Liberal-dominated committee just to respond, it then resulted in a report that was three pages long and effectively punted total responsibility over to the provinces, suggesting those governments should simply spend more on emergency response services and dispatch centres.

I am mindful of this today as I listen to passionate Conservative colleagues from all over Canada talking about rising crime in their communities: horrific acts of violence on transit in Canada's largest city, the murder of police officers just trying to do their jobs and keep their fellow Canadians safe, neighbourhoods in fear of all-too-regular gangster activity, and shootings with primarily illegally owned and trafficked guns from the U.S. in Canada's major cities from coast to coast. Of course, I think of my own constituents and those of other rural MPs facing record levels of ever more brazen and violent theft and robberies, trespassing, assaults and murders.

I think of the compassionate and serious work of colleagues like the MP for St. Albert—Edmonton and the courageous Shelly MacInnis Wynn, who brought forward Wynn's law specifically to close a loophole in bail hearings to mandate that an assailant's criminal history would be disclosed during a bail application, which may have prevented the murder of her husband, Constable David Wynn, who was killed by a career criminal out on bail. The majority of MPs initially supported it, but the Liberals ultimately defeated it.

I think of the “no body, no parole” initiative by the MP for Sturgeon River—Parkland, the “life means life” legislation by the MP for Calgary Signal Hill, the bill by the MP for Tobique—Mactaquac to initiate a national recidivism reduction strategy involving all the different organizations that worked to prevent repeat crime, or the constant pressure by the MP for Fundy Royal for the Liberals to appoint the victims ombudsman, an office they left empty with zero urgency for more than a year.

The common thing among all those MPs is that they are Conservatives, and there are too many to list for all the good work they have done to advance work to protect victims of crime and innocent Canadians.

However, this is the reality after eight years under the Liberals, and now unfortunately their coalition partners and boosters, the NDP: a 32% increase in violent crime across Canada and a shocking, but horribly not surprising, 92% increase in gang-related homicides across Canada.

What have the Liberals actually done? They have targeted, demonized and criminalized law-abiding firearms owners, hunters and sport shooters. They have reduced sentences and brought in house arrest for robbery, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, discharging firearms with intent, drive-by shootings, discharging firearms recklessly, using firearms in crimes, possession of illegal firearms or ammunition, possession of weapons obtained by crimes, and all kinds of serious assaults and violent offences.

They considerably eased access to bail in Bill C-75, specifically saying that “primary consideration” should be given “to the release of the accused at the earliest reasonable opportunity”. When Conservatives say this is the wrong direction, the Liberals respond with false and vile accusations, bigotry, and close-mindedness, the usual approach they take to any Canadians who challenge them.

Just last month, all 13 premiers from all different regions and different partisan stripes asked for real urgent action to reform the broken bail system, which the Liberals created. The Liberals keep saying they want to work with everyone to make improvements, but it is hard not to notice that it is the system most recently impacted by their legislation that all their provincial counterparts are asking them to fix.

I am disheartened to say that, just like with inflation, driven by excessive spending, squeezing Canadians from all sides struggling to ends meet, I am not sure why anyone should trust the arsonists to put out the fire. I agree with colleagues today who have talked about how emotional this subject is. I am sure almost everyone has been touched in some way by crime.

What really matters is what elected representatives actually do. Both the results and the records of the last eight years of the Liberals are heartbreakingly clear that their actions speak so much louder than their words.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I got to know my colleague from the Bloc quite well last year in Europe. However, I would like him to reread the motion. He made a statement that was factually incorrect when he said that our motion is calling for the complete repeal of Bill C-75. The motion does not state that. It states that we want to repeal those aspects that are allowing violent repeat offenders to get out there and commit additional violent crimes and murders.

My question is simple enough. Does the member agree the bail system does need reform and, as all the premiers have called for, including the premier of la belle province, we need that reform immediately and it needs to happen now?

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my Conservative Party colleague from Lakeland. Not surprisingly, I will be sharing my time, but not the same views.

I want to put all this in context. Today is the Conservative Party's opposition day. The motion was moved by the member for Fundy Royal. It is a direct attack on Bill C-75, which was passed in 2019, three years ago already.

The Bloc Québécois feels that Bill C-75 is a good bill overall, but there are some flaws. We do not believe that there is such a thing as a perfect bill, to be honest. Eventually, at some point in the future, there will be amendments, additions or deletions made to certain elements of Bill C-75.

The day is winding down, and we have been discussing this bill all day. Everyone knows that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to the Conservative motion. Yes, we know there are real problems when it comes to crime, but the solutions proposed by the Conservative Party are not the right ones we need to make the changes that we will eventually have to make.

As we have been seeing all day, this bill really gets people fired up. Everyone's emotions are running high, and everyone keeps firing off demands. This bill also opens the door to a lot of misinformation. Certain groups of people hide behind their ideology, which, sadly, has nothing to do with science. Others adopt a more sensationalist approach and, as in the current case, appear to be electioneering.

The motion is based on individual cases. All day, we have been hearing about two or three specific cases: murdered police officers and a man accused of rape who is serving his sentence at home. I do not want to downplay these situations, but I do want to point out that these are all individual cases the Conservatives are talking about here today, cases they are using as justification for upsetting the apple cart and going back to square one with Bill C‑75. The Bloc Québécois is against that. We want to move on, and we will vote against the motion.

The Bloc Québécois thinks that there is a bit of bad faith involved in moving this motion and that our Conservative colleagues are trying to create a false sense of security. Repealing Bill C-75 as it was passed is not going to enhance public safety. That is just not true. Let us keep in mind that we are talking about laws, justice and social justice. The Bloc Québécois supports victims. We will always side with the poor and with victims, and we think that, in this case, it is inappropriate to pursue the repeal of Bill C-75.

The Bloc Québécois hopes that we can take a sensible, reasonable and balanced approach to such important bills. We are well aware that Bill C-75 is not a cure-all, but it meets a lot of needs.

Of all of the misinformation our Conservative colleagues are spreading, there is one allegation that really irks us. They are saying that Bill C-75 requires judges to release violent repeat offenders who can then go out and commit other crimes. That is obviously misinformation, and it is easy to prove it. The Conservatives keep making this argument, but it does not hold water for the Bloc Québécois. It is not true at all. Judges still have the final say in the cases they try.

Another thing that is based on misinformation is the presumption that the Canadian justice system puts the rights of violent repeat offenders ahead of the rights of law-abiding Quebeckers and Canadians. That has been repeated all day, but it is totally false. It is clear that the claim that the bail system puts the rights of repeat offenders ahead of the rights of other individuals is a complete falsehood.

Another claim that keeps coming up is that the bail system is bad. To us that is a false claim. Bail is a way of finding a balance between the presumption of innocence, which is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and public safety. That is why we think that statement is false. They are talking about things that do not exist, that are not there, that are purely made up.

Again, this is a very delicate exercise.

On what are the Conservatives currently basing their claim that we have to take an axe to Bill C‑75? Are they relying on empirical data? No, they did not present any empirical data today, absolutely none. Are they relying on peer-reviewed studies? No, they did not present any such studies today.

Of course, we have heard plenty of anecdotes about individual cases. We have been hearing about the same cases all day. However, that does not justify a major reform of a bill like Bill C-75. It is not possible and it is not logical. In a system like ours, to begin with individual points like this and reshuffle the deck would be madness. We could go round in circles forever.

Canada has a population of 35 million people. What do these individual cases represent out of 35 million people? I do not want to minimize the cases that have been put forward, but we cannot decide these things based on individual cases.

What is both interesting and useful about research and science is that they provide for studies to be done on large numbers of individuals. This is what validates research and why it can be presented and shared with some degree of certainty. Not all research results are perfectly accurate. At times, there are contradictory findings from one study to the next, but overall, this is what can be expected.

I want to touch on a couple of pieces of research. Earlier, in a question, my colleague referred to Carolyn Yule, a professor of sociology and anthropology at the University of Guelph. She is an expert in this area and has spent part of her life studying bail. The findings of her studies, of which there are several, suggest that a tougher approach to bail would not improve public safety.

That said, she is just a scientist, just a girl who does research and has spent most of her life studying this topic.

Furthermore, Jane Sprott, a professor of criminology at Toronto Metropolitan University, says that there is no reliable way to predict who will commit a violent crime, regardless of the type of crime. She says it would be fiscally irresponsible and unrealistic to increase the number of people in remand. This is related to what we are talking about today. She also states that pre-trial detention hurts a person's chances of not reoffending and their social reintegration. This is obviously contrary to Conservative values. I would also like to share one other small study, but I do not think I will have enough time.

Seeing as people are making assertions based on nothing, here is a big one: From 2006 to 2015, while the Conservatives were in power, crime rates dropped. Dig no deeper, and that sounds great. Three cheers for the Conservatives. The problem is that as soon as they lost power, crime rates started going up.

Is it fair to say the Liberals were responsible for what happened in that first year or two? No. It takes time for a law—

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the impulse. I understand the intention behind this motion, given the proliferation of firearms these days and the rise in violent crimes in recent years. There is no ill intention here. However, making the provisions of Bill C‑75 harsher is based on the ideology of law and order.

Experts, including Carolyn Yule of Guelph University, are currently studying this issue. She studies the bail system. She says that, at this time, there is no evidence to suggest that a harsher approach to bail would necessarily improve public safety.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing sets us apart from the Bloc Québécois. One day, we will be in power and we will be able to introduce bills. We will then be able to correct the provisions spelled out in Bill C‑75. The Bloc Québécois will never be able to do that.

The Bloc Québécois should ask itself some serious questions about certain positions it has taken in the past weeks and months. For example, there is Bill C‑21 and the amendments it supported to ban certain firearms. That happened. It is true.

It also supported Bill C‑5, which is directly responsible for the release of this rapist to his home. The Bloc Québécois should ask itself these types of questions when it is time to support and adopt motions.

The Conservatives have a solution. It is not perfect, but it is a starting point. I hope once again that the Bloc Québécois will make amends and support our motion.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I felt compelled to comment on what my colleague said in his speech, when he asked why the Bloc Québécois will not vote in favour of today's motion.

He is right that there are several elements in the Conservative motion that we agree with. For example, the increase in violent crime in recent years is undeniably true.

However, point (a) of his motion is not entirely true, not to say downright false. There is nothing in Bill C-75 that requires judges to release repeat violent offenders. What the Conservatives are suggesting is false.

There is no point in searching high and low to figure out why the Bloc Québécois cannot support this. If the Conservatives really want to make changes to certain provisions of Bill C-75, I invite them, with all due respect, to introduce a bill to amend certain provisions of Bill C-75. I think that would be better than waiting for either the Bloc Québécois or the NDP to agree with this motion.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Haldimand—Norfolk.

I want to talk about a word that seems to have escaped the Liberal government since it took office eight years ago and that is “consequence” or being accountable for one's actions. The Liberals seem to have a really hard time being accountable for their actions. Even though it has been eight years, they seem to have a really hard time taking responsibility for being in power. They seem to have a really hard time owning up to the mistakes they have been making for the eight years that they have been in office. Perhaps that explains why they have hard time asking others to be accountable for their own actions, which is even more serious when it comes to crime.

Let us look at this government's track record when it comes to failing to be accountable. It will likely explain the Liberals' position on today's opposition motion.

In 2016, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner found the Prime Minister guilty of breaking ethics laws. The Prime Minister apologized, but suffered no consequences. In 2018, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard was found guilty of violating the Conflict of Interest Act. He apologized, but suffered no consequences. Just apologize and move on.

In 2019, the Prime Minister once again violated the Conflict of Interest Act, this time in the SNC‑Lavalin case. The Prime Minister says he took responsibility for his actions. However, he suffered no consequences. In 2021, again, the Prime Minister and, this time, the then Minister of Finance, Bill Morneau, were charged under the Conflict of Interest Act and Mr. Morneau was found guilty of violating the Conflict of Interest Act. Mr. Morneau suffered no consequences.

In 2022, in a file currently before us, the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development was found guilty of violating the Conflict of Interest Act for giving a lucrative contract to her best friend. The minister suffered no consequences. She rose in the House, said that she apologized and that she would take responsibility for her actions. What does taking responsibility for one's actions mean to this government? What does ministerial responsibility mean? It means absolutely nothing.

This week, I asked the Prime Minister a question about the case of a rapist who received a 20-month sentence to be served at home. The Prime Minister stated that it was none of our business and that it was not the responsibility of we, the politicians, to manage the law. The Prime Minister has forgotten one thing: He and his government created the law that resulted in this individual receiving a 20-month sentence to be served at home. That is the reality. Those are the facts, and I want to present them to my Liberal colleagues and even my colleagues who belong to other parties. I encourage them to listen carefully to the meaning and the words of the motion that we moved today. I will read the motion, which is important.

(i) violent crime has increased by 32%, (ii) gang-related homicides have increased by 92%, (iii) violent, repeat offenders are obtaining bail much more easily, (iv) increasing daily acts of crime and violence are putting Canadians at risk, (v) five Canadian police officers were killed in the line of duty in just one year

We are not asking for anything major. We are asking that something be done to help victims and to help Canadians feel safer. Here is our first request:

(a) fix Canada's broken bail system by immediately repealing the elements enacted by 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, which force judges to release violent, repeat offenders onto the streets, allowing them to reoffend;

I want to repeat those last few words: “which force judges to release violent, repeat offenders onto the streets, allowing them to reoffend”. That is one of the effects of the legislation from Bill C‑75 that we are talking about today. Our second request is this:

(b) strengthen Canada's bail laws so that those who are prohibited from possessing firearms and who are then accused of serious firearms offences do not easily get bail;

In all honesty, how can anyone oppose this? Someone explain to me how the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois could disagree with that. Our last request is as follows:

(c) ensure that Canada's justice system puts the rights of law-abiding Canadians ahead of the rights of violent, repeat offenders.

It is just common sense. We know that the Liberals will vote against it, but I do not understand why the NDP and the Bloc will vote against it. There is absolutely nothing partisan about this motion, absolutely nothing negative for Canadians in general. It is meant only for violent criminals, who unfortunately are too often released and commit crime after crime. This is a direct consequence of Bill C‑75 and Bill C‑5.

I know the parties supported Bill C‑5 and Bill C‑75. Unfortunately, it is now time to make amends. Past mistakes can be corrected. Why are the NDP and the Bloc Québécois not voting for this motion in order to correct this situation?

We are not the only ones saying this. The premiers of all the provinces, including Quebec, have signed a letter calling on the federal government to do better on bail to prevent tragedies from occurring, dangerous criminals from being put back on the streets, and women, children, men and families from being sadly affected by violent crimes committed by individuals who should be behind bars and not on the streets.

That is exactly the point of the motion we moved. It is entirely consistent with the letter that Canadian provincial and territorial premiers sent to the federal government. Unfortunately, the government seems to have chosen to turn a deaf ear.

I get that the Liberal government does not want to admit the Conservatives are right, so let us listen to someone else. I am talking about the famous case I mentioned earlier, the individual who sexually assaulted a woman and was sentenced to 20 months to be served at home with his cellphone and Netflix. That kind of sentence for that kind of crime is totally unacceptable.

Here are some quotes from the article in La Presse:

A Crown prosecutor chastised the [Liberal] government for its recent law opening the door to house arrest for sex offenders.

Right now, [the Prime Minister] and [the Minister of Justice] probably have some explaining to do to victims of sexual assault, said Crown prosecutor Alexis Dinelle after the hearing.

This is a direct consequence of Bill C‑5 becoming law, and I am asking the NDP and the Bloc Québécois to make amends for that today.

The article goes on to say the following:

Until last November, a judge could not impose a sentence to be served at home for sexual assault. Hard time in prison was the norm for such crimes, and sentences ranged from 12 to 20 months for assaults similar to this one.

Without any fanfare, the Liberal government's Bill C‑5 made it possible for offenders to serve a sentence in the community for sexual assault.

It is not me or the Conservatives who said that. It is a Crown prosecutor who has to live with the consequences of the passage of Bill C‑5.

For these reasons, because I hope that my colleagues from all parties want to protect Canadians who have been the victims of violent crime and prevent new crimes from being committed, I encourage them to help us make the necessary changes to ensure that violent repeat offenders stay behind bars and not in our communities.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member caught the beginning of my comments. I talked extensively about how the government plays an important role in dealing with the types of issues the member has raised, whether it is through budgetary measures or legislative measures. I would cite Bill C-75, which the Conservatives are critical of.

Bill C-75 actually made it harder to be released on bail. For example, the bill imposed what they call a reverse onus. There is a wonderful opportunity for the House of Commons to be able to debate the importance of the need for making changes. However, we also need to recognize that it is not just for the House of Commons and that we have an obligation to work with others. Those others include the shared responsibilities with our provinces, territories and indigenous communities, among many other stakeholders.

It is not as simple as saying here is an idea, let us make it happen and bring in the legislation. There is a need for consultation when we have shared responsibilities. This is something that the government has strived to do. We have tangible examples of investing financial resources and legislative resources to try to improve upon our system. It is far better than it was, but it is something we can always look at ways of improving.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to listen to a great deal of the debate on the motion that has been brought forward by the Conservative Party today. Suffice it to say, if members have not detected it in my questioning of the Conservative Party, they will find that I am somewhat disappointed in the Conservative motion that we have before us.

I have had the opportunity to act in many different capacities over my parliamentary career, whether it was as a justice critic in the province of Manitoba or sitting in a quasi-judicial youth justice committee as a chairperson and as a board member, dealing with the issues surrounding things like parole, bail and so forth. I would like to reflect on the things I have done in the past and, more importantly, reflect on what I believe based on discussions I have had, whether it was with law enforcement agencies, officers, constituents or the many different stakeholders out there. I will try to summarize it all by saying that we are all concerned about safety in our communities. We all want to feel safe in our communities, and I think we all have a responsibility to do what we can.

I would suggest to my Conservative friends across the way that, yes, there have been some tragedies that have occurred where real lives have been affected in a very profound negative way because of criminal behaviour. One does not have to belong to one political party over another in order to understand and appreciate the severity, the emotions, the anxiety and the blame that take place. I appreciate that and I am very much concerned about victims, not only today's victims, but the ways in which we, as a government or as parliamentarians, can advance the minimizing of future victims by investing.

This government has invested literally hundreds of millions, going into billions, of resource dollars and others in non-profits and other levels of government, whether provincial, municipal or indigenous communities, and so much more in terms of dealing with issues such as dysfunctional families, alcohol and drug abuse or addictions and investing in communities, health centres and issues such as mental health. These are all things that I have a holistic approach to.

We want to prevent crimes from happening. We realize that criminals will eventually leave jail, and we are discouraged by that revolving door. At the end of the day, we have a system in place. It is not perfect, and I myself have some very serious issues with some of the things I have seen over the last number of years, but those years go beyond just this government. If one listens to the Conservative Party, one would think that people who were out on bail or on probation when Stephen Harper was prime minister were never in violation or never committed any crimes. However, not that much has actually changed.

The Conservatives make reference to Bill C-75, but that bill did not make it easier to get bail. I would argue it might have even been the opposite. However, the digging and taking advantage of tragedies that have occurred, those high-profile cases, and trying to say that the system is broken, well, that is something the Conservative Party leadership is trying to say on all issues. They are trying to convince Canadians that in every way society is broken because of what has taken place over the last seven years under this administration, and they are wrong on all accounts. Let us be very clear on that.

When the Conservatives say it is broken, which they say about everything because that is the theme of the Conservative Party, they are wrong. They are saying some numbers today to try to get Canadians worried and try to convince them that things are broken. To those who are following the debate, I would suggest they do not listen too closely to what the Conservatives are spreading in terms of misinformation.

I went to Statistics Canada. Listening to the Conservatives, one would think there is crime in every corner and everywhere we look. Stats Canada, in 2021, said the violent crime rate did increase 5%, while property crime rates decreased 1%, following a large decrease in 2020. The property crime rate was the lowest it has been dating back to 1965.

The Conservatives talked about homicides. They said that is where we have really seen this huge, dramatic change and that is why the whole system is broken. Let us look at the first three full years of Stephen Harper. During the first three years, and this comes from Stats Canada, in 2006, 2007 and 2008, the numbers were 608, 597 and 614 for the number of people who were murdered. For our first three full years, the numbers were 616, 667 and 662. Our population might have grown by a million, but that is a side point.

The point is that the system is not broken. The example that many of the members stand up and talk about is the issue in the province of Quebec. I am upset about it. I am very upset about it. I think anyone who assaults and rapes a woman should have to spend time in jail. That upsets me, but it was a provincial court that made the decision and it was a provincial prosecutor. That is still to be determined. Is the prosecution going to appeal that decision? I would hope so. I am not in a position to make that decision.

That is why the minister himself has said we are working with provinces. Here is a newsflash: We have been working with the provinces on bail reform since well before the Conservatives raised the issue within the last few days. In fact, back in October, the Minister of Justice and the department were actually working on consultations. During the last couple of days, those discussions have been even more amplified.

Conservatives do not care more than the Liberals care about the victims of some of these crimes we are hearing about. Our prayers, best wishes and condolences go out to the families that have been so profoundly impacted by it.

Today, we have the Conservative Party taking a look at those tragedies and putting together a motion. All one needs to do is take a look at the word “broken”. How often do they use the word “broken” nowadays? It is a political spin message, to try to give the impression that the Conservatives want to be tough on crime.

It is interesting that the critic for the Conservatives said that under Stephen Harper the number of days in jail actually went down from an average of 126 to 105. She implies that when they were in government, the number of days in jail went down, yet they are really tough on crime. It is because they are in opposition. The wording they are using is to help them, as an opposition party, get a few more headlines and create more false impressions, at least in part, in order to be able to raise more money for their coffers. It is no reflection on the law enforcement officers, the non-profit organizations, the victims or anything of that nature. I would suggest they might even be taking advantage of that situation.

We are trying to deal with it in a very real and tangible way, with legislative changes and budgetary measures, which is making a difference. We will continue that dialogue.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Quebec. The Conservatives' solutions are too easy and do not take into account the reality that exists in our country.

Bill C-75 was adopted following a binding Supreme Court decision. There is a reverse onus in Bill C-75 with regard to bail. At the same time, our government's top priority, like any government's, is to keep Canadians safe and make sure they feel safe in their homes, on their streets and in their communities. I know in my community this is an important topic, and we will not rest until we know that police officers have their resources.

We must also remember that the Conservative Party of Canada was the party that cut CBSA's budget. We are now putting more money into CBSA to make sure illegal arms do not come into Canada, do not harm our citizens and are kept away from criminals. We will make sure we arrest those criminals and support our police officers day in, day out, hour by hour and day by day.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about justice, about real problems on the streets, about the increase in violence, our discussions must be guided by the idea of justice and what is right. A fair balance means not distorting certain elements.

As much as we are sympathetic to the Conservatives' motion that refers to certain realities, they are masters at crafting motions that only they can vote for. They distort certain things, and of course we cannot support something that distorts reality.

My colleague talked specifically about Bill C‑75, which passed. If the prosecutor does his or her job properly, what happened in Ontario should never happen. The burden of proof regarding bail lies with the accused, not the Crown.

Could my colleague comment on the Conservative view that Bill C‑75 should be repealed because it does not meet the reverse onus?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things I will point out to the member. First and foremost, the Criminal Code in this country is a responsibility of the federal government, and any amendments, consequential or otherwise, that are made to it fall under the Minister of Justice and Attorney General in this country. With one fell swoop of a pen, they can change laws, bring them to Parliament, we can debate them and they can pass.

Second, the prosecutor in Quebec is actually blaming Bill C-75 for that situation.

I want to address an issue he brought up, because I have heard this today. Liberals talk about fundraising. We are the voices of Canadians. The fact is that they are accusing us of using this for fundraising, but we are actually being the voices of Canadians. When this member says that, he does a great disservice to police chiefs, police officers, police associations, premiers and others who are calling for bail reform. They are not sending out fundraising letters. They are asking us to do something about a broken system.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since this is the first time I see you occupying the Chair, I want to congratulate you.

I thank my colleague for his speech. There are several elements of the Conservative motion before us today that we agree with. Obviously, we want to see an end to the increase in violent crime that has occurred in recent years, and the government needs to do more in that regard.

If the Conservatives do not agree with certain provisions of Bill C-75, I have to wonder why they have not introduced a bill to amend those provisions, rather than moving a motion on an opposition day.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that. Is this the beginning of a process? Will a bill be introduced in the near future? Why not?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Barrie—Innisfil.

It is always a privilege to stand in this House to speak on behalf of my constituents of Brantford—Brant. After eight years, the Prime Minister and his government are solely responsible for our failing justice system. This is pressing and urgent; bail reform is needed now. Far too often, we are hearing Canadians use language such as “catch and release”, “a revolving door” and “an unequal justice system” to describe the state of affairs in Canadian bail courts.

In my almost two decades of prosecuting in the trenches of our criminal justice system, I have repeatedly witnessed dangerous criminals being released on bail. I am honoured to add my experience working in the criminal justice system to such an important debate. A major concern during my lawyer years was our inability to keep violent repeat offenders off the streets and in custody where they belong. I was unable to vocally criticize the lenient bail system as a Crown attorney, so I made the decision to become a politician to effect change.

The Liberal government wants Canadians to believe it has crime under control with its justice policies and that it is on the right track. I thank our Conservative leader and all my Conservative colleagues for bringing this debate into the House and for showing Canadians that this Liberal soft-on-crime agenda has broken our bail system and eroded confidence in our judicial institutions.

In 2019, to codify the principles outlined in the Supreme Court of Canada case Antic, the Liberals passed Bill C-75. Although it was intended to modernize the bail system, the effect of this legislation was to allow offenders arrested for violent crimes to be released back on the street fast enough to commit other crimes, sometimes on the same day. In fact, this was an occurrence that I routinely saw as a Crown prosecutor. I would often read Crown briefs noting the accused laughed and bragged to the arresting officers that they would be released in hours.

After receiving numerous calls and emails from my constituents, who shared their concerns about Canada's justice system, I met with the Brantford police chief, Rob Davis, and the president of the Brantford Police Association, Constable Jeremy Morton. It was important to learn directly from them what the root causes are and how we as parliamentarians can address them.

Chief Davis shared with me that it is disheartening to all police officers to see that they are doing their job, they are catching people, they are putting them before the courts, they are asking that they be held in custody but they are being released. He said that criminals are brazen and are laughing at the current justice system. He said oftentimes, they are getting back home before the officers do, and the next thing he knows, they are committing twice as much crime. It is a telltale sign of the level of brazenness among criminals. He also reflected on how the system has dramatically shifted and said that criminals' rights have now superseded the rights of victims.

For years, Canadian law enforcement worked hard to build trust in the police and give victims a level of security if they came forward, and the perpetrator was put into the justice system. Now, everything, according to him, is upside down. The Liberal soft-on-crime approach, he says, is bringing the justice system into disrepute, and the concern that law enforcement now has is that if society loses faith in the justice system, we may find ourselves in a situation where citizens will decide to take things into their own hands.

I never thought as a parliamentarian that I would be quoting Oprah Winfrey, but on her show, every Christmas, she would have giveaways. She would point to the audience and say, “You get a car”, or they got another gift. That is precisely what has happened with the Liberal government and the Prime Minister given their approach to the bail system in Canada. With the Prime Minister, for the last eight years we have said, “He gets bail. She gets bail. Everyone gets bail”, regardless of the fact that they have repeated criminal offences on their record, regardless of the fact that they have an outstanding charge and regardless of how serious the charge is.

It is a statistical fact that the majority of serious violent crimes committed in this country are committed by a handful of repeat offenders. For example, in Vancouver alone, 40 offenders were arrested 6,000 times in one year. That is 150 arrests per person, per year. Brantford Police Chief Davis further spoke on this issue and stated that we have entire neighbourhoods that one or two bad apples will terrorize as repeat violent offenders.

The data published by Statistics Canada clearly shows that between 2008 and 2014, under the Harper government, Canada witnessed an annual decrease in the crime severity index. From 2015 onward, this trend changed dramatically.

Since the Prime Minister took office, the number of crimes has grown year after year. Violent crime has gone up 32% in one year. Gang-related killings have gone up 92% since the Liberals formed government. In 2021, there were over two million police-reported Criminal Code incidents, marking an increase of 25,000 incidents since 2020.

Since the fall of 2022, tragically, five Canadian police officers have been killed while on duty. With hundreds of murders in 2021, one Canadian was murdered every 10 hours throughout the year. The 2020 data shows that Canada's homicide rate is roughly double that of the U.K. and France, and four times higher than that of Italy.

Even though the Prime Minister and his government are claiming that Bill C-75 was meant to clear the backlog of people waiting for bail hearings, experts say it has done much more than that. Essentially, the government has told judges dealing with bail applications that they need to make sure anyone accused of a crime is released at the earliest opportunity and on the least serious conditions. Let that sink in. Primary consideration is for the accused, not for the victim and not for society at large. Some judges and justices of the peace feel that the bill has put shackles on them and has resulted in an increase in releases, even by violent offenders.

Last month, all 13 premiers sent a letter to the Prime Minister calling for amendments to keep more people in custody as they await trial. This call was supported by police chiefs, police associations, mayors and provincial attorneys general from coast to coast to coast. Recently, the Toronto police chief opined on the issue of bail reform and argued that only judges and not JPs should be allowed to hear bail cases when serious gun charges are involved.

A multipronged approach to bail reform is required. According to the Supreme Court, everyone is entitled to a speedy trial. However, it can often take years to get to trial. We need to speed up the system so that when criminals show up in court, the judge knows they will get a speedy trial and may be less inclined to bail them out.

The Liberals said they were open to discussions, but that has been their position since the provincial justice ministers raised that issue last March, almost a year ago. Instead, the government has been busy passing Bill C-5 and Bill C-21.

This January, a judge in my riding of Brantford—Brant said that my hometown community is “plagued by gun violence—murders caused by guns and people walking around with firearms. It never used to be as prevalent as it is today.” She said, “Now it’s an epidemic”, and that the Crown should get tougher on offenders.

To put it into perspective, the Liberals and the NDP have ignored the real way that most criminals get their guns under Bill C-21. They eased bail conditions for serious violent crimes under Bill C-75 and decided to put the safety of victims at risk with Bill C-5. The Conservatives have been calling for a balance to the justice system and bail reform for years, but the Liberal Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada continues to defend the current system.

I have a very quick primer on bail. Bail legislation reflects the fundamental principles outlined in Canada’s charter that attempt to balance the rights of the accused by upholding the presumption of innocence with public safety and confidence in the system. The law allows for people who are deemed risky to be detained for certain indictable offences, or when confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined by releasing a person into the community.

Canada needs bail reform now to pull back from the failed views put forward by the government. We cannot continue to endanger our communities by letting repeat violent offenders walk freely on our streets and simply wait before they harm somebody. How much more blood needs to be spilled on our streets? How many more police officers need to lose their lives before the government finally acts?

Justice

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-75 codified what were essentially Supreme Court decisions and made it harder to get bail in a number of cases. It did not change any of the severity of bail conditions for violent criminals, yet we are still going to look at other possibilities with the provinces to move forward to make Canadians feel safe.

Opposition Motion—Bail Reform

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will repeat the question I asked earlier.

I think everyone agrees on the fact that the provisions of Bill C-75 need to be looked at and improved. That being said, no one is born violent. That tendency develops over time. Without support from our social services, which have been undermined as a result of 30 years of health transfer deficits, violence may increase.

I would like to know whether the government will increase health transfers to 35%.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Richmond Hill gave us a very long overview of what the bill is intended to do and what Bill C-75 is supposed to do. However, I want to share some facts.

In my riding alone, in December of this past year, in a drive-by shooting, one of the charges was possession of a firearm contrary to a probation order. In December as well, a man was attacked with a hammer and, again, there were several charges, including several counts of breach of probation. In November, a man and a woman were arrested on numerous drug charges, but again the man was charged with additional two counts of a breach of a weapons prohibition. There was another one in my riding, with multiple agencies in a drug bust, where again charges were tied to a prohibition order.

If this bill is so good and we do not need bail reform, why do the stats show that it is not working and we desperately need changes to our bail system?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, at the outset, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for Sudbury. I am thankful for the opportunity to join today's debate relating to the criminal justice system, focusing on bail and repeat violent offenders.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Fundy Royal for his motion and his long-standing commitment to public safety. His motion provides me with an opportunity to discuss recent reforms to the Criminal Code, specifically former Bill C-75, and reflect on what is happening in my community and what we are doing in Richmond Hill.

Bill C-75 was introduced on March 29, 2018, in the House of Commons and subsequently received royal assent on June 21, 2019. The changes enacted by the bill came fully into force in December 2019.

While the reforms were enacted principally to address delays and criminal justice system efficiencies related to the concerns raised by the Supreme Court of Canada in its 2016 Jordan decision and 2017 Cody decision, they also modernized and streamlined Canada's bail regime. These reforms represented the most significant changes to Canada's bail regime since the Bail Reform Act of 1972. Bill C-75 also reflected the reasoning of Canada's top court in the 2017 Antic decision. It was a product of significant consultations with the provinces and territories. It was a thoughtful and broad-ranging reform.

With respect to the bail amendments in Bill C-75, they were designed to specifically streamline the bail process by increasing the types of conditions police can impose on accused in order to avoid sending unnecessary cases to court and to reduce the need for unnecessary bail hearings, and by no means were they designed to reduce the conditions assigned during bail; codify a principle of restraint to ensure that release at the earliest opportunity is favoured over detention when appropriate, and I will go into detail on that later; provide guidance so the bail conditions imposed are reasonable, relevant to the offence and necessary to ensure public safety; and finally, require that the circumstances of indigenous accused and of accused from vulnerable populations be considered at bail to better address the disproportionate impact that the bail system has on these populations.

My colleagues suggest that Bill C-75 has broken Canada's bail system, that its reform forces judges to release violent repeat offenders back onto the street, and that receiving bail is easier now than ever for violent repeat offenders. By no means does the data support this. These claims are, at best, ill-informed and, at worst, very misleading. We have the data to prove that.

In the past 15 years, more than half of the admissions to adult provincial and territorial facilities were for remands to await trial instead of admissions to sentenced custody. A lot of people were waiting to be sentenced or were waiting to be heard. According to Statistics Canada, the proportion of admissions to remand has increased from 54% in 2006-07 to 67% in 2020-21, despite a constant decrease in the number of adult admissions during the same period.

This increase in the remand population has disproportionately affected indigenous people and persons from vulnerable populations. As a result, Bill C-75 enacted in the Criminal Code a requirement that the circumstances of indigenous accused and of accused from vulnerable populations be considered at bail in order to address the disproportionate impact that the bail system has on these populations.

The amendments in the bill sought to reduce the imposition of bail conditions that are unreasonable, irrelevant and unnecessary, which was also a codification of the rules developed by the Supreme Court of Canada. However, the criteria for when accused persons can be released by police or justices were not changed. The law remains clear that detention of an accused person is justified if it is necessary to protect the safety of the public.

We hear so often about the repeat offenders. It is in the hands of the justice system to ensure that it has the tools to be able to detain them. We have not changed that. Moreover, police are required to detain an accused person if there is a risk of reoffending.

The Bill C-75 amendments significantly expand protection for victims of intimate partner violence, particularly within the bail regime. The bill created a definition of “intimate partner” that applies throughout the Criminal Code to clarify that it includes a current or former spouse, common-law partner and dating partner.

It also created a reverse onus provision in the Criminal Code for an accused person charged with an intimate violence offence if the accused has a prior conviction for an offence involving violence against an intimate partner. This reverse onus applies regardless of whether it is the same partner, a former partner or a dating partner. What this means is that the presumption that the accused should be released pending trial no longer applies. The accused, not the prosecutor, would have to justify their release to the court. All the tools needed to prevent recidivism are there.

The change to impose a reverse onus reflects what we know about the heightened risk to safety that victims of intimate partner violence face. It also signals to bail court the seriousness of the alleged offences, as well as the increased risk of reoffending in this context.

Bill C-75 also added two new factors a judge must consider before making an order to release or detain an accused person. First, in an important change, bail courts now have to consider an accused's criminal record, something that may have occurred but was not mandated by the legislation. Second, the court needs to consider whether an accused has ever been charged with an offence that involved violence against an intimate partner. These two factors help ensure that courts are better informed and have a more a complete picture of prior history of violence that could threaten the safety of a victim or the public at large.

As a result of these changes, bail courts are now required to take these factors into account when making a number of different possible bail-related determinations, including the decision to impose an order not to communicate with a particular victim, witness or other person, a detention order or an order to release the accused on bail.

If the accused is to be released on bail, the court would have to consider whether the alleged offence was against an intimate partner in determining whether bail conditions are necessary and, if so, what type of conditions are appropriate, such as a condition prohibiting contact with the victim.

Requiring bail courts to consider the safety of intimate partners before releasing an accused on bail affords increased protection to victims of intimate partner violence. Bill C-75 made changes to the bail system that respond to guidance on bail-related charter rights of the accused as found in the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. These changes aimed to help address the overrepresentation of indigenous people and vulnerable populations in the criminal justice system, while also increasing the efficiency of the bail system.

I emphasize that Bill C-75 did not change how the bail system should respond to violent or repeat offending, and it made some admirable changes to bail for those charged with offences relating to intimate partner violence.

In closing, contrary to the hon. member's suggestion, Bill C-75 has strengthened our bail system and helped protect victims of intimate partner violence.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, indeed, the issue at the border is a major one. We have raised it many times. The government needs to put far more effort into controlling illegal weapons trafficking at the borders. These weapons are being used by criminals on the streets of Montreal, Toronto and all over Canada.

We did not include it in the motion today because we are specifically targeting Bill C-75 and the fact that Bill C-5 is harmful. However, the problem of weapons trafficking at the borders is indeed a priority issue. I hope the government will speed things up.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. I admire him greatly, but I do not agree with what he is saying. Bill C‑75 was not perfect. We all agree on that, on both sides of the House. There are some improvements to be made.

I would like my colleague's opinion on the remarks made by Carolyn Yule, a sociology and anthropology professor who studies bail. She says that there is no evidence to suggest that a tough-on-crime approach to bail would improve public safety.

Can we please trust these academics?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, things always get emotional when we talk about crime, but facts are facts.

The streets of Montreal would be safer had Bill C-5 not been passed, for example.

Last week, we saw one of the harmful effects of Bill C‑5, which was passed before Christmas. An individual who committed aggravated sexual assault eight years ago was sentenced last week. There were many delays related to the court process, and Bill C‑5 was passed in the midst of all that. The sentence that the judge handed down was 20 months to be served in the community, whereas, in the past, that individual would have been jailed. Seeing what the judge had done, the Crown prosecutor said that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice had a lot to answer for to the victims.

Ever since this government took office eight years ago, I have been astounded by its total lack of sympathy for victims.

The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights was enacted during the Conservative era. My colleague, Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, then prime minister Stephen Harper, then minister of justice Peter MacKay, and Steven Blaney, who was also a minister, created the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights as a way to give victims of crime the right to be protected and informed. We know victims have been totally overlooked in recent years. Criminals are laughing at the justice system because they know that justice is much weaker now and they can commit crimes over and over without fear of prison time. It is victims who are living in fear, too scared to even file a complaint anymore because they know that nothing will come of it. The Liberals can say what they want, but facts are facts.

On this day of debate on our motion, we are not addressing the problem in a partisan way at all. When the premiers of all 13 provinces and territories ask for exactly the same thing and the police associations in Canada all ask for exactly the same thing, I would say it is because there is a problem.

I hope my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois will understand the approach we are taking today. As I said earlier, if anyone reads our motion carefully, they will clearly see that we are specifically targeting firearms offences, among others.

Say a criminal who commits an offence and is charged with a firearms offence is able to get parole easily and goes on to commit another firearms offence. If we asked Canadians if they thought that was okay, they would all say no. One of the problems with Bill C-75 is that it allows criminals to be released too easily. That is what we want to be fixed. We are asking that the situation that was created by passing Bill C‑75 be resolved to prevent recurring crimes.

As I said earlier, in British Columbia, 40 individuals were arrested 6,000 times in one year. That is unbelievable. In Canada, the group we are targeting amounts to a few hundred individuals. We are talking about 1,000 criminals at most. We are not talking about applying a law to every person in Canada who is facing any kind of charges. Rather, we are focusing specifically on the problem of criminals who commit firearms offences and dangerous repeat offenders. That is all we want, and we would like the Liberal government to show some understanding.

After eight years, this Liberal government needs to understand that we need more rules and that what we are talking about right now is a very valid issue. As I said, it is not a partisan issue when 13 provincial and territorial premiers from all parties are saying the same thing. These premiers are Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats. I think it is perfectly reasonable.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to our motion, which is very important. I will begin by saying that I have been here for eight years, the same amount of time that this Liberal government has been in power. Under this Prime Minister's reign—and I say “reign” because the Prime Minister behaves like a king who is not accountable to anyone, whether the decisions are good or bad—it has become clear that this government and this Prime Minister are very sympathetic to criminals.

This is evidenced by several decisions that have been made and several legislative changes that have been introduced over the past eight years. Whether those decisions are in relation to prisons, Bill C-75 or Bill C-5, we find that they are always oriented towards helping criminals, not victims.

In the eight years since the Liberal government came to power, we have seen an increase in crime with all these legislative changes that favour crime. This is particularly true when it comes to bail. I remember the debates we had on Bill C‑75 quite clearly. The Conservative Party was very critical of what was proposed in that bill, because it made no sense.

Today, four years later, we see the result. I want to make it clear to my colleagues on the Liberal side who are here, and even to my colleagues from the Bloc who endorsed Bill C‑75 at the time but who may have changed their minds by now, that today's motion is very specific. We are asking the government to urgently review certain elements of Bill C‑75.

In particular, we want to review the provisions regarding criminals who use firearms and who, unfortunately, because of Bill C‑75, are able to obtain bail too easily. We had evidence of this just before Christmas, when a Toronto police officer was murdered on his first day working solo. This young police officer was murdered by a repeat offender who should never have been released on bail.

This is the most serious type of crime in Canada right now. We are not here today to table a sweeping motion to revamp Bill C-75 in its entirety. We want to target this problem specifically, as requested by all the premiers of all the provinces and territories of Canada, as requested by the police associations, and as requested on January 23 by Pierre Brochet, president of the Quebec association of police chiefs. He urged the government to change the way it deals with the worst criminals of all, repeat offenders, who commit violent crimes over and over again.

We are seeing that now. British Columbia has published reports. My colleagues love talking about reports, so let me point out that a report from British Columbia said that 40 offenders were arrested 6,000 times in just one year. That is mind-boggling. The same individual could be arrested and released three times in the same day. That is hard for anyone to understand, but it is one of the harmful effects of Bill C‑75, and that is what we want to fix.

We want to fix this very specific problem. Today's motion is aimed at that. Earlier, I heard my Bloc colleague speak about young offenders. We are not talking about that. All we want to do is close the loophole in Bill C-75 regarding violent criminals, those who commit dangerous offences over and over day after day and got a 28-year-old police officer killed just before Christmas.

When we talk about lax Liberal policies, the facts speak for themselves. All the changes that have been made over the last eight years have led to the 32% increase in crime we are seeing these days. There has also been a 92% increase in murders committed by street gangs.

Why is that happening, if not because, as I said at the start, criminals are no longer afraid? Criminals are thumbing their noses at the justice system. In the streets of Montreal, criminals were eagerly waiting for Bill C-5 to be passed.

I hear my Liberal colleague on the other side saying “come on”. I would invite him to go meet with—

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

Canada's bail system is broken. Why do we say it is broken? It is because it is not working for law-abiding citizens who fear for their safety, and it certainly is not working for victims. Cities in B.C., including my hometown of Surrey, are facing an onslaught of crime, including gang activity, property damage and violence. It is no wonder why.

In 2019, the Liberals passed legislation, Bill C-75, that directed a “principle of restraint” when imposing bail conditions. Under this soft-on-crime policy, police are forced to release known criminals on a promise that they will show up in court, a practice known as catch-and-release. This approach is not working in British Columbia, nor anywhere else in Canada.

Let us look at the tragic murder of Constable Shaelyn Yang. She was stabbed to death while on duty by a man previously arrested for assault. He was released on the condition that he would appear in court, something which he failed to do. A warrant was issued for his re-arrest, but when found living in a tent in a Burnaby park, he took the life of Constable Yang. He stabbed her to death.

Sadly, crimes of this violent nature are becoming commonplace in British Columbia. A tourist was stabbed multiple times in the back while waiting in line at a Tim Hortons in Vancouver. His assailant was the subject of a Canada-wide warrant for failing to follow the conditions of his release.

Last December in Surrey, a man with a criminal record, which included 23 convictions for assault, attacked a mother and her 11-month-old child. Last year, a man stole a ferry vessel from Victoria harbour. He was arrested, released and was later caught shattering the windows and doors of local businesses.

In Vancouver, and we have heard about this before but it bears repeating, 40 offenders accounted for 6,000 arrests last year. That is an average of 150 arrests each. No one should pretend that this is acceptable. In Kelowna, one man is responsible for 346 complaints to local police in the last six years, which led to 29 convictions for assault and property crimes.

The rates of crime, especially violent crime, have reached a crisis point in B.C. The BC Urban Mayors' Caucus has sounded the alarm bells and is calling for action to prevent this cycle of crime. In its letter to the premier, it states that its cities have to divert precious resources away from other public safety priorities to deal with repeat offenders.

Even NDP Premier David Eby, who was here just the other day, signed a joint letter with all premiers to the federal government calling for the broken bail system to be fixed. The letter states, “The justice system fundamentally needs to keep anyone who poses a threat to public safety off the streets. And this starts with meaningful changes to the Criminal Code..., an area solely within the federal government's jurisdiction.”

The Surrey Board of Trade, an organization normally associated with economic development in my region, is expressing its concern with crime on the streets. It recently said, “The economic development of any community relies upon its reputation as a safe, viable region in which to locate and do business”.

The breakdown of public safety has hit my community of South Surrey—White Rock, but the problem extends far beyond B.C. It is a national mess. This past summer, we all watched with horror the mass killing on the James Smith Cree first nation in Saskatchewan. The perpetrator had previously been charged with over 120 crimes, but none of that prevented him from taking 10 indigenous lives.

Following that senseless tragedy, the Leader of the Opposition stood in the House pleading for change. He said:

The James Smith Cree Nation was not only the victim of a violent criminal, but also the victim of a broken criminal justice system.... A system that allows a violent criminal to reoffend over and over again with impunity does not deserve to be called a justice system. Leaving victims vulnerable to repeat attacks by a violent felon is not criminal justice. It is criminal negligence.

I agree that the broken bail system needs to be fixed. For someone who makes one mistake, of course they should be given every opportunity to build a productive life for themselves and others, but dangerous, violent, repeat offenders cannot be allowed to terrorize our streets.

Bill C-5 would make the problem worse. The Liberals rewrote sentencing for serious crimes, putting dangerous criminals back on the street sooner than they deserved to be. They lowered sentences for crimes such as assault with a weapon, abduction of a minor and participation in the activities of a criminal organizations, making these crimes eligible for summary convictions. They expanded house arrest for other serious offences, including sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, motor vehicle theft and arson. Imagine how victims feel marginalized, how their suffering is ignored.

The Liberals eliminated mandatory prison time for serious gun crimes, including robbery or extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, discharging a firearm with intent, using a firearm in commission of a crime, and reckless discharge of a firearm. While the Prime Minister is letting drive-by shooters and gunrunners back into our community, he is going after law-abiding hunters and sport shooters.

Meanwhile, in the middle of the opioid crisis, he eliminated mandatory prison time for drug dealers. Over 31,000 Canadians have lost their lives to overdose since the Liberals took office eight long years ago. Now the crime of producing heroin, cocaine, fentanyl or crystal meth is not subject to a mandatory minimum sentence. The same goes for drug smuggling and drug trafficking.

The blame for this mess lies at the feet of the Prime Minister and his Liberal Party, but in a minority Parliament, he cannot act alone. The NDP are complicit. Thirteen NDP MPs from B.C. voted for the reckless erosion of the justice system, and they too must be held to account. They changed the justice system to cater to the sensibilities of left-wing activists who want to defund the police rather than provide safe streets for our citizens, and now five police officers have been murdered in the past year.

The new justice system puts the criminal first and the victim last, and offenders first and the needs of the community last. It frees the felon while tying the hands of law enforcement. What is the result after eight years? Violent crime is up 32%, homicides are up 30%, gang-related murders up 92% and sexual assaults have increased by 61%.

Next election, voters in the Lower Mainland and on Vancouver Island can count on Conservatives to clean up the mess made of our cities and our rural communities. We will fix Canada's broken bail system by repealing the elements enacted by Bill C-75, which forced judges, some of whom are now publicly complaining, which is very unusual for an independent judiciary, to release violent repeat offenders onto the streets, allowing them to reoffend.

We will strengthen Canada's bail laws so that those who are prohibited from possessing firearms and who are then accused of serious firearm offences do not easily get bail, as they do now. We will target violent repeat offenders and ensure that Canada's justice system puts the rights of law-abiding Canadians first. We will restore safe streets and protect our citizens from violent crime.

Canadians are hurting in so many ways under these Liberals. They do not care, but the Conservatives do.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the government is listening to these groups. Back in October, the justice minister met with leaders throughout our country who were demanding these changes. That is when they initially had a discussion about this. He has indicated in the House today, which I am sure the member for Barrie—Innisfil was present to hear, that those discussions are ongoing and that he would be meeting with them again in February.

The member asks why we will not agree to change Bill C-75, but Bill C-75 was just about fixing the mistakes the previous government made that were identified by the Supreme Court. My colleague from the NDP made a really good point earlier when he said that despite the fact that these laws may have been found unconstitutional 10 or 15 years later, lives were still affected in the meantime. Charter rights were legally infringed upon in the meantime, and that is what the Conservatives would like to see happen. They have no problem at all with seeing that occur.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, a while ago, a wise man told me never to argue with a fool because they will never know I am right, so against my better judgment I stand up here.

The difference between the Liberals in government and the official opposition party, the Conservatives, putting this motion forward is that we are actually listening to the voices of Canadians, those of police chiefs, police associations, big-city mayors and the premiers of all the provinces and territories in this country who are demanding bail reform as a result of the failures of Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. They are seeing it on the streets. What happened with Constable Pierzchala was the top blowing off a volcano. As sad and as difficult as that situation was, it was festering underneath in the judicial system, and now all of these groups are calling for changes.

Why will the government not listen to these groups and implement the changes that are being called for?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the Conservative fundraising motion. Why do I say that? It is not that I do not think this is an extremely serious issue. I do, and I will get to that in a second, but I feel as though the Conservative Party is taking a serious issue and exploiting it for its own gain.

We all know the Conservatives pretty much came into the room knowing this motion would not be supported by a majority of parliamentarians, but they are looking forward to the opportunity to use it in a fundraising email blast, probably later this evening, or something of that sort. It is extremely disingenuous when we treat the House of Commons this way. I do not think it was ever intended to be used this way, but unfortunately we see the Conservatives doing that more and more.

To start, bail reform, as we know and as we have been hearing from leaders throughout the country, is a very important thing we need to tackle. That is why the Minister of Justice met with leaders back in October and committed to working with them. That is why he is meeting with them again in February. That is why he will work with them to make the genuine reforms they are looking for and need in order to increase public safety. In my opinion, he is genuinely working toward an objective of trying to make Canada a better place and improve the quality of life of all Canadians.

I am disheartened by this motion because, for starters, the first resolve paragraph in it specifically speaks to Bill C-75 and directs the government to make changes to Bill C-75. The irony, though, is that Bill C-75 was brought in to fix Harper Conservative legislation on mandatory minimum sentences. At least three pieces of legislative have been struck down by the courts at this point. By bringing in Bill C-75, we mirrored what the courts were saying. The courts were saying that the law infringes upon people's charter rights, that it cannot be imposed on people and that it must be changed.

What would the Charter of Rights look like for the Conservatives? If they continually brought in legislation that was found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, would that not imply they would rather have a different Constitution with a different Charter of Rights in it, a Charter of Rights that did not give what ours currently gives? I cannot understand how we could land on any other assumption than that.

In his address today to the House, the Leader of the Opposition specifically talked about the Conservative approach. He outlined what the Conservative approach would be. However, what he did not talk about was that this approach has been struck down repeatedly by the Supreme Court. He has to come clean with Canadians and say how he would deliver on his approach. Would he use the notwithstanding clause to override the Supreme Court? Would he change the Charter or Rights so that it does not look how it looks now? How else would we effectively get the Conservative approach to become legislation that could be upheld and deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court?

I find it very confusing and very disingenuous when a motion like this comes in. It has to do with a genuine concern being brought forward by leaders throughout our country, but the Conservatives are utilizing it and piggybacking off it to try to exploit something else they are doing. They are trying to exploit fears and anxiety in order to raise money. That is the only conclusion I can come to. That is why I said that I cannot see the purpose of this motion being anything other than a fundraising tool for the Conservative Party.

The Conservatives talked a lot about Bill C-75 making bail easier. That is not what Bill C-75 was about. As a matter of fact, one of the changes in Bill C-75 made it more difficult for people to get bail. It put the onus on the accused to explain why they should be getting bail. That was specifically related to intimate partner violence.

I keep coming back to this point: Why would the Conservatives intentionally exploit these fears if it was for nothing other than political gain? Time after time, we see this narrative coming forward from the Conservatives. We see them standing up in this House and suggesting that this government is directly responsible for some of the things that were put in Bill C-75, specifically as they relate to reforms, which were only needed because the former Conservative government that put in legislation did so in a way that infringed upon people's charter rights, if we are willing to accept the ruling of the court.

As I said, Bill C-75 did not change the criteria of when an accused person can be released by police, a judge or a justice of the peace. It is important to point that out because we have heard repeatedly from the Conservatives today that this is the case. In fact, as I indicated, we made it harder for some individuals to get bail, especially as it relates to intimate partner violence.

Bill C-75 also imposed what is called a reverse onus, as I indicated, for bail imposed on an accused charged with certain firearms offences. This means that the accused will be detained pending trial unless they can prove that bail is justified.

Bill C-75 was adopted following a binding Supreme Court decision, so the Conservatives' first resolve paragraph in the motion asking that we immediately repeal the elements of Bill C-75 is disingenuous at best, because we were replying to what the court was telling us. The Supreme Court of Canada was telling us this had to be done in order to maintain people's charter rights.

I come back to where I started: What is it going to be? Do the Conservatives believe in the charter? Do they believe in those rights? They keep bringing forward legislation that imposes upon them. Do they believe in them, or would they like to see the charter changed? If they do want to see the charter changed, what would they have it look like? I am very curious about what the Charter of Rights would look like per the definition of the Conservatives and per the legislation they have been bringing forward. What do they see for those rights? It is a legitimate question. We have to get to the bottom of that because it is the underpinning and fundamental document upon which the vast majority of challenges are made.

I will continue to listen to the debate today. I am obviously opposed to this motion, and I am glad to see that the majority of colleagues in the House are coming from the same position. It is the responsible thing to do. We need to make sure we continue to have very important conversations about bail reform with leaders throughout our country who are asking for it. We have to have them in an honest way that genuinely impacts Canadians' lives and makes the lives of Canadians safer in the process.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-75 was definitely not perfect. There were many ways it could have been improved. However, we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

It is also important to take a broader view of the situation and ask what causes the violence. A child is not born violent. Various aspects of a person's life leads them down that road.

Across Canada, social services have been greatly affected by cuts to health transfers over the past 30 years. Are those services still effective? Should we not be reinvesting in health?

Therein may lie part of the solution. It will not happen overnight, but over the long term. Health transfers have suffered 30 years of cuts, and it is time for that to change.

I would like to hear from my colleague on this issue.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, it has been eight years of the Prime Minister and thousands of new victims of crime across Canada in those eight years.

I stand here not only as the voice of my constituents in Thornhill, but also as the voice of thousands of people in every corner of the country who want us to start taking the safety of our communities more seriously.

I grew up in the place that I represent in the House of Commons today and I have spent almost my whole life living in the Toronto area. Even though the city is home to millions, we have always been blessed to have a feeling of big-city safety. That is not often found elsewhere. For years, we rode transit without fearing the random attacks. Now all we have to do is open the newspaper, go to Twitter or turn on the news to see violent attack after violent attack throughout the last number of months.

We gathered in public places with our loved ones and we were free to do the things we wanted to do whenever we wanted to do them without fear. We went about our daily lives, safe from criminals and the people who wanted to harm others, for the most part. We used to feel safe in the city. That feeling is fading away. All one has to do is open the newspaper to see it.

With every day that passes comes another story about the out-of-control violence in our streets and the innocent people who are being terrorized by it: stories of people being stabbed in the head and face with ice picks; stories about people being swarmed and beaten, in some cases by teenagers, or pushed in front of moving trains or shoved to the ground; stories about people being set on fire in the biggest city in our country.

All the recent attacks, the ones have outlined a number of times, were random. All of these attacks were in Canada. The GTA is used to making international news, it is a big place, but not international news like this. Last week, it was on the BBC. A few weeks ago, it was in the New York Times. Even my hometown of Vaughan made it onto CNN last December after a horrific shooting.

We are obviously seeing more of this. The rate is rising. The stats are clear. Rising crime is not just something that is tearing into my community and it is not isolated. It is something that is happening in every neighbourhood across the country. It is happening in Vancouver where entire sections of the city are being taken over by out-of-control drug and gang activity. It is happening in rural communities, where only 18% of all Canadians live but 25% of violent crimes take place. Those numbers are shocking.

There were more homicides in our nation in 2019 than in 2018. There were more in 2020 than in 2019. There were more in 2021 than in 2020. That is a pattern and somebody has to say it. Things are not okay because each day we see more suffering in our communities and more inaction or, frankly, not the right action in our Parliament.

While our neighbourhoods are affected by crime, the Liberals are busy telling us, once again, that it is somebody else’s fault or it is somebody else’s job, deflecting blame and denying guilt again. However, the stats are clear; we only need to turn on the news.

While families are grieving the loss of loved ones to violence, the Liberals are busy reducing the penalties for heinous acts like robbery with a firearm, fentanyl trafficking that is ravaging the streets in places like Vancouver, or in smaller places like Peterborough and London or places like right outside the House. Kidnapping is also on the list.

While victims of crime are struggling to get justice, the Liberals are standing by their policies and making it easier for the very people who are responsible for those crimes to go back out in the world and do it all over again. The Liberals are standing by Bill C-75, which is what we are talking about today. It makes it easier to get bail, easier to be let out of custody, easier for criminals to go back to their illegal activities and harm even more people. It is broken. What we are doing is not working and everybody else knows it.

Last year in Toronto, there were 44 shooting-related murders. Seven of those arrested were out on bail already for charges of gun crime and 17 of those were out on bail for other crimes. If people are keeping score that is more than half. Of the 44 murders in the city in which I have spent most of my life, more than half, or 24, of those accused were out on bail; 24 additional families that lost loved ones because of the Liberal broken bail system. Every premier says that the system is broken along with every police union and police chief.

If we listen to everyone else who is talking about it, they say that bail reform could save lives. There are a lot of other things that we can talk about, but not talking about this when we know it can save lives would be irresponsible.

In 2021, 165 people in Toronto, who were out on bail for gun charges, were arrested, including 98 people who were arrested on gun charges. It is broken and what we are doing is not working, and everybody agrees.

Since the Liberals have been in power, violent crime has increased by 32%. Gang-related homicides have increased by a staggering 92%. Car jacking has doubled in Toronto. Property theft has gone up. It has all gone up; it is broken. What we are doing simply is not working. Our laws are broken.

It is shocking that the Liberal member for Scarborough Southwest is a cabinet minister and former Toronto police chief, and he said more about crime in Memphis last week than he has said about crime in his own city. That is disgraceful.

Today, Liberal members continue to insist that everything is fine, that nothing is wrong and that they are working on it. There was a meeting last November where all premiers and the federal government agreed to do something, and there is still nothing.

All 13 premiers have written a demand letter to the Prime Minister to fix our broken bail system. The voices are united. It is police officers, it is frontline officers, it is police unions and it is people on our front lines who are all begging the government to do something about it.

We will always stand on the side of law enforcement in our country. We are also going to stand on the side of victims of crime, and not on the side of criminals. We are going to stand for ending soft-on-crime laws like Bill C-75 that put the rights of criminals above those of the victims. That is wrong. All we have to do is open a newspaper to read about it.

We are here today to demand action because if the Liberals will not anything, we will. If they are not prepared to make a change, to do their job and protect Canadians, they should step aside and let somebody else do it.

It is not about some archaic regulation. It is not about political posturing. Everybody agrees. All premiers from different stripes agree. The mayor of my hometown, who just ran for the provincial Liberal leadership, wrote a demand letter to the Prime Minister asking for bail reform.

This is not a Conservative issue. It is an issue that speaks to public safety and to the protection of the rights of victims over the rights of criminals.

Our proposal is simple: prioritize the rights of victims and law-abiding citizens, not the criminals, and fix the broken bail system that lets murderers and repeat offenders out, free to recommit crimes in the community.

We need to bring back penalties and punishments that actually fit the crime, particularly for violent repeat offenders. We need to fight crime where it exists, at our borders and in gangs, not in the home of law-abiding firearm owners or hunters.

It is time to go back to the time when people felt safe in their communities, where people can walk on the streets without being randomly attacked, where criminals are punished for the crimes they commit, where Canadians have the right to travel wherever they want whenever they want and be free of fear on public transit, to go out in public with their families and feel safe.

I hope all members, on behalf of their communities, their constituents and their loved ones, stand up for those rights. We can do that by passing this motion today. I hope hon. colleagues in the House see that too.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his speech.

This is a very emotional subject. We all want disinformation to be set aside. To some extent, we all want to be able to rely on science and research to make changes. Clearly, Bill C‑75 is not perfect. We would like to comment on that.

We must focus on the good elements and work towards implementing them, which is not happening now, in my opinion. Furthermore, there is clearly a vote-seeking aspect to the Conservatives' motion.

I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition what his reaction is when I talk about science and research. Carolyn Yule, a professor of sociology and anthropology—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about the Conservative approach. What we know about the Conservative approach as it relates to their “tough on crime” legislation is that on multiple occasions the Supreme Court has shot down their legislation saying that it is unconstitutional and infringes upon charter rights. In fact, Bill C-75 only mirrors exactly what the Supreme Court has ruled.

In order for the Conservatives to use their approach, they would have to do one of two things: either invoke the notwithstanding clause or change the charter in a way that suits their ability to bring forward the legislation they want. My question for the Leader of the Opposition is quite simple. If he was the Prime Minister and wanted to bring in this legislation, which of those two choices would he do? Would he change the charter or would he use the notwithstanding clause?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as members of the House know, I am always pleased to rise to talk about issues of criminal justice and public safety. My background, before I came here, was 20 years as an instructor in this field. I am also always pleased to talk about this as a former member of a municipal police board. Of course, right now, I am particularly pleased to get to address this question as a member of a community that, like many others across the country, has seen a rise in public disorder, which is of great concern to citizens and, I have to say, specifically small businesses in my riding, which quite often bear the brunt of that public disorder.

I am also pleased, as always, to get to talk about solutions, and that is why I am not so pleased to be discussing the Conservative motion before us today.

As I mentioned earlier in a question, something perplexes me a bit. On Monday, we came together in the justice committee on a very reasonable motion put forward by the member for Fundy Royal, which I supported and which the government eventually supported, to agree that the committee should work on practical solutions to the real problems that have been raised by municipal leaders, the public and premiers to find practical and effective solutions that would increase public safety by changes to the bail system.

There we were on Monday getting ready, and we have actually scheduled those hearings to start within two weeks, so we are moving rapidly, for the House of Commons, to try to find those solutions. I must say that we are moving more rapidly in the Commons than the government has moved. These issues were presented to the government months ago by the premiers, and we have not seen much happen. However, I am optimistic, I and was very optimistic on Monday, yet here we are, three days later, with the Conservatives bringing forward a very divisive motion full of inflated rhetoric, sensational statistics and claims about the bail system that are really not true.

As I said before, it makes me wonder which is the real Conservative Party on this issue? Is it the one that is doing this sensational motion, which I cannot help but conclude is about motivating its base and fundraising, or is it the party that put forward a reasonable motion that we could all agree on, the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP, to work together in the justice committee to find practical solutions to the real concerns Canadians have about the bail system?

I guess the proof will be in the pudding when we get to the committee, where we will see if the Conservatives will work with the rest of us to find those practical solutions, because this motion really does fan the flames of public fear rather than make a contribution to solutions to the problem.

New Democrats agree that we need to find ways to address the problem created by certain violent criminals who have been previously charged and convicted of serious offences and who have ended up receiving bail. We need to look at how we tighten up the system in that aspect.

At the same time, we are also concerned about the public order questions. We know that there is probably not an easy legislative fix to those public order problems. They create real fear among citizens, rightfully so, but we know that most of those public order problems are rooted in things such as mental health issues, addiction and poverty.

Until we as a society address the poverty, the addictions and the mental health questions, and until the federal government actually delivers on its promises to provide more funding for those kinds of programs and to the provinces, then I do not think we will have a real solution to the public order problems before us.

At the heart of what we are talking about today is something that is sometimes lost, and that is the presumption of innocence. In any just society, those who are accused of a crime have the right to be presumed innocent, which is enshrined in our charter, until they are found guilty.

In our system, we do have a presumption against pretrial detention. We really believe that we should not be penalized by being detained before one has actually been convicted of anything.

It is quite disturbing to me to look at our system and find that up to two-thirds of people in provincial detention centres, on any given day, have never been convicted of anything. They are there awaiting trial. That is a very large number.

When we hear people talk about our bail systems as a catch-and-release system, it is not a catch-and-release system. We detain very large numbers of Canadians before trial. Who ends up being detained? Who does not end up getting the benefit of bail? It tends to be indigenous people, racialized Canadians, new Canadians and low-income Canadians.

Why is that? It is because for people to get bail, we demand certain things. We say that people must have a stable job, a stable address and someone who can supervise them while they are out on bail. Of course, the people who have the least resources in society have the least ability to meet those fundamental conditions for getting bail. If they do somehow get bail, they also have the least resources for meeting the conditions that might be imposed on them.

I know someone quite well who worked with an individual with mental health challenges who was required to report to their bail supervisor on a regular basis, but they could not get it together to do that because of their mental health challenges. Those people risk ending up with bail violations, with another offence, even if they were not guilty of what they were charged with in the first instance. What we have, honestly, operating in our system contributes to the overincarceration of indigenous people, racialized people and poor people in this country, starting with the bail system.

While, yes, we acknowledge there are some problems with the bail system that we need to look at, New Democrats would expand that to take a look at what we can do to make sure we are not penalizing people unnecessarily by putting them into detention for long periods while awaiting trial.

Most upsetting to me in this bill is the misuse of statistics by the Conservatives. We all know that the overall rate of crime in this country has been on a 30-year decline. That is still the general trend. We know, though, that in the past five years there has been a spike in public order crimes, violence on the streets and serious violent crime.

Where does that come from? We need to take a serious look at what causes those increases. We have had some unusual things happening in the world and in this country in the past five years. Therefore, some of it is related to the pandemic; some of it is related to the mental health challenges that we honestly failed to deal with, which resulted from the pandemic. When we are talking about finding solutions to these problems, it is not good enough for me to look at a spike in statistics and say we must make general changes in our system. That is really throwing out the baby with the proverbial bathwater.

We have specific problems we need to address, and we need to look very carefully at those problems and find effective solutions that really contribute to public safety.

As I mentioned earlier, provincial and territorial ministers of justice brought concerns forward at the justice ministers' meeting in Nova Scotia last October. They had concerns about serious violent offenders and the bail system and about the public order crisis at the community level, and the Minister of Justice promised to review the bail system. I am told again and again that the government is working on this. Maybe we need a faster gear; this is something we often hear from the New Democrats when we are talking about the Liberals. Yes, they have said the right thing; now let us actually complete that task.

In January, after the high-profile murder of an Ontario Provincial Police constable, where one of the accused was on bail, the premiers had heard nothing specific from the Liberal government. They drafted a letter making a very specific suggestion to the Prime Minister that reversing the onus for additional serious and violent offences should be considered as a reform to the bail system. This is something I take very seriously, and I think New Democrats are quite prepared to look at it.

To be clear, reversing the onus for bail means that one would need to demonstrate why one should be released rather than the prosecution demonstrating why one should be retained in custody, which is the norm. There is a list of offences already for which there is reverse onus for bail, including murder and serious violent firearms offences. This also includes something Bill C-75 did, which was reversing the onus in domestic violence cases. The presumption is now that those who are charged and have been previously charged or convicted with domestic violence offences need to show why they should be released rather than the prosecution showing why they should stay in jail.

Considering this issue means hearing from some experts, police and prosecutors about how we can fix the problems and what we specifically need to do. What offences should be added to that list?

Again, there is a bit of irony. We tend to hear the Conservatives as defenders of firearms owners, but in this motion, they are saying that any firearms offences should get a reverse onus, that it should get a restriction on bail.

That seems peculiar to me coming from the Conservatives because my concern is about serious violent offences, not technical violations of gun laws. Therefore, when they say we should get rid of all of Bill C-75, it begins to sound like this was a bill about bail reform. Actually, it was an omnibus criminal justice bill that had many things the New Democrats supported and many things that I had long advocated for, including reversing the onus on bail in domestic violence cases. However, the claim that Bill C-75 somehow forces judges to do things is simply false. The claim in this motion is not true.

What Bill C-75 did was put into law the Supreme Court decision from 2017, called R. v. Antic. In that decision, the Supreme Court was very clear that fundamental justice and the charter require that those who are awaiting trial be released at the earliest reasonable opportunity and under the least onerous conditions in order to respect the principle of the presumption of innocence. Are there some unintended consequences of that decision in Bill C-75? Perhaps there are. I am looking forward to the committee looking at the specifics of what we can do if we have those unintended consequences. However, as the member for Saint-Jean so rightly pointed out, repealing Bill C-75 would not change anything about the law on bail because the charter and the Supreme Court decision would still exist. Therefore, to single out Bill C-75 for repeal is really not realistic as a solution to the problems.

What is it I want as a New Democrat and a member of Parliament? I want us to do that hard work at committee to figure out how we can reassure Canadians that those who are accused of serious violent crimes and already have a record of serious violent crime do not get bail before a trial for another offence.

I also want us to take a look at that broader question of how we make sure that changes in the bail system do not inadvertently contribute to the denial or inordinate detention of indigenous people, poor people or racialized Canadians. We cannot make sweeping changes to that system and still respect the need to make the justice system fair for all Canadians.

With that, I am going to conclude my remarks today. I want to say that I am disappointed with this motion, and for that reason, New Democrats are voting against it. However, it remains obvious that there is at least a part of the Conservative Party that came to the justice committee on Monday prepared to work seriously on these issues and find real solutions to the concerns that the public has about public disorder and violent crime. They are prepared to find things that are effective in increasing public safety as a way of addressing those, and not a motion like this, which sensationalizes the problem and provides no real solutions.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague touched upon something I think is very important. Bill C-75 did impose a reverse onus on serious offenders to prove that they have conditions and reasoning to obtain bail. She said something about it is getting harder to get bail, especially for those offenders.

Can she elaborate on that and assess whether weakening Bill C-75 served the purpose of this opposition day motion?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few seconds to wish you a happy new year, good health, happiness, love and anything else your heart desires. I want to also send that message to my constituents in Saint-Jean, as this is the first time I have spoken in the House this year.

I am not going to put the Conservatives on trial for their motion today. I would like to believe that this idea stems from a genuine desire to reduce violent crime and prevent the proliferation of illegal firearms. I hope that I will not be put on trial either, despite the fact that I am going to describe the problems with this motion. In my opinion, it does not provide a solution. I will be disappointed if I hear, yet again, during question and comment period, that the Bloc Québécois has helped put dangerous criminals back on the street and refuses to admit that there is a problem. I hope that does not happen, but I will be sure to manage my expectations.

There are a few problems with the motion, and I will go through them one at a time. For instance, no distinction is made between correlation and causation. Some members have presented statistics showing an increase in certain crimes and said that this is caused by Bill C-75. That is correlation. There is a theory about that, known as the hemline economy theory. According to this theory, when short skirts are in fashion, the economy is doing well, and when long skirts are in fashion, the economy is doing poorly. If we were to rely solely on this index, we would probably all make some very poor choices in the stock market. Similarly, if a temporal correlation is the only correlation that exists between an increase in crime and the passage of Bill C‑75, then we are probably overlooking the real solutions to a multi-faceted problem.

Another problem is that some of the “whereas” clauses and demands in the motion are based on somewhat fallacious arguments, and some are not supported by any evidence. I will come back to that aspect when I go through the motion in greater detail.

The arguments raise another problem. We are hearing a lot of references to the case of Randall McKenzie, who allegedly killed a police officer in December while out on bail. If we look at this case more closely, we might find that it is not just him being out on bail that is the problem. Randall McKenzie had already been locked up and was released on bail with some of the strictest conditions possible. He was on house arrest 24 hours a day, he wore an electronic tracking device and he was allowed to leave home only for medical reasons or to get legal advice from his lawyer. The question is, what happened? How did he end up out in public when the company monitoring the GPS device should have sent an alert to have him immediately apprehended? There may be a problem there too. No one has raised that issue yet, but the analysis should go beyond the simple issue of bail.

I heard it said that if Randall McKenzie had not been out on bail, the police officer would still be alive. I am sorry, but we have still not heard all of the evidence in this case. The authorities are not certain that he is the one who pulled the trigger. There is a co-accused in the case, so the argument is perhaps a little thin. This is only a secondary point, I only wanted to mention it. However, it is perhaps a stretch to say that a life would have been saved if bail had not been awarded.

I would like to point out a fourth problem with the motion. Making it more difficult to obtain bail in the case of illegal arms possession will not dissuade people from procuring illegal arms. The motion will not have an impact on first offences with a firearm. Adopting the motion could leave us with a false sense of security.

I will quickly review some of the points in the motion.

The motion states, “That, given that, after eight years of this government's soft on crime policies, (i) violent crime has increased by 32%”. According to Statistics Canada, this number includes sexual assaults.

In recent years, thanks to greater awareness among other things, there has been an increase in the number of crimes reported, which contributes to the increase in this number. When we talk about violent crime in general, we are not necessarily referring to violent gun crime or cases in which the accused was awarded bail. That, however, is how the question for the government is being framed.

The motion states that “violent, repeat offenders are obtaining bail much more easily”. I still have not heard a clear explanation of whether this is true, and, especially, if it is related to the repeal of certain aspects of Bill C‑75 requested in the motion.

The motion also states that “five Canadian police officers were killed in the line of duty in just one year”. That is both deplorable and tragic. We should do something about that. However, no connection is made between the murder of these police officers and the bail system. Statistics are used to justify strengthening bail provisions, but there is not necessarily a rational link between the statistics and what the motion is asking for. That is deplorable. I think that the Conservatives could have been more thorough in presenting their motion.

One of the things the House is being called to do is the following:

(a) fix Canada's broken bail system by immediately repealing the elements enacted by Bill C‑75...which force judges to release violent, repeat offenders onto the streets, allowing them to reoffend;

As my colleague mentioned, there is a fallacy in this paragraph. There is nothing in Bill C‑75 or the Criminal Code forcing judges to release people. In fact, when we get right down to it, the only thing that forces judges to release people is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

There are two fairly specific rights in the following paragraphs of section 11 of the Charter:

Any person charged with an offence has the right...

(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

(e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;

The charter, not the former Bill C‑75, sets out that requirement for judges. The charter and the sections that allow for bail have established criteria.

Custody of an accused is only justified by the Criminal Code in certain cases, for example, “(a) where the detention is necessary to ensure his or her attendance in court”, such as someone with dual citizenship who is afraid of losing citizenship in another country, or “(b) where the detention is necessary for the protection or safety of the public”.

There are pre-existing criteria that judges can use to maintain institutional custody. Where “(c) the detention is necessary to maintain confidence”, the judge has the discretion to keep an accused in custody.

Section 515 of the Criminal Code also provides terms and conditions. For example, consideration must be given to “(iii) the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, including whether a firearm was used”, which we already do, and “(iv) the fact that the accused is liable, on conviction, for a potentially lengthy term of imprisonment or, in the case of an offence that involves, or whose subject-matter is, a firearm, a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years or more.”

The Conservatives are saying that they want to, and I quote:

strengthen Canada's bail laws so that those who are prohibited from possessing firearms and who are then accused of serious firearms offences do not easily get bail;

However, that is already included in section 515 of the Criminal Code. Will that really change anything? It is a fair question. When we talk to criminal lawyers about the gun problem, we see that it is getting harder and harder to get bail when a firearm was used to commit a crime, so the motion contains some things that are already covered.

The motion seeks to repeal the former bill without really explaining what it is about. It attacks Bill C‑75, which actually does some other worthwhile things. For example, it creates a reverse onus for domestic violence. The accused must prove that they will not be a danger to the public if they are released on bail, whereas for other crimes the opposite is true. With regard to gun violence, the onus is already on the accused, or in other words, it is up to them to prove that they do not pose a risk to society.

As I mentioned, although this motion addresses a real and serious problem, it may not be the right solution. As I also mentioned, if a person makes their stock market decisions based on the hemline index, then they will likely make poor choices.

I think the same applies here. We need to have conversations about the best way to proceed so we do not opt for a bad solution to a real problem.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises an interesting point. It is indeed a call for action. That is a good thing, because we are talking about this issue today.

Premiers and police associations across the country have also sounded the alarm. However, I have doubts about the means the Conservatives are trying to use today to take action. Is today's motion the right way to resolve the issue or to provide solutions? Would the ideal way not be to introduce a bill to amend certain provisions that were in Bill C‑75? Perhaps that would be a better way to take action.

Obviously, we, the parliamentarians, are not really the experts. We invite experts and listen to them. If certain police associations are saying one thing or another, it is our duty to listen to them.

I am not sure that today's motion is the right way to move forward. I understand why the Conservatives are putting this issue on the table. It provides us with an opportunity to discuss it. However, if they really want to change the provisions included in Bill C‑75, I think that they should introduce a bill.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to wish you a happy new year. I know that February is a bit late, but this is one of the first times we have seen each other this year. I would also like to wish my constituents, the people of Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, a happy new year. I will begin by saying I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Jean.

I am very pleased to speak to this issue, which I believe is exceptionally important. Law and order is obviously an area that we, as members of Parliament, are concerned about.

I agree with my Conservative colleagues on several aspects of this motion. In the past eight years, violent crime has increased by 32% and gang-related homicides by 92%. The number of violent crimes has skyrocketed, inevitably jeopardizing Canadians' safety. Five police officers were killed in the line of duty in just one year. That is enormous when compared with previous years.

In Ontario, 44 police officers were killed in the line of duty between 1961 and 2009. That is about one per year, and, in my opinion, that is one too many. In 2022, five police officers died while on duty. That is not just too many, that is totally unacceptable. The people who undertake to protect the public should never pay with their lives.

In this respect, I am in complete agreement with my colleagues, and I must say that the efforts made by the Liberal Party in recent years to prevent violence, limit the number of firearms in circulation and help break up gangs have been less than stellar.

It would be wise to try not to get lost in the statistics. There are many statistics out there, and they support some of the facts included in the Conservatives’ motion. Overall, the number of crimes reported by police in Canada in recent years shows an alarming increase.

Hate crimes have increased by 72%. These are mainly crimes motivated by hate towards a religion, sexual orientation or ethnic origin.

Gun crimes have risen 25% in the past 10 years. As I was saying earlier, there were more murders in Montreal in 2021 than in any of the previous 10 years. Some 37 murders were committed, compared with 28 in 2020, with 25 being the result of a dispute or settling of scores within organized crime and 12 involving Canadians between the ages of 12 and 24.

In 2021, police reported 34,242 cases of sexual assault. That is about 90 cases of sexual assault for every 100,000 citizens, keeping in mind that only about 6% of sexual assaults are reported to police.

Let us not fool ourselves: This increase in violence is not just a big-city problem. In my own rural riding in the Gaspé, in Eastern Quebec, a man was arrested for weapons trafficking in Pointe à la-Croix barely three weeks ago. He allegedly supplied illegal weapons and narcotics to Montreal street gangs. In 2021, a raid in Gaspé led to the seizure of multiple illegal firearms, more specifically, 50 long guns, 10 handguns, bullet-proof vests and ammunition of every calibre. Last August, shots were heard in a residential neighbourhood in Gaspé, and an individual was arrested.

The picture we are painting here is pretty grim. The government must take concrete and legitimate measures to address Canadians’ concerns and to ensure their safety.

In its motion, the Conservative Party calls on the government to repeal the elements enacted by Bill C-75. Although it is true and entirely legitimate to point out that certain elements of the bail reform are problematic, as we have seen in the news recently, the fact remains that the wording of the motion is also problematic. Some elements are simply false.

Let us be clear: No changes made by Bill C-75 require any judge to release violent repeat offenders. With all due respect, saying otherwise, intentionally or not, is more of an opinion than a proven and verified fact.

To say that the bail system is no longer working is also not entirely true. The bail system is based on the art of finding a balance between public safety and the presumption of innocence, which is protected by something that is quite dear to the Conservatives, specifically, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Bloc Québécois had a number of good reasons to vote in favour of Bill C-75, even though, as we said, given recent events, we can now see that the legislation has its flaws. I am sure that my colleague from Saint‑Jean will elaborate on this idea because she is an extremely competent and seasoned legal expert. I will be happy to just go over some of the facts that were checked and quantified.

While the convicted offender population has been gradually declining in recent years, the number of people held in pre-trial detention almost tripled in the past 35 years. This increase occurred while the overall prison populations remained relatively stable during the same period. In fact, the crime rate had been falling since the 1990s.

Under the law, there were more innocent people held on pre-trial detention than actual offenders serving custodial sentences, after being convicted, in provincial and territorial correctional facilities since 2004-05. This data is widely available. It comes from an analysis conducted by the Department of Justice in 2015 in connection with Bill C-75. My colleagues should therefore be able to obtain the report and base their decisions on those facts, which were checked.

We must keep in mind that, financially speaking, a growing population in pre-trial detention will result in considerable additional costs for governments at every level. This only places more pressure on already limited resources.

The debate surrounding the bail system is perfectly legitimate, and it is a good thing. On this point, once again, I agree with my Conservative colleagues. Bill C-75 has several flaws, as the provincial premiers unanimously pointed out to the federal government. Basically, they are asking for the same thing as one of the elements included in today’s motion. They claim that it is justifiable to strengthen bail laws so that people who are prohibited from possessing firearms and are then accused of a serious firearm offence cannot easily get bail. I think that some work could be done in this area.

This inevitably leads me to the actions that the government should take to prevent gun crime. We have said it often enough: Bill C-21 does not necessarily fix the problem of the proliferation of firearms. I was happy to be able to discuss this with the minister. Other actions must be taken in other areas.

More specifically, we need more border controls and prevention measures in large cities. Obviously, financial investments must be made, and the government always enjoys showing off its financial record in this area. However, there are other things that can be done, and the Bloc Québécois has presented several options, for example, collaborative efforts between the various police forces. There are a lot of things that can and should be done.

Although we agree with the Conservatives on several aspects of this motion, the idea of strengthening legislation is rooted in the ideology of law and order. Right now, the proliferation of firearms in our major cities is a problem, we cannot say it often enough. Although this reflex reaction is understandable, a number of experts, including Carolyn Yule, a professor of sociology and anthropology at the University of Guelph who studies the bail system, claim that there is no evidence to suggest that a harsher approach to bail would improve public safety. I think that is something to think about.

Given that the text of the motion moved today includes elements that may not have been fact-checked and that could potentially turn out to be false, it is impossible for the Bloc Québécois to support this motion, unfortunately. As I said, we agree with several aspects, and the government must do more. It is true that crime has increased in recent years, but unfortunately, because of certain elements in the motion, we cannot support it.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for the opportunity to have this important debate about bail reform. Before I come to the remarks that have been prepared for me in advance, I want to take a few moments to acknowledge the grief, trauma, loss and the sense of suffering being felt by communities across the country. I had the chance to visit with many communities, whether it was out west in Vancouver or out east in the Atlantic communities with the families and the victims in Portapique and Truro.

More recently, it was in Quebec City, with all the families and survivors at the commemoration of the sixth anniversary of the mosque shooting.

It is also in my hometown, where we are seeing a recent spate of violence in our public transit system. It is imperative that we have a thoughtful discussion based on a number of pillars. Yes, we need to take a look at our policies and our laws.

I want to commend the Minister of Justice for many of the reforms he has advanced to improve the administration of justice so that we can focus on serious offenders who do, in many instances, need to be separated from the community for protection. Also, I want to underline the work that he and our government are doing to address many of the systemic challenges that have led to overrepresentation in federal incarceration facilities, as well as provincially, when it comes to indigenous peoples and racialized Canadians. We cannot have these discussions in isolation.

I have grieved with families. I have grieved with the community of law enforcement officers who have lost five of their own. We owe it to them and to every single Canadian to make sure we are informing our discussion on the basis of principles that are underlined in the charter, but equally by the experiences of those who have suffered. It is in that spirit that I hope we can have this debate today.

My colleague, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, has spoken about an openness to receiving proposals with regard to the bail system. I have worked on the front lines of the criminal justice system. I have seen how these laws are applied in a very real, practical and tangible way. Even as we navigate the proposals being put forward by the various constituencies, including the law enforcement community, I hope all members will appreciate that there is no one cure-all for the challenges we face. We need to take a look at the entire suite of laws and policies, not only with regard to bail but also with regard to how we are tackling gun violence.

There is a bill currently being studied by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, Bill C-21, which would equip law enforcement with additional tools to tackle gun violence by raising maximum sentences against hard traffickers and by giving law enforcement additional surveillance tools to interdict the organized criminal networks that would seek to traffic illegally firearms that make their way into our country, potentially to be used in violent crime to terrorize our communities.

We also need to take a look at the other investments the government is making to support law enforcement in keeping our communities safe, including a $450-million allocation over the last few years for CBSA. That will enable law enforcement agencies to acquire the resources, the technology and the techniques that they need to build on the progress that they have made in the last two years where they have seized a record number of illegal firearms.

Beyond those investments, I do think it is important as well to talk about prevention. One of the challenges I find around the debate on public safety is that we place great emphasis on laws and policies. We talk about Bill C-21. We talk about the acts that have been passed, and led and shepherded by my colleague, the Minister of Justice. We talk about Bill C-75, which, by the way, was a piece of legislation aimed at addressing the systemic and chronic backlogs in our court system so we could focus on the most serious offenders who commit the most serious crimes and pose the most serious risk to public safety. That was the genesis of Bill C-75.

The purpose of Bill C‑75 was to reduce the case completion times.

To hear some colleagues from the Conservative Party mis-characterize that bill as catch-and-release legislation does a disservice to this debate. We do not need slogans; we need concrete solutions. I would submit to the chamber that this is precisely what the Minister of Justice and this government have been doing. I would also say the same thing with respect to Bill C-5.

We heard a colleague from the NDP point out that the last time the Conservative government had the reins of government, it introduced a number of policies that were reviewed and then struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada. We do not need a return to the failed policies and overreach, which detract and diminish from the independence of the judges to assess on the merits and based on the facts and circumstances of each offender who comes before them. What we need is a thoughtful, constitutional approach to this matter, and that was the point of Bill C-5. It was not to promote catch-and-release policies, which has been overly simplified and distilled. That may play well on YouTube or in social media, but, again, it does a disservice to the complexity of the challenges that are faced when it comes to keeping our community safe.

As we focus on laws and policies, we do not talk enough about the underlying root causes. We do not talk enough about the need to provide additional support for mental health care, homelessness and poverty. We do not talk enough about the need to provide additional skills, experience and confidence to those who are most at risk of being exposed to criminal elements, which I have seen across the country and in my own community.

When I had the chance to travel to James Smith Cree Nation and grieve with those families, community members told us that they knew their own, that they knew how to ensure they could take care of them and put them on the right footing. It is only through collaboration and partnership with those communities through initiatives like the building safer communities fund, a $250-million federal initiative that is administered out of Public Safety Canada, that we can start to address these challenges at the root cause so we can stop crime before it starts.

In the context of the debate we are having today, we need to put as much emphasis on looking at preventative strategies, which we can work together on to advance, to see crime come down. No matter which side of the debate we are on, no matter which party we belong, no matter which constituency we represent in the chamber, the one thing I am assured of is that all Canadians are unified behind the common cause of wanting to reduce gun crime, wanting to reduce any kind of violent crime, which may find its stem in the systemic challenges that I have discussed. We need to come together to have that debate and not resort to slogans, bumper stickers or any of the other catchy phrases that we heard in the to and fro of the heated debate in the chamber, but have an actual and thoughtful debate that is based on facts and constitutional principles. That is precisely what I hope we can do today.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would recommend to the hon. member that he reread not only the Supreme Court decision, but also Bill C-5. I realize the problem was the inflammation of rhetoric during the debate on Bill C-5. We did not remove all the minimum mandatory penalties with respect to those gun offences. We only did it in a very narrow band, and it mirrored exactly what the Supreme Court did.

We have been on this question for a long time, since at the very least the federal-provincial-territorial meeting of last October. As I mentioned in my speech, Bill C-75 basically reframed the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence that had evolved over previous years. It added reverse onuses with respect to intimate partner violence. There are some reverse onuses that already exist.

We are working with the provinces to find other ways to improve the law while remaining charter compliant. These discussions have been going on, particularly at a technical level with our experts. We are going to continue to do this.

We have a responsibility to do this. We have exercised that responsibility. We do not wait until inflammatory rhetoric drives us. We have been doing this for a long time in a prudent way in collaboration with our partners.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the hon. Minister of Public Safety.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to the important issue of bail and a possible reform in Canada. I know that Canadians are concerned about this issue. Making sure that our laws are effective and fair and that they protect Canadians is certainly a priority for my government.

First, I would like to express my condolences to the families of Constable Greg Pierzchala and Michael Finlay and Katie Nguyen Ngo, and of all victims of the disturbing incidents of violence across this country that we have seen in recent months. Each has been a personal tragedy and a blow to our communities.

Canada has a strong and effective criminal justice system, including its bail laws, but we all know that things could always be improved. Canadians deserve to be and to feel safe, and we have a role to play in protecting our communities. I want to reassure Canadians that, if someone poses a significant threat to public safety, the law tells us they should not be released on bail.

I am disappointed that the official opposition is using tragedies to try to score political points. Canadians know that these are serious and complicated issues, and there are no quick or easy solutions. That is why we have been working hard for months, in collaboration with our provincial and territorial counterparts, to find solutions that would ensure the long-term safety of our communities.

Canada is not broken, despite what the Leader of the Opposition would like people to think. Indeed, data from Toronto shows that between 2019 and 2021, there was a decrease, both in the percentage of individuals granted bail and the number of people rearrested while on bail.

That being said, our government is always looking for ways to improve public safety and the efficiency of our justice system. At the federal-provincial-territorial meeting in October, the Minister of Public Safety and I committed to continue working with our counterparts on the issue of bail. This work is well under way. We also received a letter from the premiers about bail and we are carefully reviewing their proposals and other options.

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of meeting with my B.C. counterpart, Minister Sharma. Minister Sharma and I agreed that the best way to address the complicated issue of bail reform is by working together. I am hopeful that all of my provincial and territorial counterparts will agree.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation out there on the old Bill C-75. Bill C-75 is the result of a lengthy collaborative effort with the provinces and territories. It codified the bail principles set out in binding Supreme Court of Canada rulings.

I want to reiterate that Bill C-75 did not make any fundamental changes to the bail system. It did not change the criteria under which an accused can be released by the court. On the contrary, Bill C-75 made it harder to get bail for certain offences, such as violence against intimate partners, by reversing the onus of proof.

I trust that the hon. member for Fundy Royal will also be reassured to learn that there is already a reverse onus where an accused subject to a weapons prohibition is charged with a firearms offence, exactly as his motion calls for. That means the accused would be denied bail unless they can prove to the court that their release would not pose a significant risk to public safety or undermine the public's confidence.

I also know the hon. member for Fundy Royal well enough to be sure he was not deliberately trying to mislead the House on the recent Supreme Court decision, which actually confirmed everything we did in Bill C-5. The minimum mandatory penalty we struck down, the court struck down as unconstitutional, and the minimum mandatory penalties we chose to retain in that bill have been upheld by the court. I would suggest the member read the Supreme Court decision a bit more closely.

One of the calls in the letter from the premiers is to establish a reverse onus for additional offences. I can assure the House that I am giving this serious consideration, and the work is well under way. We have also heard calls for law enforcement reform. I am grateful for their recommendations based on frontline experience. Work is under way to develop legislative and non-legislative options to address the particular challenges of repeat violent offenders.

We also know that it will take more than a legislative reform to completely fix this problem. The police need the necessary resources to monitor offenders who are out on bail and to arrest those who breach their release conditions.

We have already provided significant funding and we are open to providing more where it is needed. There has to be support and care for mental health, as well as for addictions treatment. There needs to be a social safety net. The previous government cut social programs and now we are seeing the very real and serious consequences of those cuts. As a government, we have made unprecedented investments in mental health, including $5 billion for the provinces and territories to increase access to care.

I commend our partners in B.C. for the action they took on bail in November as part of their safe communities action plan. I encourage all provinces to use the many existing tools at their disposal to ensure bail laws are applied safely, fairly and effectively. Yesterday I was happy to see the Premier of Ontario commit to action in this space, and I will reach out to my counterpart in coming days to discuss how we can collaborate.

Addressing the particular challenges posed by repeat violent offenders requires a comprehensive approach that crosses jurisdictions and levels of government. We will be acting at the federal level, and I hope my provincial counterparts will do the same. The only way to solve this problem is by working together. To this end, as has been planned since our last meeting in October, in the coming days I will be reaching out to justice and public safety counterparts to convene an urgent FPT meeting to continue our important work on bail.

I am hopeful that together we can review the product of months of joint work by federal and provincial officials and agree on a comprehensive path forward.

We know there is no easy solution to such a complex problem. We strongly believe that we need to protect Canadians.

At the same time, we must ensure that any measures taken will not exacerbate the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples and Black and racialized Canadians in our jails. We must not further marginalize vulnerable people, including those struggling with mental health issues and addiction, and we must also ensure that everything we do is compliant with the charter.

I look forward to sincere debate in this House today, and I will happily take any good-faith suggestions made by members of Parliament. I discourage members from wasting this opportunity with empty rhetoric designed to inflame the fears of Canadians. Let us debate real solutions and focus our energy on offering ideas for how the system can be changed to better keep Canadians safe while respecting our fundamental rights and values.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the facts do not back up my colleague's assertion. Bill C-75 enshrines in law the principle that the least onerous provision possible has to be put in place for offenders. That means that the onus is on the prosecution to show why a less onerous provision would not be appropriate, which has resulted in a broken bail system.

Members do not have to take my word for it. We are on opposite sides of the House here. However, they should listen to the 13 premiers from their own provinces. The Ontario Provincial Police and the Toronto police are saying the same thing. They are all laying the blame on Bill C-75. They are saying it is easier for repeat violent offenders who commit gun crimes, since Bill C-75 passed, entrenching this in law, to get bail. The results are in. Individuals who are out on bail are committing murders. Over half the murders in Toronto are committed by individuals out on bail. What more evidence do we need to see?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to Bill C-75, I just want to make something absolutely clear. Bill C-75 imposed a reverse onus on those who are charged to prove they should be released. It is a very important tool in the criminal justice system. It is one that imposes an onus on the individual to prove that they should be released, whereas in most cases it is a presumptive release.

Can my friend opposite outline what change he would make to Bill C-75 that would undo this, or is he asking that we strengthen this? I am not clear on where he is going with this. As is, Bill C-75 did strengthen bail and it made our communities stronger. I think my friend opposite is misleading us in that regard.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on what is a very important and pressing issue in our country today.

Our justice system under the Liberals is broken. Everybody knows it. All 13 premiers have gotten together to demand change. Our bail system is the responsibility of the federal government. Those provisions are in the Criminal Code. It is this Parliament that has jurisdiction over the Criminal Code. Our bail system is badly broken.

Some of the recent stats that we have seen out of Toronto will absolutely amaze members. We have heard from police associations across the country. We have heard from the Ontario Provincial Police. We have heard from the Toronto police. We have heard from police officers, and my fellow members have probably heard in their own ridings, about the dangers of our current catch-and-release bail system: the same individuals being caught for a crime and being let back on the street.

In Toronto, and I find this amazing, there were 44 shooting-related homicides last year. Of those 44 perpetrators, the accused, 24 were on bail. Our system is broken. That stat alone will tell us that our system is badly broken, when over half of the homicides in Toronto are committed by people on bail. There are people walking the streets in our community whom we had in custody. The police did their job. They caught them after committing a crime. They charged them, but because of a broken Liberal bail system, they are back out on the street.

This other one, again, amazes me, from the Toronto police: In 2021, 47 individuals were let out on bail. Who are these 47 individuals? They were individuals who were arrested for a firearms offence but were given bail. They committed a firearms offence, but now they are out on the street. They were re-arrested for another firearms offence, and 47 of them were given bail again, given bail twice for firearms offences. The system is broken.

Now we look at the tragic death of a police officer that has galvanized police organizations and has galvanized the premiers, every premier in our country. As my colleague just said, it is hard to get multiple parties from multiple provinces, different premiers, to all agree on something. We do not expect, in Canada, that we would all agree on something, but every single premier in this country, of every province and every territory, agrees that we need bail reform. They are saying that repeat violent offenders who commit gun crimes should not be let out on the street. That is not too much to ask.

Two days after Christmas, a young police officer was gunned down by an individual who was on bail, an individual who had a lifetime firearms prohibition order against him. If someone with a lifetime firearms prohibition commits a firearms-related offence and we cannot keep them in custody, the system is badly broken.

Who broke the system? It was the Liberals. In 2019, Bill C-75 made it far more difficult for offenders who should be behind bars to be kept behind bars. Bill C-75 was a sweeping bail reform by the Liberal government that established a catch-and-release system that ensured that even repeat violent offenders who use guns to commit their crimes would be back out on the street.

It gets worse. The Liberals like to say that the Conservatives' “tough on crime” does not work. The fact of the matter is that it does work. Violent crime went down when we were in government. What is happening with crime now? Crime is up 32% in Canada since the Liberals took government. Gang-related crime and gang-related homicides nearly doubled since the Liberals took government, less than eight years ago. To lay this at the feet of the Liberals is entirely appropriate. It is their system.

What does Bill C-5 do? It removes mandatory minimum sentences for crimes like extortion with a firearm, robbery with a firearm and for drive-by shootings. It allows house arrest for individuals who burn down homes, arsonists. They burn down someone else's house, but they get to serve their sentence from the comfort of their own house. Those who commit sexual assault are now able to serve their sentence from their home and possibly in the same community as their victim.

When we say the Liberal justice system is broken, it absolutely is. Liberals will often talk about the tough-on-crime approach of the Conservatives. If someone is a repeat offender and commits robbery with a firearm in this country, if someone walks into a store or into someone's home with a firearm and robs them, they do not need to be out on the street. They need to be in jail.

It is not helping anyone. We are not helping the victims. We are not helping our communities. We are not even helping the offender. How does putting an offender back on the street help them? Under the Conservatives, if someone committed robbery with a firearm, they went to jail for a minimum of four years.

Under Bill C-5, which recently passed into law, the Liberal Bill C-5 that is soft on crime, there is no longer a mandatory jail sentence for committing a robbery with a firearm. There is something interesting I heard the justice minister say many times. He said that tough on crime is not constitutional.

Less than a week ago, just yards from here, the Supreme Court of Canada said the mandatory penalty of four years for robbery with a firearm is constitutional. It was a seven-to-two decision. The Supreme Court of Canada said that a mandatory penalty of five years for robbery with a prohibited weapon is constitutional. What a surprise. That was a seven-to-two decision. Those were two separate cases.

Soft on crime does not work. Canadians know it. Conservatives know it. Premiers of all political stripes know it. The only people in this country who like this approach would be the Liberals and repeat offenders. That is poor company to keep.

We have to take action on behalf of victims. I do not know how we can look a victim's family in the eyes and say the system does work. Then we say that the person who was out on bail for a firearms crime, who had a lifetime firearms prohibition, was able to murder their loved one and the system is working. The system is not working.

We need strong changes. We need to repeal Bill C-5. We need to that ensure if someone robs another with a firearm they go to jail. We need to ensure that if someone burns someone's house down or commits sexual assault, they are not serving their sentence from the comfort of their own home. We need to ensure that a repeat firearms offender serves their time in jail.

We need to make sure that when the police catch someone who has a firearms prohibition order and who has committed another firearms-related crime, like a drive-by shooting or robbery with a firearm, it is not too high a bar to meet to say that while that person is awaiting trial, for the safety of the victims, the community and our frontline police officers, they are going to be held behind bars.

That is appropriate. It is reasonable. It is what all premiers are calling for. It is what the police are calling for. It is what Canadians are calling for. Unfortunately, for three days in a row, we have asked the government, in good faith, to do something and correct the mistake it made. Will it change the bail laws so individuals, who should absolutely not be roaming our streets, committing crimes and murdering people, are held behind bars? It is crickets over there.

The Liberals said if the opposition wants to come up with something, they will consider it. They are almost victim blaming by saying the police and the provinces have a role. No, the Criminal Code is their job. We are calling on them and demanding that they do something to reform our broken Liberal bail system. They have to do it today.

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

moved:

That, given that, after eight years of this government's soft on crime policies,

(i) violent crime has increased by 32%,

(ii) gang-related homicides have increased by 92%,

(iii) violent, repeat offenders are obtaining bail much more easily,

(iv) increasing daily acts of crime and violence are putting Canadians at risk,

(v) five Canadian police officers were killed in the line of duty in just one year,

the House call on the government to enact policies that prioritize the rights of victims and law-abiding citizens, namely:

(a) fix Canada's broken bail system by immediately repealing the elements enacted by 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, which force judges to release violent, repeat offenders onto the streets, allowing them to reoffend;

(b) strengthen Canada's bail laws so that those who are prohibited from possessing firearms and who are then accused of serious firearms offences do not easily get bail; and

(c) ensure that Canada's justice system puts the rights of law-abiding Canadians ahead of the rights of violent, repeat offenders.

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

There are two reasons we are here today talking about bail reform and violent crime.

The first reason is that Canadians across the country are growing increasingly alarmed by the violent crime wave impacting every major community and our rural communities across the country. Canadians are waking up every day to headlines of violent crime, police officers being murdered and people being murdered on public transit. That is why we are here. We hear their concerns and are here to represent them and demand change.

The second reason we are here today is to demand change from the Liberals, which have done absolutely nothing to address the violent crime surge in this country. They have taken no responsibility. They have made no commitments to Canadians that they are taking this seriously and will do anything about it. They have brought forward no new ideas on how to address the need for immediate bail reform in this country, address the violent crime surge in this country and address the repeat violent offenders who are being caught and released by police over and over again and who are wreaking havoc on our communities on a daily basis.

That is why we are here today. We want to talk about bail reform and crime for our Conservative opposition day motion, which was just outlined.

What I would say to Canadians is that it is not just in their heads that violent crime is going up. It is going up. In fact, it is up 32% in the last eight years under the Liberal Prime Minister. More than that, gang murders have almost doubled. They have gone up 92% in the eight years that the Liberal Prime Minister has been at the helm.

We have also seen, as I mentioned earlier, that police officers are being murdered on the job. There were five in the last number of months, particularly over the holidays. A young new constable in the Ontario police, Greg Pierzchala, was murdered by a violent repeat offender who was out on bail. He was shot and murdered by that man. That man also had a weapons prohibition order. He was deemed too dangerous to possess a firearm by our law system and had a long rap sheet of harming people in his community. This repeat violent offender was let out on bail, and then he murdered a young, innocent police officer over the holidays. That story, unfortunately, is becoming less and less unique in this country.

This is not just happening in Toronto. Of course, folks from Toronto will know better than I do that public transit is becoming less and less safe. In fact, increasingly, women are concerned about riding the subway because people are being murdered. There are teenagers swarming people and stabbing them to death. People are being lit on fire. People are being assaulted and pushed to the ground. We just saw a CBC reporter get assaulted and die. Four days earlier, an elderly woman had the same thing happen in Toronto. They were just walking down the street minding their own business and were murdered.

In Vancouver, the community is facing serious drug issues, with people face down in the street overdosing. It is horrible. I think everyone agrees that we need immediate action on that. We are also seeing terror inflicted on that community, on the most vulnerable communities and in Vancouver at large by a very small group of people. In fact, last year, 40 people were arrested 6,000 times. That means each of those 40 people was arrested 150 times in one calendar year. That is every two or three days, or sometimes multiple times a day. Police say they are sometimes arresting the same person committing violent acts twice in one day. Forty people were arrested 6,000 times. I think that is astounding, so I will keep repeating it. What kind of justice system do we have if 40 people can wreak havoc and commit 6,000 crimes in one year?

The bail system is broken in this country, and it is not just the Conservatives saying this. The Conservatives have been saying we need bail reform for quite some time, but it is also a non-partisan issue. It is also said by every single premier in Canada. It is all three premiers of the territories and all 10 premiers of the provinces, representing Conservatives, the NDP and Liberals. This is a non-partisan issue.

They all signed a historic letter to the Prime Minister in the last couple of weeks demanding bail reform. Do members know how difficult it is to get every region of the country to sign on to one letter and agree on a specific policy? It is pretty rare and very difficult, and they did that on their own volition. They came together, signed the letter and demanded bail reform from the Prime Minister. One would think we would have heard the Prime Minister call a press conference and say he is going to do something about this as every region in the country is concerned about it, but there were crickets. Nothing is happening on the Liberal benches.

Liberals have made no announcement and no commitment to bring in bail reform. When we have asked questions in question period, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the man tasked with the responsibility for the Criminal Code, says that is on police and provinces, blaming police and provinces for the issues in this country.

The minister says they are open to ideas. There is an idea right here from the premiers, every single premier in this country, in fact, and more ideas, if the Liberals would like them, from the Toronto police, the epicentre of violent crime in this country. The Toronto police penned a letter, on their own, to the Prime Minister of this country proposing three measures concerning bail. In fact, police associations across the country and municipal police forces are saying bail reform will save lives. That is what police are saying. Those are the frontline people putting their lives at risk for community safety, the ones dealing with violent repeat offenders, saying that we need bail reform and Canadian lives will be saved.

The data tells us that as well. I recently heard from Chief Myron Demkiw of the Toronto police, who said there were 44 murders by shooting in Toronto last year, 44 innocent lives taken by violent criminals using guns. Of those 44 murderers, 24 were out on bail. If our bail system was a little tougher on repeat violent offenders, 24 people would still be alive. Therefore, the data shows that the police are correct that bail reform would save lives, and yet there is nothing from the Liberal benches. They are not taking this seriously. They are taking no responsibility, and people are dying. I do not understand it. They are tasked with public safety.

The Minister of Public Safety spent the better part of January touring the country and talking to hunters about taking away the tools they use because the Liberals are getting tough on guns, as they say, gun control, on duck hunters, farmers and sport shooters. He spent considerable time and resources going to talk to hunters about taking their firearms away. Meanwhile, police officers are being murdered in Toronto. People are being murdered on the subway. Why was the public safety minister of Canada not touring our cities to talk to police about what they are facing on a daily basis? Where are the time and resources on that?

This is a Liberal government that is going to spend billions and billions of dollars going after people like me, people on these benches who have firearms legally and lawfully, who hunt and shoot with their families. That is what the Liberals are focused on. That is what all the resources are being focused on by the Liberal government when it comes to guns, for the most part. Meanwhile, people are being murdered by repeat violent offenders who continue to get bail. That falls at the feet of the Liberal government.

We can look at Bill C-75, a bail reform bill the Liberals brought forward a few years ago. When we talk to police, all those changes in policies that made it easier for repeat violent offenders to get bail are coming home to roost now. That is what we are hearing from the brave frontline police officers in this country.

We need to repeal the most harmful aspects of Bill C-75. That would be leadership from the Prime Minister: to get tough on crime, tough on the 40 people being arrested 6,000 times for violent crime in Vancouver, and ensure that we save 24 people in Toronto next year. The statistics are about the same every year in Toronto: Over half of the shooting murders are by people who are out on bail. Let us save those lives next year. That could be done in the next few months. That could be announced today by the Liberal government.

To conclude, the Conservatives have a tough-on-crime record. In fact, under Stephen Harper, in the 10 years he was Prime Minister, crime went down 26%. They brought forward 80 criminal justice bills. It was a top priority for Stephen Harper. In the eight years that the Liberal Prime Minister has been at the helm and in power in this country, violent crime reversed and went up 32%. There is a clear difference in approach to dealing with crime, and a Conservative government will be the one to save lives in Canada, get tough on crime, treat law-abiding citizens with respect, put victims' rights first and ensure that repeat violent offenders stay off our streets.

Justice

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, violent crime is rising because of the actions of this Liberal government. Under eight years of the Prime Minister, Canada has become a more dangerous place. Police are putting the blame on Liberal Bill C-75 that mandated judges to grant bail to dangerous repeat offenders with minimal conditions. The consequences of this have been fatal.

When will the Prime Minister finally take responsibility for his failure to protect Canadians and apologize to the victims of his reckless legislation?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, in a number of important cases, the bail reform that we undertook in Bill C-75 made it harder to get bail. As I have said, we are open to any good proposal from the opposition, as well as from provinces and territories.

At a conference of federal, provincial and territorial justice ministers in the fall, I committed to that long before this became a hot issue in the House of Commons. We are working with the provinces and territories to look at legitimate suggestions for bail reform.

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

Mr. Speaker, last month, the OPP's Constable Greg Pierzchala was murdered by a violent criminal out on bail. Chief Myron Demkiw of the Toronto police said that this murder was senseless and preventable and that Canada needs bail reform. Unfortunately, access to bail for violent criminals was made easier by the Liberal government's Bill C-75. Countless Canadians have been harmed by the Liberal bail system; it must be reformed.

Will the Liberal government make that commitment today?

Criminal Code

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity today to speak to this legislation. I would like to start by recognizing the sponsors of the bill, the Hon. Senator Ataullahjan from the other House and our member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, for the leadership that they have shown on this important issue. I want to thank them, and it is encouraging to see a bill brought forward that can be supported across all party lines and in both Houses. I am excited to see this legislation come to fruition.

I will begin with how we view the human body, and the dignity and worth that we assign to that human body. My faith teaches me that every human being is created in the image of God and that there is sanctity and a sacredness to human life, including the physical body. That is why, unlike so many other ancient civilizations or religions, those who follow and have followed Christianity, Judaism or Islam have historically practised burial rather than cremation. There is the belief that, even after death, the human body remains important. Christianity and even some branches of Judaism teach that the body will one day be resurrected and transformed. As such, the body is of value and must be treated with care and respect, even after death.

If the human body is viewed as important, worthy of care and dignity, and sacred even in death, how much more should it be treated as sacrosanct while the human person is alive? Even those who reject the tenets of the three Abrahamic faiths would agree that the body after death should be treated with dignity. In fact, here in Canada we have laws that relate specifically to the handling of a human body after death. Section 182 of the Criminal Code of Canada makes it a criminal offence to improperly or indecently interfere with or offer any indignity to a dead human body, and there are similar laws around the globe. Why? It is because as humans we recognize there is a sacredness to humanity, including the physical body. Again, if treated with such dignity and reverence after death, how much more so while still alive?

For those who prefer a more humanistic argument, I would point the House toward Immanuel Kant and his piece, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, in which he casts the innate dignity of every human being as a categorical imperative. If we follow Kant, we must recognize that when a human organ becomes a commodity, a monetary value is placed on that organ. By assigning a monetary value to the organ, we essentially assign a monetary value to the individual who provided it. I am quite confident that we all agree with Kant, in this aspect, that putting a price on any part of a human being violates his or her intrinsic dignity.

Moreover, the removal of organs by force, under coercion or with consent, violates another Kantian principle: that of bodily autonomy. We hear a lot about bodily autonomy. We hear very different perspectives on what that entails, but there is a near-universal belief, at least in the western democracies, that what happens in an individual's body should be the sole purview of that individual or, in the case of young children, of their parents. Sadly, there are still individuals, criminal organizations and even some governments who refuse to respect the sanctity of the body.

No country officially endorses the practice of organ trafficking, but many turn a blind eye to this dehumanizing and often dangerous practice. In some cases, individuals, often those who live in poverty, sell their organs. In others, organs are obtained without the consent of a donor. An example of this would be what is happening in China with political prisoners, particularly people of faith. Again and again we have raised the plight of the Uighurs, practitioners of Falun Gong and Christians.

There have been many petitions presented in this House to that effect, with respect to individual groups who have been persecuted by China's brutal regime. Organ harvesting of these religious minorities by China is well documented. Typically, these extractions and the transplants themselves take place outside of national medical systems, so even assuming the donor is kept alive, which is never a guarantee, there is a high risk associated with the extraction and implantation of these organs, and as such these practices violate the sanctity and dignity of the human person. Therefore, we can all agree that human life is precious, and the body and the organs therein are worthy of the protection this legislation seeks to provide.

I am pleased that we are standing up for the value of human life. I wish we would also have the courage to show a similar concern and do what the Supreme Court of Canada instructed Parliament to do three decades ago, and finally enact legal protection for the preborn child in the womb. It is time we acted.

I am in favour of the bill's crackdown on foreign nationals who have been involved in organ trafficking attempting to come to Canada. I think that is good. It is high time that we crack down on who is allowed to come to Canada and who is not. However, I think that we need to be careful to differentiate between those who have been involved as traffickers and those who the traffickers may have exploited. If an individual has been involved in trafficking proper, that is, if they have facilitated or received monetary benefit from facilitating the illegal trafficking of organs, like those who traffic in drugs or slaves, that individual should not be admissible to Canada.

As an aside, I think it is reprehensible and hypocritical that the current government, even though it is supporting the legislation, also brought forward Bill C-75, which lowered the penalties for those involved in profiting from human trafficking. It is frankly absurd, and I hope some of the members on the opposite side see the disconnect, but any foreign nationals who traffic or profit from trafficking in human organs should not be admissible to Canada.

That said, as I read this legislation, I think that there should be a clear enough differentiation between traffickers and those who have willingly donated their own organs.

I am also a bit concerned about the first part of proposed subsection 4.2, where it says, “a person who commits an act or omission outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would be an offence under section 240.?1 is deemed to commit that act or omission in Canada”. As far as it relates to this piece of legislation, I think it is good, but I understand and I have to admit that I do struggle a little with that portion for a couple of reasons. The first is that other countries are not Canada, and every country around the globe has its own laws and legal systems. In the same way that we would expect those who come to Canada to respect our laws, we also need to be willing to respect the laws of other countries.

I know there are good counter-arguments to that point. Many of them are excellent reasonable arguments, but I think that something needs to be said where we respect other jurisdictions.

I would like to reiterate again that I am happy we are having this discussion. I would like to see that handful of concerns addressed, but overall I am pleased to be supporting this legislation. Our party is pleased to support it.

I want to again thank the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and Senator Ataullahjan for their hard work on this file. I am looking forward to supporting it.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make other related amendments. While I have much to say on this bill, I want to briefly talk about some the failures of the Liberal government on crime in general and crime specifically.

Rural crime is a serious issue, and one that has been ignored by the Liberal government for far too long. In my area, in Haliburton County for example, incidents increased from 526 back in 2017 to 758 in 2021. Police are now trying to keep up with more people charged than in any of the previous four years.

The crime severity index, or CSI, is a measure of police-reported crime in which more serious crimes are given a higher weight in the overall measurement of all crimes. The index provides a picture of regional crime trends. In the case of Kawartha Lakes, specifically in Lindsay, the picture is not as good. Like Haliburton County, the CSI numbers for Lindsay in 2021 showed a significant increase compared to previous years. Lindsay's overall CSI was 93.1 last year, which is a jump of more than 20% over 2020, and is significantly higher than the country's CSI of 73.7 and nearly double the province's CSI of 56.21 for the same period.

Kawartha Lakes Police Service Chief Mark Mitchell described the increase as “death by 1,000 cuts”, referring to the lack of murders but an overall increase in other non-violent crimes. He further added, “Our calls for service were up 20% in 2021, our criminal charges were up 25%, break and enters, frauds were all significantly higher, and our theft charges were up 80% compared to the year before and the current year.”

I have spoken with residents who are afraid to walk in their community. They are afraid to basically be inside their own homes. They are frustrated and angry. These concerns came to a boiling point about a year ago at a community meeting I attended that was hosted by the Kawartha Lakes Police Service.

At the meeting, residents learned that the Ross Memorial Hospital's mental health program had already received roughly 1,700 referrals just this year. Concerns were raised about the impact the Central East Correctional Centre is having on the community. The John Howard Society noted the challenge given the number of those who have come to the area to support the incarcerated and those who are released into the community on their own recognizance, bail or after completing their sentence.

The Kawartha Lakes Police Service is doing everything it can, but the government is sadly making its job harder. While it was distressing to hear the first-hand stories shared by many in attendance, it was evident to me that Canada's justice system has failed those law-abiding citizens. Lindsay resident Al Hussey raised concerns about the victims of crime, asking, “When does the support start flowing to us?” He was speaking of the victims of crime such as the residents living next to known drug houses, the business and property owners who are being robbed and the people who are afraid to walk near certain areas of town.

It is true a small number of people are creating a disproportionate amount of work for our law enforcement agencies, the court system, social services and not-for-profit organizations. However, those who continually refuse help and continue to reoffend should not be repeatedly returned to the streets in a revolving door justice system.

A big part of this is linked to the passage of Bill C-75. In 2017, the Liberal government's legislation watered down penalties for over 100 serious crimes, including the use of date rape drugs, human trafficking and impaired driving causing bodily harm. Sadly, the government severely underestimated the heartbreaking impact this decision would have on individuals, communities and families. It is unacceptable that taxpayers are once again being forced to pay more while at the same time receiving a lower quality of life.

Police officers I speak with say that Bill C-75 is the root of much of the issue regarding the catch and release bail concepts through the ladder principle, a principle that instructs justice system actors to release the accused at the earliest opportunity under the least restrictive conditions.

I firmly believe that serious crimes deserve serious penalties. Most importantly, the law should always put the rights of victims and law-abiding citizens above dangerous or reoffending criminals.

It is clear that Bill C-75 has hurt our community. To that end, I recognize that federal lawmakers must make bold changes to our criminal justice system. New methods, such as restorative justice, should be expanded, especially for those who show a desire to be rehabilitated and released as productive members of our society.

This brings me to Bill S-4. It may come as no surprise to anyone listening that the first thing I looked at was how much this bill would impact crime in the communities I represent and how it would impact those victims of crimes. The impetus for this bill is born from the increasing backlog facing the court system here in Canada. I believe we all have stories about that.

The judicial system has been facing a series of delays in cases proceeding to trial, which has been exacerbated by COVID. This is not lost on us here in the official opposition. We have continuously raised concerns about the delays and the potential for criminals to walk free due to the Supreme Court's Jordan decision, which said that no more than 18 months can pass between laying a charge and the end of the trial case in provincial courts or 30 months for cases in superior courts. We have raised our concerns in the House and in the media.

It was the Conservatives who called for a study into the impacts of COVID–19 on the judicial system at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Now Bill S-4 hopes to alleviate this backlog through several initiatives. It will amend the process for peace officers to obtain warrants without appearing in person, will expand the provisions to fingerprint the accused later should fingerprints not previously have been taken at the time of arrest, and will allow the courts to deal with administrative matters for accused persons not represented by lawyers.

Of these provisions I have no issue. Anything to move the process along that does not diminish the rights of the accused persons or victims or brings the justice system into disrepute is a good thing. I expect that these initiatives will be thoroughly examined at committee and perhaps even acted on.

However, I do have concerns, perhaps cautions is a better word, with the remaining provisions in the legislation, particularly around the expansion of the accused's ability to appear remotely by audio or video conference and to allow the participation of prospective jurors in the jury selection process by video conference. I would caution the members at committee to pay particular attention to the rights of victims and those citizens who are doing their duty as jurors.

We must ensure that the anonymity of jurors is protected. Technology has come a long way and the risk that recognition software might compromise jurors and risk the integrity of the trial is a real concern.

We must also take into consideration the impact of the expansion of telecommunication options, particularly when allowing accused persons to call in using a phone, which may impact the healing process for victims and their families. The bill will permit an offender to appear remotely for sentencing purposes. This measure would require the consent of the criminal prosecutor. The court would also weigh the rights of the offender to have a fair public hearing.

Nowhere is the victim asked or required to consent to the offender being allowed to call in for his or her sentence. The balance of rights in the court process is already heavily weighted in favour of the accused and I am afraid that Bill S-4 tips the scale even further.

That reminds me of another failure of the Liberal government, which is the delay in the filling of long vacancies, such as the federal ombudsman for victims of crime. Without that person in place, Bill S-4 will not be critically analyzed by a key advocate for victims to advise on how the bill will impact victims of crime.

Conservatives remain steadfast in our commitment to victims of crime and will ensure that legislation like Bill S-4 helps victims and their families in their pursuit of justice. We will stand up for law-abiding Canadians to ensure communities remain safe places to live and that delays in the court process do not allow criminals to walk free.

With that, I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is wonderful to be here this afternoon and rise to speak on Bill S-4, a bill that demonstrates co-operation on a jurisdictional basis with the provinces, and a bill that moves our justice system forward so Canadians know our justice system is accessible, efficient and effective, and provides true access to justice for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. It is with much pleasure that I rise to speak to the bill.

I am pleased to be here and to have the opportunity to provide an overview of some of the key areas of reform proposed in Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other acts.

Informed by federal, provincial and territorial dialogue and key stakeholder input, the proposed amendments are intended to mitigate the impact of court delays on accused persons and on victims by supporting the efficient and effective operation of the criminal courts during and in the aftermath of the pandemic. They are designed to enhance the courts' ability to ensure that their operations respect both public health concerns for all participants in the criminal justice system and the charter rights of accused persons to be tried within a reasonable time in order to maintain public confidence in our justice system.

The proposed amendments are based on the following criteria: One, they were critical to increasing the efficiency of the criminal justice system during the conditions of the pandemic; two, they address the current impediments to efficiency in the Criminal Code; three, they would have little or no prejudicial impact on accused persons; four, they are likely to receive broad-based parliamentary support; and five, they would result in amendments to the Criminal Code that would continue to provide efficiencies post pandemic.

The pandemic significantly impacted the operation of the criminal courts in Canada, as we all know, with courts either temporarily closing or severely restricting their operations due to public health orders. Furthermore, the pandemic exposed weaknesses in our criminal court system that can be fixed by providing remote access to proceedings under special circumstances. Bill S-4 would go beyond correcting for issues discovered during the pandemic and would make the justice process in Canada more efficient and accessible.

Bill S-4 addresses issues that the COVID-19 pandemic has brought to light regarding the ways in which criminal trials are conducted in this country. It also builds on past government initiatives, including Bill C-75 from a previous Parliament, which came into force in 2019 and made significant progress in modernizing our criminal justice system, including by facilitating the appearance of accused persons, lawyers and judges by audio or video conference throughout the criminal justice process.

Criminal justice is an area of shared jurisdiction, and co-operation with provincial and territorial partners is key. Parliament has exclusive authority to enact criminal law, including criminal procedure. Provinces and territories have jurisdiction over the administration of justice, including criminal courts.

While the courts and criminal justice professionals are, for the most part, managing to maintain essential services in the criminal justice process during the pandemic, accused persons, offenders, victims and witnesses are nonetheless being impacted by delays.

While many challenges facing the criminal courts have been operational in nature, some have arisen due to legislative impediments in the Criminal Code. Consequently, the pandemic has revealed the need for a number of amendments to the Criminal Code to provide clarity to the courts on issues that have arisen and to make the criminal process more efficient and effective by expanding the permissible use of technology during the pandemic, for the recuperation period and beyond. These proposed reforms are for the benefit of all participants in the criminal justice system.

Bill S-4 would modernize our criminal justice system by employing video conference and audio conference technology to accommodate for pandemic-era challenges, and it would equip our courts to handle similar challenges that may arise in the future. Furthermore, we would improve all Canadians' access to justice.

The bill would not change the principle that all persons involved in the criminal justice process must physically appear in person unless otherwise authorized under the Criminal Code. Courts will still have discretion in this area. However, this bill would ensure that the judicial process is not unduly stalled, by permitting remote conference options under extenuating circumstances.

Canadians deserve a justice system that is accessible, efficient and effective, and that provides true access to justice for all. The pandemic has taught us that technology can help make the justice system work better for all people who come in contact with it. Bill S-4 proposes a range of reforms that will make court proceedings more flexible while protecting the rights of all participants.

The reforms proposed in Bill S-4 flow from the important work of the Action Committee on Court Operations in Response to COVID-19, co-chaired by the Minister of Justice and Chief Justice Richard Wagner. They are also informed by important contributions from the provinces and territories, as well as other justice system stakeholders. With Bill S-4, we have the opportunity to improve our justice system by making those good ideas permanent.

Since March 2020, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada has engaged regularly on the impacts of the pandemic on criminal courts with provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice and public safety. The proposed amendments take into consideration input received from provinces, territories and other key stakeholders.

In addition, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada has continued to be kept apprised of the challenges faced by courts across Canada in his role as co-chair of the Action Committee on Court Operations in Response to COVID-19. These discussions have all informed the proposed changes introduced in the bill.

A more efficient justice system will benefit all Canadians. I ask that all members of this House support the quick passage of the bill. I believe Bill S-4 helps transform and modernize our criminal justice system while ensuring respect for all persons involved in the criminal court process, including accused persons and prospective jurors.

I am confident Bill S-4 and the proposed reforms will improve our criminal justice system while facilitating careful oversight by the courts to ensure that the rights of accused persons and offenders are protected.

The gist of this bill, its main purpose, is that Canadians deserve a justice system that is accessible, efficient and effective, and that provides access to justice for all. I thank everyone for allowing me the time to speak on a very important bill for all Canadians.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill does not cover everything. That is another complaint from the Barreau du Québec: There should be an in-depth review of the criminal and penal system, rather than doing it bit by bit.

In the previous Parliament, the House considered Bill C‑23, which is a previous incarnation. Before that, there were bills C‑75 and C‑5. The Criminal Code is always reviewed piecemeal, turning it into a massive, inscrutable tome with sections that refer three sections ahead and eight sections back and a bunch of case law to help understand what is going on. It is impossible to make heads or tails of.

I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of a more comprehensive review of the Criminal Code. On the issue of connectivity, yes, adding more telecommunications may be a good idea, but it will not apply everywhere, unfortunately.

As for legal aid, even though it is not under federal jurisdiction, I think there is always room for discussion, because there are disparities between the provinces.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Edmonton Strathcona.

I am pleased today to have an opportunity to speak to Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other acts on the COVID-19 response and other measures. This bill would increase our justice system's efficiency and ensure that all Canadians have equal access.

The COVID-19 pandemic altered our everyday lives, including necessitating new ways of accessing the criminal justice system. The solutions invented to accommodate our circumstances proved efficient and should be used going forward to optimize the ways in which criminal trials are conducted in Canada. This bill's proposed amendments support the increased use of technology in criminal courts across Canada. This has a variety of applications, such as the use of technology in the jury selection process, remote participation of prospective jurors and remote appearances for accused persons and offenders.

I want to focus first on the amendments relating to the jury selection process. The amendments would enable a court to allow or require prospective jurors to participate by video conference so long as the court considers it appropriate and the accused person and Crown prosecutor consent to the jury selection process occurring this way. When a court allows prospective jurors to participate by video conference, it will be an individual's choice whether they want to participate in person or remotely.

Importantly, Bill S-4 accompanies the government's efforts to increase remote Internet access across our country and close the digital divide. However, while we work toward efficient Canada-wide Internet access, there are measures in place to help individuals who may not have optimal connection. When the court requires prospective jurors to participate in the jury selection process by video conference, it would need to approve a location equipped with the technological infrastructure for them to participate by those means, such as a community centre or courtroom set up with the requisite equipment.

If the court does not approve such a location, it will only be able to permit prospective jurors to participate by video conference from other locations, such their homes or offices, if they choose to participate that way. However, in this case, the court would also need to provide the option for prospective jurors to participate in the jury selection process in person.

These amendments would help our jury system represent the face of Canada. Increased representativeness would be ensured by first reducing the barrier of attending in person. Prospective jurors living in rural or remote areas would enjoy minimized travel time and costs, and those who need to find child care or who hold precarious employment would experience reduced time required to find alternative child care or time needed off work. It would also reduce emissions, I will add.

Second, the changes would ensure that persons who do not have access to adequate video conferencing technology, or who have limited understanding of the technology itself, would continue to be able to participate in the jury selection process and ultimately form part of the trial jury. These are critical measures to bridge discrepancies in Internet access while we work to shore up connection across Canada, including in my home province of New Brunswick.

In addition to improving the Criminal Code regime governing the use of technology, other reforms in this bill would improve access to justice and efficiencies in our criminal courts. For example, Bill S-4 would expand the power of courts to make case management rules to allow court personnel to deal directly with unrepresented accused persons on administrative matters for out-of-court proceedings. Currently this is only permitted if the accused person is represented by counsel. This may represent a relatively small change to the Criminal Code, but I believe it would go a long way to improving access to justice for unrepresented accused persons.

It is very important to note that these uses of technology are optional and subject to the judge's discretion, as opposed to being mandatory. I want to stress this point. These measures would assist courts in continuing to deliver justice in an effective and efficient way. The proposed reforms would also better equip courts with the tools to keep things moving during challenging times, because of a pandemic, a flood or any other situation that could hinder physical access to the courts in the future. While these reforms may be relied on in a more significant way in managing exceptional and emergency circumstances, they would not be limited to such circumstances. They would apply on a permanent basis to ensure that the options to use technology continue to be available to our courts for years to come.

Another important element of increased efficiency in this bill pertains to digital fingerprinting. Bill S-4 would amend the Criminal Code to allow a court to issue a summons for fingerprinting if an accused was previously required to appear but such identification was not completed for exceptional reasons. In addition, courts would be able to make an order for the fingerprinting of an accused person being released on bail. These reforms would facilitate the efficient collection of fingerprints, which is critical for the smooth functioning of our court system. When courts operate efficiently, more Canadians access justice and our country is better off.

The expanded telewarrant system is also critical. Expanding the possibility of obtaining a greater number of search warrants and other judicial authorizations by means of telecommunication would contribute to efficiency gains in the criminal justice system by reducing the need for in-person attendance and physical delivery of search warrant applications by law enforcement. Indeed courts have found that seeing a complainant or witness face to face is not fundamental to our system of justice, and the Criminal Code has permitted remote attendance by witnesses for more than 20 years.

Subsection 800(2.1) has, since 1997, authorized summary conviction trials by video for accused persons in custody. Sections 714.1 and 714.2 have permitted appearances by witnesses by video conference since 1999.

Bill C-75, which was passed by the House in 2019, modernized and facilitated some appearances by audio or video conferences of all persons involved in criminal cases, including judges, under certain circumstances.

Rather than overhauling criminal procedure, Bill S-4 continues to permit proceedings by remote appearance. This bill picks up where Bill C-75 left off, in light of the experience gained and the questions that arose with the use of technology in the criminal courts during the pandemic.

I would like to personalize this for a bit, if I may. Before I joined the House, my work was centred on supporting youth at risk in the education system. From time to time, students would find themselves interacting with the justice system. I had the opportunity to help them navigate these public institutions, understand their rights, and when the circumstances permitted, to also pursue justice. I remember a particularly frustrating time in which unnecessary delays prolonged the personal suffering of a survivor of sexual assault, adding to their trauma. I remember the anger and frustration this evoked and the feelings of helplessness for all involved.

Canadians deserve a justice system that is accessible, efficient and effective, and that provides true access to justice for all. The pandemic has taught us that technology can be used to help make the justice system work better for all people who come in contact with it. Bill S-4 proposes a range of reforms that will make court proceedings more flexible while protecting the rights of participants.

The reforms proposed in Bill S-4 flow from the important work of the action committee on court operations in response to COVID–19, co-chaired by the Minister of Justice and Chief Justice Richard Wagner. They are also informed by important contributions from the provinces and territories, as well as other justice system stakeholders. With Bill S-4, we have the opportunity to improve our justice system by making those good ideas permanent.

Bill S-4 is an example of how we can improve the legal system, but there are other ways we can also discuss pushing things forward. I would like to mention restorative justice, which is an approach that seeks to repair harm by providing an opportunity for those harmed and those who take responsibility for the harm to communicate about it and address their needs in the aftermath of a crime.

It will invest in programs for first nations and indigenous courts as well, creating more pathways for healing by including indigenous knowledge and traditions, restorative justice practices and elders in the court process.

It will reform how sexual assault cases are prosecuted in Canada through a feminist equality lens.

It will ensure that everyone, regardless of income level, should be able to use the remedies that Canadian laws and the Canadian legal system provide.

It focuses on a system truly built on preventing youth crime by addressing its underlying causes, responding to the needs of young persons, and providing guidance and support.

Without continuing our work on multiple fronts, we cannot claim that there will be true justice for anyone who is involved in legal proceedings. Bill S-4 is part of the solution, and we need to continue to build on it to restore confidence in our legal system.

In 2022, the national justice survey revealed that 49% of Canadians are not confident the Canadian criminal justice system is fair to all people, and that 39% think it is not accessible to all. These numbers are incredibly alarming, and Bill S-4 is a step in the right direction.

In conclusion, Bill S-4's measures are both practical and necessary. They would assist the provinces and territories, which are responsible for the criminal administration of justice, by giving criminal courts additional tools to tackle delays. They would also benefit everyday court users. For these reasons, I urge everyone in the House to support Bill S-4.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Outremont.

I am pleased to speak to Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other acts. Bill S-4 addresses issues that the COVID–19 pandemic has brought to light regarding the ways in which criminal trials are conducted in this country. It also builds on past government initiatives, including Bill C-75, which came into force in 2019 and made significant progress in modernizing our criminal justice system, including by facilitating the appearance of accused persons, lawyers and judges by audioconference or video conference throughout the criminal justice process. Bill C-75 also enacted Criminal Code amendments to improve the jury selection process.

Bill S-4's amendments support the increased use of technology in criminal courts across Canada, including in the following areas: remote appearances for accused persons and offenders, remote participation of prospective jurors and the use of technology in a jury selection process. My remarks today will focus on the amendments relating to the use of technology during the jury selection process.

As many members know, a jury is a group of randomly selected citizens who act as the fact-finders in criminal trials, replacing the judge in this role when accused persons exercise their subsection 11(f) charter right to a jury trial after being charged with certain offences. It is the civic duty of all Canadians over the age of 18 to serve on a jury if selected. Jurors make critical contributions to the criminal justice system in Canada, and the Supreme Court of Canada has held that a jury reflects the common sense, values and conscience of the community.

Subsection 11(d) of the charter also guarantees an accused person an independent, impartial and representative jury. The Criminal Code sets out the procedural rules regulating jury trials and jury selection and includes safeguards that reflect this charter right.

The jury selection process is a hearing held for the purposes of selecting qualified members to form the jury. Typically, persons referred to as prospective jurors are identified and summoned in accordance with provincial or territorial laws, and directed to attend at a specified courthouse or other location at a specified date and time in order to partake in a jury selection process. Being summoned for jury duty does not necessarily mean that a person will be asked to serve on the jury. However, compliance with the summons is mandatory, and people may only be excused from jury duty for certain reasons, including where it would cause personal hardship for them to serve.

The COVID–19 pandemic and public health requirements for physical distancing posed significant challenges for the jury selection process since it sometimes involves several hundred people being physically present in the same location at the same time. Bill S-4's amendments provide courts with the flexibility to hold jury selection processes with prospective jurors appearing by video conference rather than in person. These amendments aim to not only address the challenges caused by the pandemic, but also optimize the jury selection process beyond the pandemic and moving forward.

Importantly, a key aspect of Bill S-4 will be increased efficiency of the justice system, facilitated by the use of technology. The amendments enable a court to allow or require prospective jurors to participate by video conference so long as the court considers it appropriate and the accused person and Crown prosecutor consent to the jury selection process occurring this way.

Where a court allows a prospective juror to participate by video conference, it would be that individual's choice whether they want to participate in person or remotely. Where the court requires prospective jurors to participate in a jury selection process by video conference, it will need to approve a location that is equipped with the technological infrastructure for them to participate by those means, such as a community centre or a courtroom set up with the requisite equipment.

If the court does not approve such a location, it will only be able to permit prospective jurors to participate by video conference from another location, such their home or office, if they choose to participate that way. However, in this case, the court will also need to provide the option for prospective jurors to participate in the jury selection process in person.

These amendments aim to maintain the representativeness of the jury selection process in two ways.

First, they facilitate the participation of persons in the jury selection process by reducing the burdens and barriers of attending in person. Although participating by video conference from home or the office would not eliminate the need to take time off work, it would likely lessen the time commitment required compared to commuting to the courthouse and waiting sometimes several hours for the process to commence. This can facilitate the participation of prospective jurors living in rural or remote areas by minimizing travel time and costs, and help those who need to find child care or who hold precarious employment by reducing the time required for child care or the time they need to take off work. These changes would both reduce the burden for individual jurors and enhance the efficiency of the overall system.

Second, the changes would ensure that persons who do not have access to adequate video conferencing technology or who have a limited understanding of the technology will continue to be able to participate in the jury selection process and ultimately form part of the trial's jury.

Our government recognizes that there is a digital divide in Canada and that many Canadians, particularly those in rural and remote areas, do not have adequate access to a high-speed and stable Internet connection. Although the government is committed to closing the divide, the amendments would ensure that at least a properly equipped location or an option to appear in person will always be available to prospective jurors to ensure participation by as many Canadians as possible.

The bill's amendments to the jury selection process also include important safeguards. As mentioned previously, prior to permitting or acquiring prospective jurors to participate by video conference, both the accused person and the prosecutor will need to consent to such an order being made. Also, the court will need to determine that making such an order is appropriate by considering listed factors, including the challenges related to the in-person participation of prospective jurors, their privacy and security, and the accused person's right to a fair and public hearing.

I would also like to take a moment to touch on the related proposals that would permit the use of electronic or automated means to randomly select prospective jurors during the jury selection process. The current process is both time- and resource-intensive, as it requires a large number of physical cards with juror identification information on them to be manually created for each prospective juror and then manually drawn as well. This amendment would provide courts with the option of a more efficient and less resource-draining process. Along with the amendments previously discussed, it also aims to optimize the jury selection process beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

I believe this bill helps transform and modernize our criminal justice system while ensuring respect for all persons involved in the criminal court process, including accused persons and prospective jurors. A more efficient justice system will benefit all Canadians, and I ask that all members of the House support the passage of this bill as quickly as possible.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to stand in this place to represent the constituents of Avalon. I am pleased to have the opportunity to provide an overview of some of the key areas of reform proposed in Bill S-4, an act that would amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and make related amendments to other acts.

Bill S-4 would increase the efficiency and effectiveness of criminal proceedings by giving courts more flexibility and clarity in response to the particular challenges that arose in the pandemic. When the COVID-19 pandemic began, the remote appearance provisions in the Criminal Code had just been reformed through a former bill, Bill C-75, in 2019. Those amendments had been informed by the 2013 report of the Steering Committee on Justice Efficiencies and Access to the Justice System, entitled “Report on the Use of Technology in the Criminal Justice System”, as well as consultations with provincial and territorial governments.

Bill S-4 continues to build on those reforms, taking into account new calls for reform by those working in the criminal justice system during the pandemic and courts' experiences with the increased use of technology that occurred as a result.

My remarks today will focus on the necessity of the proposed amendments relating to remote proceedings, which represent a continuation of existing legal practices here in Canada.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, criminal court proceedings were presumptively held in person. Remote appearances were permitted under the Criminal Code but were very much the exception. There were provisions in the Criminal Code to allow people to attend some proceedings by way of audio or visual connection, but since they were not routinely used, legal clarification or guidance was needed.

The pandemic had an abrupt and immediate effect on the operation of courts, as courts across Canada shut down for periods of time and had to figure out how to operate without in-person attendance or with very limited in-person attendance. To cope with the pandemic and maintain the administration of justice, including maintaining access to the courts, courts around the country pivoted away from in-person appearances and held numerous hearings and matters in a virtual space.

The COVID-19 pandemic forced changes to how courts operate. Unrestricted in-person appearances were no longer permitted, and initially courts were forced to adjourn the majority of appearances, ranging from pleas to trials. This created a backlog of cases in the court system that still needed to be heard, regardless of the circumstances of the pandemic. In many cases, having participants appear by video conference when possible allowed court operations to resume.

However, even with courts adapting and modernizing to address the challenges they faced during the pandemic, many remain unable to operate at their prepandemic capacity. Indeed, the median length of time for an adult case to resolve in criminal court increased when compared with prepandemic levels. Further complicating matters was the fact that the number of adult criminal court cases that exceeded the presumptive time limits set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Jordan had increased significantly since the onset of the pandemic.

Bill S-4 targets changes to the Criminal Code that would give courts increased flexibility in how they hold criminal proceedings and how they issue orders such as search warrants and production orders in the context of an investigation. These changes are needed to address the ongoing pressures on the criminal court system brought to light by the COVID-19 pandemic and enhance access to justice for all Canadians, now and in the future. A key impact of these provisions would be a more efficient justice system that is equipped to serve Canadians and address the backlog of cases caused by the pandemic.

Allowing and continuing remote appearances is not just about responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. Remote appearances would provide greater flexibility for courts to continue proceedings when it is not possible to do so in person for other reasons, such as natural disasters. During its study of the bill, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs heard witness testimony about the closure of the Calgary courthouse during the floods of 2013. Due to the natural disaster, the court was forced to close proceedings for a period of time. Matters could not be heard and were adjourned.

The changes proposed in Bill S-4 make clear that certain proceedings can move ahead by audio or visual conference, even when in-person attendance is not possible or safe, allowing courts to operate as efficiently as possible in the interest of all participants in the criminal justice system.

While there has been acceptance of proceedings occurring by way of audio or video conference, the reforms included in Bill S-4 do not seek to make this the norm or default. Indeed, as before, the principle set out in the Criminal Code will continue to be: “Except as otherwise provided... a person who appears at, participates in or presides at a proceeding shall do so in person.” This principle would not change. Rather than upending the legal system, the bill would continue to allow the flexibility of proceedings in a manner that makes sense in the circumstances, with appropriate safeguards built in.

When considering whether to authorize remote proceedings, courts will be obligated to consider the impact on the safety of the participants, while supporting greater access to justice moving forward, including for those living in remote communities. Courts would also be required to ensure that decisions to authorize remote appearances are exercised in accordance with the charter, including the right of an accused person to make full answer and defence, and to have a fair and public hearing.

While Bill S-4 would clarify and expand when remote appearances are possible, it would not be the first to introduce these concepts into the Criminal Code. At committee, there were some concerns expressed over a judge's ability to assess the credibility of witnesses and accused persons during remote proceedings, as well as the importance of protecting an accused person's ability to face their accuser.

While these are important considerations the court must turn its mind to in each case, they are not unique to the provisions Bill S-4 would amend. Indeed, courts have found that seeing a complainant or witness face to face is not fundamental to our system of justice, and the Criminal Code has permitted remote attendance by witnesses for more than 20 years.

Subsection 800(2.1) has authorized summary conviction trials by video for in-custody accused since 1997. Sections 714.1 and 714.2 have permitted appearances by witnesses by video conference since 1999. Bill C-75, which was passed by this House in 2019, modernized and facilitated some appearances by audio and video conference of all persons involved in criminal cases, including judges, under certain circumstances.

Rather than overhauling criminal procedure, Bill S-4 would continue to permit proceedings by remote appearance. The bill would pick up where Bill C-75 left off, in light of the experience that was gained and the questions that arose with use of technology in the criminal courts during the pandemic. Bill S-4 would make practical and necessary amendments to the Criminal Code. These amendments would facilitate efficient operation of the criminal courts and have a direct impact on people who need or want to access the criminal justice system. The bill is not intended to make remote trials and hearings the norm, but rather would give the courts the flexibility to proceed in this manner when it is appropriate under the circumstances and where the technology exists.

These are limited but necessary reforms that have been developed in consultation with the provinces and territories and take into consideration the views of stakeholders. I am confident the bill and the proposed reforms would improve efficiencies in our criminal justice system while still providing careful oversight by the courts to ensure that the rights of accused persons and offenders are protected with the use of technology.

For these reasons, I urge all members to support Bill S-4.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will repeat a question that seemed important to the Quebec bar association, which made a few recommendations concerning Bill S-4. Some of them were accepted, which is good.

In the House, we studied Bill C-75 to amend the Criminal Code and the Youth Criminal Justice Act. We also studied Bill C-5 to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Now we are studying Bill S-4, and the Quebec bar association made what we think is a very wise recommendation about this bill. Rather than make changes piecemeal, would it not be time for an overall reform that includes all of these changes? It is a question of consistency.

Does my colleague agree?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today to Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, COVID-19 response and other measures.

I will begin by acknowledging that we are gathered here on the traditional, unceded lands of the Algonquin people.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, the criminal justice system, like many institutions in our country, faced significant and unprecedented challenges in continuing its operations while respecting the necessary public health and safety requirements imposed by all jurisdictions. The criminal courts and court users adopted quickly and admirably to the realities of the pandemic, finding innovative ways to provide essential justice services to the public safely and effectively.

Bill S-4 would reform the Criminal Code and other related legislation to respond to some of the practical challenges identified during or exacerbated by the pandemic. These reforms would modernize and enhance the flexibility and efficiency of the criminal justice system moving forward.

Members might be wondering whether the changes proposed in Bill S-4 are still needed, given we are now well into living with COVID-19, and the fact that the courts have adapted their practices during this period. These changes remain critically important and will help address the ongoing pressures on the criminal courts brought by the COVID-19 pandemic, including the backlog of cases.

I would note that this bill is the product of significant consultations with the provinces and is supported by provincial premiers of all stripes. I understand that last month, at the federal, provincial, territorial meeting of ministers of justice and public safety, all justice ministers reiterated their support for seeing this legislation advance to help improve court operations in their provinces and territories.

The pandemic seriously affected court operations, and we have heard from lawyers and judges alike that changes are needed so that the court system does not fall further behind. Canadians need to have confidence in our justice system, and a court system that does not keep up with the times will not provide that confidence. For instance, virtual hearings and remote services have been an important aspect of ensuring access to justice for court users while coping with pandemic-related issues. This bill would enhance and clarify rules on the use of technological means in the criminal justice system.

Before I delve into the details of Bill S-4, I would like to thank hon. Senator Pierre Dalphond for his sponsorship of the bill and leadership in working with all senators in the other place to get this bill to us.

I would also like to acknowledge the diligent work of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in studying Bill S-4 and thank those witnesses who shared their views on the bill. The committee's study and consideration of witness testimony resulted in two amendments to this bill, new clauses 78.1 and 78.2, which would mandate reviews of the use of remote proceedings in criminal justice matters.

I will now turn to the changes in the bill and explain how they would address issues identified during the pandemic and seek to ensure greater efficiencies and access to justice for accused persons, victims and other criminal justice system participants.

The bill would, one, enhance and clarify the rules for remote appearances in criminal proceedings; two, revise the telewarrant process so that a wider variety of search warrants and other investigative orders may be obtained by means of telecommunication; three, allow fingerprinting of accused persons or offenders to occur at a later time than what is currently permitted and; four, improve judicial case management rules.

On remote appearances, Bill S-4 builds upon a former bill, Bill C-75, which introduced a new general part on remote appearances in the Criminal Code, which is part XXII.01, and expanded the availability of remote appearances for accused persons, participants and judges. Notably, those amendments were developed in a prepandemic era and did not anticipate the exponential reliance on technological solutions that followed.

This bill would expand and clarify the process allowing accused persons to appear by video conference during preliminary inquiries and trials, for both summary and indictable offences, even when witness evidence is being heard, except in circumstances where evidence is before a jury. The bill would also expressly enable an accused person to appear remotely when making a plea, either by video or audio conference, depending on the circumstances. Further, the bill would clearly permit an offender to appear remotely for sentencing purposes.

The new measures addressing remote appearances include a consent requirement, so an accused person or offender and the Crown prosecutor would need to give their consent to appear in this way. In addition, all decisions to proceed virtually would be at the discretion of the court based on a number of factors the court would be required to consider. For example, courts would need to consider the right of accused persons or offenders to a fair and public hearing and the suitability of the location from which they would be appearing before allowing it.

I would also emphasize that the bill does not make virtual court hearings mandatory or change the general principle that all those who participate in criminal proceedings must physically be present in court unless otherwise authorized. Bill S-4 does not seek to replace in-person proceedings, which remain important, but instead offers alternative ways of proceeding where the technological means exist and when considered appropriate.

Bill S-4 would also enact clear safeguards to virtual appearances, some of which I have mentioned, such as ensuring judicial approval and consent of all the parties. In addition, the bill would require that accused persons or offenders who are represented by counsel and appearing remotely are given the opportunity to consult privately with their counsel. Moreover, courts need to be satisfied that an accused person or offender who does not have access to legal advice would be able to understand the proceedings and that any decisions made by them during the proceedings will be voluntary.

Given that the jury selection process can involve hundreds of people summoned to appear at the same location, many jury selections for criminal trials were postponed or delayed during the pandemic. Some jurisdictions are concerned about the delays in conducting jury trials. Bill S-4 would give courts the option to hold a jury selection process by video when both parties consent and appropriate safeguards are in place, such as ensuring the courts approve the use of a location where the technological infrastructure would be available for prospective jurists to participate in the process.

Since May 2020, the Minister of Justice has been co-chairing the Action Committee on Court Operations in Response to COVID‑19 with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Right Hon. Richard Wagner.

The minister shared with me that, in this capacity, he has continued to learn how the pandemic has affected court operations, as well as exacerbated pre-existing issues, such as the growing backlog of cases and access to justice challenges. We are confident that Bill S-4 would contribute to efforts to address these issues by facilitating an increased use of technology in the criminal justice system.

I am aware that, during the Senate committee study of Bill S-4, some witnesses expressed concern about the lack of technological capabilities in courthouses and correctional facilities and the inability of persons who may be vulnerable or disadvantaged to access technology, either entirely or in a private manner. I acknowledge these concerns, and the government is committed to addressing them.

Indeed, the government has made a commitment to bring our court system into the 21st century and to work with the provinces and territories in doing so. In the 2020-21 economic statement, the government announced approximately $40 million in technology investments for courts across Canada. The government has also committed to connect 98% of Canadians by 2026, and 100% by 2030.

I am equally aware that many witnesses who appeared before the Senate committee on Bill S-4 voiced their support for the reforms and considered the increased use of technology by courts and participants as beneficial and a tremendous opportunity for access to justice.

In sum, Bill S-4 strikes an appropriate balance by not making remote appearances mandatory, but rather by enabling courts to hold proceedings in a flexible way, and provide for the consent of both parties and judicial discretion. It would also ensure the consideration of the technological resources available to the courts and users. Bill S-4 would also help ensure that virtual court proceedings are held in a manner that respects the charter rights of accused persons and offenders.

I would now like to turn to the amendments to the telewarrant process provided in the Criminal Code, which currently allows a peace officer to apply for certain specific warrants by technological means when certain prerequisites are met.

Bill S-4 streamlines the telewarrant process and expands its application, including by making it available to a wider range of investigative warrants and orders, such as warrants to seize weapons, tracking warrants, and production orders for documents and financial records.

Under this more streamlined process, it will be possible for a police officer to submit a search warrant application by means of a telecommunication in writing, such as by email, without meeting the current prerequisite that requires a peace officer to show that it is impracticable to appear in person to present an application.

Police may continue to apply for a warrant by means of telecommunication that does not produce a writing, for example, by telephone. However, in this situation, the judge or justice to whom the search warrant application is presented would have to be satisfied that it is impracticable for the applicant to present the application by means of telecommunication that produces a writing, such as an email.

The revised telewarrant process would also be expanded to apply more broadly in two ways.

First, the process would now apply to the investigation of all offences, rather than indictable offences.

Second, the process would be accessible to law enforcement officials other than peace officers, notably public officers.

This would include, for example, Canada Revenue Agency officials responsible for investigating tax-related offences, who may currently apply for search warrants, and other judicial orders by personal attendants.

Similarly, the process would now be available to any justice or judge who issues a warrant, order or authorization, thereby removing the current requirement that only specifically designated justices may issue telewarrants.

Bill S‑4 also harmonizes the rules regarding the execution of telewarrants and warrants obtained in person and the report required following the seizure of assets.

In particular, Bill S-4 adds an obligation for the police executing a search warrant to provide the occupant of the place searched with a copy of the warrant, as well as a new notice. This notice would contain essential information about where to obtain a copy of the report of the person's seized property and the location where such property is detained.

I note, however, that these requirements would not apply in relation to warrants authorizing a search of a property that has already been seized and is in the lawful possession of the police. This would make it clear that the officer is not required to provide the notice and a copy of the warrant to the person in charge of a police evidence locker.

The bill also makes changes to the fingerprinting process. The pandemic disrupted the ability of police to obtain the fingerprints of accused persons and offenders because of physical distancing requirements, which led to significant operational challenges for the criminal courts.

Currently, individuals charged with an offence can be ordered by police or a judge to attend at a specific time and place for the purpose of identification.

However, in most cases, if something prevents a police officer from taking fingerprints at the specified time, there is no mechanism that allows a police officer to require an individual to come back at another time. The bill addresses this and allows fingerprints to be taken at other times, where earlier attempts to do so were not possible due to exceptional circumstances like those posed by COVID-19.

The bill would not change the rules in terms of who may be subject to fingerprinting.

Further, Bill S-4 addresses judicial case management by allowing courts to make rules permitting court personnel to deal with administrative matters related to proceedings out of court, including for unrepresented accused persons.

The Criminal Code currently allows courts to make rules only for situations in which accused persons are represented by counsel. Judicial case management improves the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system. By expanding the court's ability to make such rules for unrepresented accused, Bill S-4 will assist in reducing unnecessary court appearances of those who are self-represented.

I know that the Minister of Justice is committed to modernizing the criminal justice system and supporting the courts' technological achievements during the pandemic. I support those objectives, and we should continue to adopt technological solutions when available and appropriate.

Many of our partners and stakeholders and, in particular, our provincial partners, continue to stress urgently that these amendments are needed. I am eager to see the bill enacted in the future, and I look forward to working with our friends in all parties to get this important bill through.

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

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

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, it is very important that we have strong mechanisms to hold those in law enforcement roles accountable. I think that everyone would agree on that. These are the individuals who we empower to enforce law and order, so we need to have an equally powerful oversight body to ensure that there are no abuses of that power.

Before I go into the rest of this, I do want to very sincerely thank all of the men and women in the country who wear a uniform to keep Canadians safe.

It is very important that, as parliamentarians, when we talk about oversight, we also talk about the incredible sacrifices that RCMP and CBSA officers make. RCMP officers, with their families, are carted around the country to various small towns, often in rural and northern Canada. We need those officers to keep those communities safe, and they make a lot of sacrifices for their families. We know that CBSA officers, as well, are often in border towns or border communities that are far away from where a CBSA officer would normally live. There is a lot of movement around and a lot of weeks away from home.

As we know, CBSA officers and our RCMP officers are consistently putting themselves in danger, again, to keep us safe, so I thank all of the officers out there who don a uniform and do that for our country.

Certainly, as I was saying, the oversight body is very important. Particularly, we have been talking a lot about CBSA in recent years and their role in preventing things such as gun violence, for example.

It has been discussed with many policing bodies the great threat of having, frankly, the largest undefended border in the world with a country that owns more firearms than they have people, which is just part of their culture and their history, and that is not up for debate in the House, but what is up for debate is how it impacts Canada and the important role that CBSA has in ensuring that none of those firearms make their way into Canada illegally.

Unfortunately, in cities such as Toronto and Montreal, we are seeing significant issues, and deaths and murders, from evil criminal elements and gangs that take advantage of our porous border and smuggle into the country firearms that are not just restricted, but prohibited. They are using them illegally, possessing them illegally and really damaging, particularly, our vulnerable communities in Montreal, Toronto and other cities across the country.

It is not just those neighbourhoods that are particularly vulnerable. We are seeing gun violence across the country in rural Canada. We are seeing it leak into suburbs, which normally feel very secure and safe from these types of elements. That is what is happening with the criminal elements in our cities, and they are being fuelled by what seems to be the ability to quite easily smuggle or drone in guns, either at our border and at our ports of entry.

We also know that this is deeply tied to drug smuggling and drug trafficking across our border as well. CBSA has a huge role to prevent that as well. We are depending on our CBSA officers to prevent significant criminal activity that can contribute to death and mayhem in our cities. We are empowering them to do that. We need to make sure that they have the resources, equipment and training to fulfill those important duties for Canadians.

Unfortunately, we do not hear nearly enough about it from the government. It is far too focused on going after law-abiding, trained, tested and vetted Canadian firearms owners than it is on the issue of our border. Perhaps that is a debate for another time. Given that we are talking about oversight of the CBSA today, I think it is worthwhile to bring in the important work that it does and how much we need to prioritize resources to the border to ensure that we are keeping Canadians safe from the impacts of gun smuggling and drug smuggling.

We have also been talking a lot in recent weeks and, frankly, months about the RCMP. We know that the RCMP is facing a significant recruitment and retention issue. I have a lot of RCMP and Winnipeg police officers in my riding. They are incredible men and women, but they are saying morale is quite low. Where is the oversight and the responsibility from the government, and other levels of government, to ensure that RCMP and civic police officers are feeling valued in their role?

That is something that deeply concerns me. We are facing a deficit of police officers when, frankly, there has been a 32% rise in violent crimes since the Liberals formed government seven years ago, since the Prime Minister became the Prime Minister of Canada. Another stat I would like to share is that there were 124,000 more violent crimes last year than there were in 2015 when the Liberals came into power. The need for police to keep our communities safe is greater than ever, yet we are facing serious retention issues.

We are talking about oversight of our RCMP, but we also need to be talking about policies that ensure our RCMP members are adequately supported. What happens when we have overworked police officers and when there are not enough of them, so they are being spread thinner and thinner and their workload is going up higher and higher? We get fatigue. We get depression. We get accelerated impacts of PTSD from the things they see. If we do not have officers who can rest and take care of their mental health, then we have serious impacts on their ability to adequately do their jobs and keep themselves safe, keep their fellow officers safe and ensure they are doing their duty to keep communities safe.

Any time we are talking about RCMP, CBSA or armed forces members, there needs to be an equal conversation about ensuring we are adequately supporting those officers and those members so that they are feeling valued and being supported enough so that they can adequately do their jobs to the best of their mental and physical abilities. Mistakes get made when they are tired. Mistakes get made when they are demoralized, frustrated, irritated and overworked. That is when the biggest mistakes happen. I think if we are going to talk about oversight, we have to talk about better support for our police officers and our officers at the border.

Certainly, when we are talking about the RCMP as well, there have been a lot of discussions of how we can better serve the vulnerable communities that are seeing the most impacts from violent crime. We could talk about the revolving door that also exhausts police officers. About five years ago, the Liberal government brought forward a bill, Bill C-75, that instituted bail reform. This is something I have been looking into in recent weeks and months, and I have been discussing with police officers the impacts they have seen with these bail reform changes.

It would seem that, quite significantly, Bill C-75 has contributed to the revolving door of crime. Those who are looking to break the law and perhaps harm others are in and out of jail over and over again. Police are encountering the same people, week after week, committing the same types of crimes. It is often just petty theft and petty crime, but often it could also be more significant crimes, like stabbings, shootings, rapes or other types of assault.

Can members imagine being police officers and risking their lives to arrest the same person over and over? What does that do to those police officers? What does it do to their morale and their ability to consistently keep their spirits up and do their jobs, when it is the same people over and over again? If we want to talk about oversight, we have to talk about adequately equipping our police officers with the resources they need, and that goes back to our criminal justice system and how it ensures the people they arrest in the first place stay in jail if they are a threat to society.

Then we have things like Bill C-5, which our party has really talked about a lot in terms of our belief in the threat it is going to pose, particularly to vulnerable communities. To refresh the memories of those watching, Bill C-5 would eliminate mandatory prison time for serious firearm offences, like assaulting a police officer with a weapon or drive-by shootings, so firing a gun with the intent to injure someone with a bullet would no longer mean mandatory prison time under the current Liberal government.

It would also allow that, for serious offences, rather than having a mandatory minimum sentence, there would be the option to serve house arrest. Therefore, in a vulnerable community, for example, if there are people who are criminals or part of a gang doing very bad things to those in that community, rather than going to prison, they could be serving house arrest in the community they have terrorized. I do not think that is fair to those communities. I do not think they want those criminal elements in their communities. It also would not provide any opportunity for rehabilitation, which is provided in our penitentiary system. In my opinion we should have far more rehabilitation opportunities in our penitentiaries, but that is a conversation for another time.

We also have a lot of concerns with leadership in the RCMP. I asked the minister today if this bill would provide any oversight to the RCMP commissioner, given the recent scandal and accusations, with corroborating evidence, that the RCMP commissioner politically interfered with the worst mass killing in Canadian history, notably the Nova Scotia 2020 mass killing. This is a very serious matter the Conservatives, together with the Bloc and the NDP, have been investigating for five months. Although the bill would improve the oversight of the RCMP, I do not think that would translate to the top leadership of the RCMP, unfortunately, though it is desperately needed.

In committee just the other day we were talking to the commissioner of the RCMP, and this was the second time she came to committee about the same interference scandal. She also went to the Mass Casualty Commission to discuss this as well, and it was quite a challenging experience. I was hoping for some sentiment that she was remorseful she had handled the situation the way she had or any sort of legitimate explanation that we could understand that would provide us some relief that she did not do this. Unfortunately, we did not get any of that.

Our only ability to hold her accountable is through the public safety committee, at least as the opposition. The government could fire the commissioner, but it has not taken those steps. We believe it should. Bill C-20 is talking about oversight; however, there is no oversight mechanism in it, that I am aware, for the RCMP commissioner in this circumstance.

Just to recap, a few years ago during the heat of the fallout, about 10 days into the tragedy that took 22 lives, including the life of a pregnant woman, we found out through the evidence we built through the MCC, that the RCMP commissioner, first and foremost, warned the government that sharing the weapons information about the evil killer in that situation, who, again, killed 22 people plus a pregnant women, would jeopardize the criminal investigation. She made it very clear that it should not be shared beyond the minister and the Prime Minister.

Unfortunately, a few days later she turned around. We now had an audio recording where she was reprimanding her Nova Scotia deputies on the ground for not sharing the information that she warned her bosses not to share. We asked her and the MCC asked her what changed her mind. She has not provided a single coherent answer about what changed her mind. We have theories, but she has not provided a single coherent response.

What we found out from the audio recording, and what was certainly corroborated before we got that audio recording by the Nova Scotia deputies and their meticulous notes, was that the commissioner was connecting the Liberals' forthcoming gun control policies. She did this because she wanted to help usher along the Liberal government's gun control policies.

When we have the commissioner of the RCMP, with 22 murdered Canadians and the largest criminal investigation in Canadian history in that regard, looking at this as an opportunity to further her political boss's gun control policy, we obviously have a lot of questions and concerns about that. We believe that is political interference. What really tied it back to the Liberal government were her own words saying that they requested that she do this.

The Liberal government has repeatedly denied this. We have her words in an audio recording. We have that corroborated with the Nova Scotia deputies who were in that meeting where she stated those things. They have written notes. They have testified at committee without a doubt in their minds, and given the audio we can see where they are coming from, that the commissioner of the RCMP sought to take advantage of the deaths of 22 people to further the Liberal political agenda. She also said that it was requested by the then-minister of public safety's office.

We have gone through this for five months. The evidence has trickled out and built the case. To us, it seems irrefutable that this happened, yet she still has her position. We find that disgusting and appalling. We do not understand how someone, the head of our law enforcement, could come to committee and worm her way around the facts on the ground, the audio recording that we have, that she directly connects these things. However, she said things like that was just a conversation, that was taken out of context, this is all a misunderstanding or it was just a miscommunication. That is what we were hearing. However, we have the audio recording and we have the testimony from the people who were in the room.

It is quite frustrating that we were not able to fully hold the most powerful RCMP officer in the country accountable. Perhaps that is a shortcoming of my own. Perhaps I could have done a better job. However, if we are going to talk about Bill C-20, the government also needs to talk about holding the RCMP commissioner accountable, which it has so far failed to do.

It would be one thing if it was just in this scenario that she was using that kind of slippery language to make excuses for her behaviour, which was, as we believe, on the order of the Liberal government and its ministers. She also mentioned the PMO in the audio, so perhaps it goes as far as the Prime Minister's Office. However, we were unable to get any further evidence to convince media and others that it is the case. Should any more evidence come up, rest assured, we will be revisiting that issue.

What I would say is that I think the reporters are finally experiencing a bit of what we experienced with the commissioner over the past five months.

Again talking about the oversight of the RCMP, recently a Globe and Mail story came out, which I think was yesterday or the day before, and now it seems that the commissioner is pulling the same sort of behaviour with the Emergencies Act. She apparently was texting with her counterpart at the OPP, the OPP commissioner, back in the height of the convoy when the government invoked the Emergencies Act. As a refresher, the Emergencies Act allows the government to supersede charter rights, which is a very big deal. That is why there is a built-in inquiry to hold the government accountable for doing it, to ensure the very high threshold of the Emergencies Act was met. We are going through that process right now and it is quite riveting.

The commissioner is sort of pulling the same stuff with the media. There are text messages between her and the OPP. The title of the article is, “Top Mountie can’t explain text messages in which she suggested federal government wanted retroactive support for Emergencies Act”. Where is the oversight on this?

She said the following to the OPP commissioner, which is unbelievable, “Has Minister Blair hit you up for a letter to support the EA?” My understanding from the article is that this is after the Emergencies Act was invoked by the Liberals. We have the commissioner of the RCMP asking for a retroactive support letter for the invocation of the Emergencies Act from the OPP commissioner. Two very powerful people are talking about backdating a letter retroactively to show that they are supporting this. That is pretty peculiar. Their integrity is pretty suspect and perhaps shows how desperate, which is speculation, the political bosses in that scenario were to build their case. We know that the Minister of Public Safety said mistruths in this House when he said that the police asked for the emergency powers, when in fact they did not. This is just building on that narrative a little more.

Further, she told reporters she never requested such a letter, yet we have texts that say that she did. How can there be texts that say she requested this letter, when she tells reporters that she did not? This is what we have been going through for five months with the commissioner. We say she said something and she says that is not what that meant, over and over again. We are talking about RCMP oversight. Where is the oversight for the RCMP commissioner?

I will conclude with this, because this is the part that shocked me the most. The head of the RCMP, the commissioner, texted the head of the OPP. Commissioner Lucki's texts show that she twice asked Commissioner Carrique about using a different messaging app that does not store deleted messages. In the context of talking about the emergency powers, is it not peculiar to anyone that the head of the RCMP is texting the head of the OPP saying they need use to an app where their messages can be permanently deleted? Is no one concerned about that?

The heads of law and order are talking about using an app to permanently delete records. That is insane to me and it is unbelievable that the commissioner is still the head of law and order in this country. It is appalling. She should absolutely resign or, better yet, be fired by the public safety minister.

Criminal Code

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kelowna—Lake Country for her work on this important legislation.

At its core, Bill C-283 is about ensuring those with addictions are provided the help they need. It is also about providing their loved ones with peace of mind. Those addicted to drugs are someone's mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter or friend.

I will be reading this speech not only as a parliamentarian but also as a dad. Heather and I are proud parents to five adult children. There is nothing we would not do to ensure their well-being, peace of mind and security. I am so proud of each of them.

My family has struggled with opioid addiction for 20 years. We empathize with all Canadian families who have suffered at the hands of addiction. Heather and I are not alone. Canadian families are not alone. Those listening right now who are struggling with addiction are not alone. In fact, I do not believe there is a single individual in this chamber who has not been touched, in some way, by cocaine, crystal meth, heroin, fentanyl or other opioids.

It has been said that having a child is like having one's heart walk around outside one's body. There are mothers and fathers across this country who are startled awake in the middle of the night by the sound of a jacket zipper, a floor creaking or a door opening. They are all sounds familiar to parents of a son or daughter who is leaving to use drugs.

These moments give way to sleepless nights wondering if that child will make it home safely. These fears last a lifetime. My heart goes out to those who suffer from addictions and their families who bear the weight of the stress and worry that comes with caring for loved ones suffering from addiction. The road to recovery, of which I have both professional and personal experience, is a very difficult and long commitment.

Before I go any further, I would like to make an important distinction for all colleagues in the House.

Those who suffer from drug addiction deserve our compassion and care. Those who repeatedly break the law or have no regard for the safety of those around them deserve to be arrested and dealt with through our court system. Those found guilty of crimes should go to prison where they can seek out and be provided the help they need. This is precisely where our system is not working, and it is where the bill can make an enormous difference in the lives of Canadians.

Sending an addicted individual to prison without providing them with dedicated access to the programs and services they need to recover is futile. Addressing the core cause of their crime, addiction, in meaningful ways is what will put an end to recidivism and allow many Canadian families to heal. Addressing addiction when an individual is convicted of a crime or when the addiction is the cause is precisely where this legislation can make an extraordinary difference.

Canada's approach to addressing drug use, addiction and associated crime has not been successful, and my constituents are concerned the government is out of touch with what is happening on the ground in communities across Canada. Canadians are concerned about legislative decisions being made on matters pertaining to prostitution, guns and drug-related crime. My colleagues on the justice committee know this all too well.

We do not need to look very far in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia to see this in real time. The city of Cranbrook was once a quiet, mountain town. Today, it is the home of a tent city, with an exploding homeless population and rising crime. Criminals are wreaking havoc on other homeless individuals, our youth, families and businesses. Stories of paying it forward have been replaced in the news by stories of intimidation, theft, vandalism, physical assaults and shootings. Young people are afraid to go to work for fear of physical harm and children are no longer free to explore their sense of adventure in certain areas of the city.

This is a problem born out of the current provincial and federal policies, and there is not a single city council in Canada that would be able to solve this problem. Municipal leaders across British Columbia, such as Vancouver, have called on the government to act on addictions and the associated revolving door of crime caused by convicted criminals being released without action, or worse, being released without addressing their addiction during sentencing.

B.C.'s Urban Mayors' Caucus identified mental health and substance treatment as a priority for the federal government to address. Earlier this year, the B.C. attorney general acknowledged there was an increase in the number of no-charge decisions from his office and blamed the federal government for his actions. He referred to Bill C-75, which talks about using the principle of restraint for police and courts to ensure that release at the earliest opportunity is favoured over detention. What this equates to on the ground is prioritization of the offender over the victim.

While there are some who are uncomfortable with labelling prolific offenders, let me help clarify. Individuals who are convicted of 50, 75 or 100 or more offences have a prolific record, and they have been through the revolving door of our catch and release justice system too many times. This has to stop.

Our laws are meant to protect law-abiding citizens as well as those who protect and serve. To send an offender back on the streets to cause harm or break the law for the 78th time is not a solution that is working and, to be frank, it is a slap in the face to victims. However, if the offender, instead of being released to cause further harm or sent to prison to become more hardened, was sent to a designated treatment facility, we would have an opportunity to address the root of the crime.

Canadians are asking for help. We are here today offering real solutions to real problems that will make a difference in helping addicted individuals deal with real pain. Mental health and addiction may be the single largest challenge of our time, and I know all members of this House want to do more for those struggling with these issues.

Bill C-283 is an opportunity to do just that. The bill proposes a different program for addiction treatment while incarcerated, and this means the necessity for rehabilitation while serving a sentence. At the core, this is about treating addiction in an effort to stem the crime, or in other words, addressing the root cause of the issue. The approach is a positive solution for rehabilitation, resulting in individuals being able to make a positive contribution within our communities.

The bill would amend the Criminal Code of Canada to support two-stream sentencing, both of which would have the same sentence time. However, the individual would be called upon, being provided a choice by a judge, to choose between the current system or a designated treatment facility. The bill would not provide criminals with a pass on prison, but rather bridges correction and treatment for those who have entered the system because of drug addiction and are choosing to participate in recovery.

Addiction numbers in B.C. and across the country are growing, with many individuals entering the correctional system who may be better served with the opportunity to address the cause of their criminal activity. The purpose of an addiction treatment facility is to provide the individual access to the program for treatment in relation to the substance use, as well as to other related services that will address specific needs. Individuals may be sentenced to serve in a designated facility if there is evidence establishing a pattern of repetitive behaviour by the individual that indicates problematic substance abuse.

This brings us to the tragic and preventable loss of Constable Shaelyn Yang, who was sadly murdered while courageously helping those who suffer from mental health and addiction. Mayors from cities across B.C., including Burnaby, have complained publicly about the catch and release justice system.

Last week, the leader of the official opposition asked what policy changes the Prime Minister would be willing to make to put this crime wave to an end. I suggest to all members this bill is an important part of that suite of tools needed to address addictions. We cannot turn back time and prevent the senseless loss of Constable Shaelyn Yang, but we can act to prevent future murders. I invite all colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

The bill would validate and begin to repair the legitimate ongoing concerns of families, communities and indigenous communities. Further, it would serve as an important tool to address the general mental health and welfare of those who participate, with an aim to help make a better future for young Canadians struggling with addictions. Those struggling with addiction deserve treatment and recovery.

Successful crime prevention starts with our youth and must continue throughout their lives. Education programs can be successful if delivered at the right times.

As we consider Bill C-283, I would ask each of us to look through the eyes of Constable Shaelyn Yang and do right by the victims, the victims of addictions, the victims of crime and the victims, the family, of those who have lost a loved one. Finally, may we see this through the lens of a mother, father, sister, brother and friend who are desperate for their loved ones to get help before it is too late.

Judges Act

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Peace River—Westlock.

It is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-9, which is an act that would create a complaint mechanism for judges. We have certainly heard from all sides today that everyone thinks this is a great idea. This is not to say judges do not do a good job, because we know we have great judges in this country who work hard, but as with any career discipline, there is always the odd thing going on that is not good.

I remember when I was the chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women we talked about some of the things that were happening. In one sexual assault case, a judge actually asked the complainant, “Why couldn’t you just keep your knees together?” In another sexual assault case, another judge said, “she was drunk” in the taxi.

Rona Ambrose brought forward Bill C-337 to try to get at this issue of judges who do not have experience in sexual assault presiding over those cases. Although that bill unfortunately did not make it through under her private member's bill, the government brought it back, and we passed it earlier in the session. This would offer judges training, and in fact, it would offer lawyers who want to be judges training as well. That is the kind of remedy we want to see.

I was very pleased to hear the member for Mount Royal, who just spoke, talk about what this bill would allow. Other than just the extreme option of getting rid of a judge for whatever behaviour was complained about, there is a whole realm of possibilities, including verbal warnings, letter warnings, public apologies, training and multiple other options. This is something very good about this bill.

I do have a concern about the state of judges in our country since the Liberal government was elected. I started in 2015, and at that time we were missing I think 60 judges who needed to be appointed. Because of that, and because the Jordan decision, there were numerous examples of murderers and rapists who went free because there were not enough judges to handle the workload in a timely fashion.

There was an attempt made to put in a process. The government wanted to increase the diversity of the judges being selected, which is great, because one of the things that will make for a healthier democracy and rule of law is to have diverse thought and diverse representation of the population.

Unfortunately, what happened is the government used the Liberal fundraising database to figure out which judges should be picked from the lawyer pool. There were also fundraisers going on with the minister of justice at the time, which caused a big scandal because lawyers were paying $500 to meet her, and they all wanted to become judges. We know that is certainly not in keeping with conflict of interest rules in the House. The scandal went on for quite a while.

It is important to have diversity of thought with judges so they can check one another. If people are all in a group and they think together, it can be a bad thing. We have seen some of the Supreme Court decisions that came out recently that have caused concern across the country, such as the one that says, if a person is intoxicated, it could be a defence for murder, sexual assault, etc. Canadians in general would reject that and say no. The person is the one who chose to keep drinking or doing drugs until they became that intoxicated, and there needs to be an ownership of the behaviour. Those judges all together did not have enough diversity of thought for somebody to say that decision might not be a good thing.

I would suggest, from a Conservative perspective, that when somebody has killed multiple people, consecutive sentencing gave a lot of comfort to victims. The Supreme Court decision on that is another example. Parliament has a duty to review those decisions and have the discussions about whether that is really where we want to go on those topics. The whole purpose of having judges is that they are the executors of the rule of law in our nation.

I am very concerned that, in the last seven years, we are not seeing more rule of law. We are seeing more people committing crimes. The crime rates are increasing, including gun crime and violent crime. However, when I look at the response from the government, it looks like we are seeing a continual erosion of the rule of law.

The member who spoke previously mentioned that I am the first female engineer in the House, and we have an expression in the engineering world about a frog in a pot. Gradually the temperature in the pot increases until eventually we boil the frog, but the frog is not able to sense that the temperature is going up because it is so incremental. I would argue, with respect to the rule of law in Canada, the temperature is going up.

We had Bill C-75, which reduced the sentencing to fines or less than two years of time in jail for crimes such as abduction of a person under the age of 16, abduction of a person under the age of 14, arson for fraudulent purposes, marriage under 16 and participation in the activity of a terrorist group. There are a number of offences there, and I did not see the justification for that. We have heard from police chiefs that, although in some cases they agreed, in many cases there are serious crimes happening that now have only a slap on the wrist, which is not sending the right message about the rule of law and the importance of it.

In this parliamentary session, we now have Bill C-5 coming forward, which would remove mandatory minimums on robbery with a firearm; extortion with a firearm; discharging a firearm with intent; using a firearm in the commission of offences; trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking; importing, exporting, or possession of serious drugs; and production of these serious drugs, which are killing thousands of Canadians. Also, Bill C-5 would allow some of these sentences to be put down to house arrest, including that of sexual assault.

Somebody could victimize someone in their community and then serve the time there. I do not think that is something that we should leave to the discretion of judges, when we have seen in the past a judge ask, “couldn't you just keep your knees together?” There is a naivete if we think we can leave it to chance. Yes, in the majority of cases, judges will judge with wisdom, but it is the every now and again that we want to prevent and what our laws should prevent.

Abduction of a person under 14 could become a house arrest sentence. This is unbelievable. We have a huge human trafficking issue in this country, and this not only sends the wrong message, but it is also not going to fix things because, when people are left with a potential house arrest, those who are committing crimes can commit them out of their house. It is the same thing for someone trafficking drugs who gets house arrest. How convenient is that for people to stop by and pick up drugs?

These things make no sense to me, and so I am very concerned when I look at the erosion of our rule of law. At the same time, there is an erosion of protection for victims. We had Bill C-28 in the previous Parliament on victim surcharge. It used to be that there was some recompense made for victims who had suffered and had to travel distances to go to parole hearings and that kind of thing, but that was taken away.

This is a soft-on-crime government, and while I support Bill C-9 because when judges do not get it right we need to fix that, but I am very concerned that we are having this continual erosion of the rule of law. We have heard many speeches in the House that have said that there is a high rate of reoffending. People are committing crimes, getting out, committing them again and being put back in, and there really is no rehabilitation happening. That is not to say that there should not be, but the situation today is that there is not. If we know that people are going to reoffend and go out on the street, we have to protect the public, and we have a duty to do that.

The mechanism in the bill is to make sure that judges are doing their due diligence. We would have mechanisms, not just an extreme one, but progressions, that would allow us to take corrective action and manage the judicial system to ensure its integrity. This will preserve the rule of law, although the concerns I have expressed do remain.

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, one man is dead and at least seven people were injured in a rash of bloody attacks on the weekend as tensions reportedly escalate among drug dealers and gang members in a city already troubled by recent violence. At least two people were shot and five stabbed Friday evening to early Monday morning in addition to a slaying Sunday at West Broadway Commons, an apartment building in Winnipeg. Winnipeg police spokesperson Constable Dani McKinnon said on Monday that there have been 60 shootings so far this year. Tragically, a man named Austin Mark Chief, 24, later died in hospital. The death is being investigated as the city's 24th homicide of the year.

Mitch Bourbonniere, a community social worker whom we also had at the public safety and national security committee for our guns and gangs study, gave a comment to the Winnipeg Free Press for the story, where he said of the violence:

“It's intensified...meth and the opiates and fentanyl and the poisonings [have increased]...It's really violent out there right now...I've come to the conclusion that we are undeniably in a violent spike right now in our city.”

“It's ongoing, but it's escalated. People are more desperate, more violent, there's more competition, it's more serious street drugs, there's more guns—there's just more of everything,” he said. “Drugs, gangs and guns—those three words.”

That was the top story in the Winnipeg Free Press just this morning.

Just last week, there was yet another story. This is almost weekly now in Montreal. The police are investigating three shootings in various areas of Montreal. Drive-by shootings have also increased in Montreal and cities like Toronto. Another story from just last week, June 6, 2022, in Winnipeg was told about an adult female with her infant child being robbed at gunpoint and having her car stolen in front of her. She was robbed at gunpoint with her infant child.

These stories are becoming a weekly occurrence in Winnipeg and cities like Toronto, Montreal, Regina, Edmonton and Vancouver, so much so that I think the public is starting to become desensitized to the rising violent crime in our cities under the Liberal government's watch. It is fact that violent crime has increased steadily in the seven years the Liberals have been in power. It is fact that our streets are less safe under the so-called leadership of the Liberal government and the Minister of Justice.

Today, we are debating third reading of Bill C-5, which would remove mandatory minimum sentences for a number of serious crimes. I am going to go through them for the House.

The bill would remove mandatory prison time for firearm offences. From my recent discourse, I cannot wrap my head around how the government can claim it is getting tough on guns while Bill C-5 would remove mandatory prison time for dangerous gun crimes, for example, robbery with a firearm. In the story I just told, where a woman with her infant child in Winnipeg was robbed at gunpoint and her car was stolen from her, no longer would that individual who terrorized that woman with her baby face mandatory prison time under Bill C-5.

Other crimes are extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, importing or exporting knowing it is unauthorized and discharging a firearm with the intent to injure, which is firing a gun at someone with the intention to hit the person with the bullet. These would no longer have mandatory prison time in Canada if Bill C-5 comes into place.

Other such crimes are using a firearm in the commission of an offence and possession of firearms knowing their possession is unauthorized. Someone who is not allowed to have a firearm but has one would no longer have to face mandatory prison time. Meanwhile, we well know the stats show that firearm violence in Canada is by those who are not legally allowed to possess a firearm. Under Bill C-5, no longer would those individuals who would terrorize our communities be absolutely going to prison.

Other charges include possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition, possession of a weapon obtained by commission of an offence, possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, and discharging a firearm recklessly. These are very serious gun violence crimes that would not longer face mandatory prison time because of Bill C-5.

I consistently hear from Liberal members that they are repealing these bad Conservative policies, but the fact is that many of these mandatory minimums were instituted by Liberal governments. In fact, one of them in particular, the use of a firearm in the commission of an offence, was instituted by Pierre Elliott Trudeau's government back in 1976. The Liberals are actually keeping a number of mandatory minimum sentences that the Conservatives did bring in, so their argument does not stand.

To be clear, the Liberals would be eliminating mandatory prison time for criminals who commit robbery with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings. They make the argument that it is soft on crime and say, “Let us go easy on criminals.” They seem to be more interested in defending criminals than the victims being terrorized with guns.

For example, the Liberals would expand conditional sentencing and would allow house arrest for crimes such as sexual assault. If a person sexually assaults someone, they could be serving house arrest in the neighbourhood of the individual they sexually assaulted. Conditional sentencing, house arrest and others would become more commonplace and more easily accessed by the courts because of Bill C-5.

Then there is kidnapping and abduction of a person under the age of 14. Abducting a child could mean house arrest. Arson for fraudulent purposes, so setting fire to things, could mean house arrest too, as could assault causing bodily harm or with a weapon, assaulting a peace officer causing bodily harm or with a weapon and trafficking in or exporting/importing schedule III drugs.

Let us talk a bit more about the drug offences, because this is really interesting. The bill would also eliminate mandatory prison time for drug dealers. Last year, over 7,000 Canadians died as a result of opioid overdoses from things like fentanyl and carfentanil. Addiction to drugs should be treated as a health care issue. The Conservatives believe that someone addicted to drugs needs to be treated. We need to have more access. It is why in the last election we proposed building more treatment beds. That is very clear.

However, the individuals responsible for pushing deadly drugs on Canadians, killing 7,000 people last year, deserve to go to prison, full stop. This bill would eliminate mandatory prison time for trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking drugs. That is drug pushers and drug dealers. It also includes importing or exporting or possession for the purpose of exporting. People who smuggle drugs into Canada that kill thousands of Canadians would no longer have mandatory prison time.

Consider the production of substances in schedule I or schedule II, which are drugs such as heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth. The people who create these drugs, who kill thousands of Canadians, particularly young people in B.C. and Ontario, would no longer face mandatory prison time as a result of Bill C-5.

This comes in light of the controversial decision in B.C. to decriminalize 2.5 grams of opioids and other hard drugs. For carfentanil, for example, 2.5 grams is capable of killing 1,250 people. What message does it send that we are decriminalizing at the same time as Bill C-5 is coming out? On one side, we are decriminalizing deadly drugs that killed 7,000 Canadians last year, and on the other side, we are saying there is no more mandatory prison time for the people who are responsible for making those drugs, smuggling those drugs or trafficking those drugs and preying upon vulnerable Canadians. What kind of message is that sending? Drug dealers are rubbing their hands at how much money they are going to make because of these actions.

It is devastating for families. I know there are different approaches for how to deal with the drug epidemic in Canada, but I firmly believe, as do other Conservatives, that anyone responsible for dealing these dangerous drugs that kill thousands of Canadians deserves to go to prison. It is over 7,000 people. Opioids are more deadly to Canadian young people than COVID was. That is how serious the drug epidemic is.

The Liberals are letting those responsible for taking advantage of vulnerable Canadians off the hook. This is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to the 7,000 families that lost young people last year to opioid deaths.

This is all coming in light of violent crime stats going up significantly in Canada in the last seven years. For example, across the country, police reported 743 homicides in 2020, which is the highest number of homicides recorded in Canada since 1991. There were also 56 more homicides in 2020 than in 2019, a hike that pushed Canada's rate up 7% to almost two homicides per every 100,000 people in Canada in 2020. That is up from the year prior. Violent crime is increasing and the Liberal government is bringing in Bill C-5, which would let individuals who use firearms in very dangerous crimes off the hook.

There was also a recent Statistics Canada report released just a few weeks ago that said, per The Globe and Mail, “since 2009, the per capita rate of firearms being pointed at someone in the commission of a crime has nearly tripled, and the rate at which guns are fired with intent to kill or wound is up fivefold.” Again, as I said, these crimes, such as firing a gun with the intent to injure someone, are up fivefold, but no longer would those individuals face mandatory prison time.

The Toronto Police Service has proposed a number of solutions. It said that the federal government should look at requiring bail hearings for people charged with the most serious firearm offences to be heard by judges instead of by a justice of the peace. It is a move the police said would “clearly convey Parliament's view of the seriousness of these offences.”

Again, the things we do in this place have important symbolism as well. The message we send to criminals and victims alike is very important. I think I have outlined quite clearly the message the Liberal government is sending to criminals who endanger the lives of individuals, especially in our vulnerable communities.

The police are also proposing bail reform, and I recently spoke to a number of police in southern Ontario and got their thoughts on bail reform. Members may remember that a few years ago, in June 2019, Bill C-75, a Liberal bill, updated the bail provisions in Canada's Criminal Code for the first time since 1972. There are varying opinions on this. Police will say that some aspects were good and that some aspects were very bad.

In a story from last year, Victoria Police Chief Del Manak was asked, “Why are violent, prolific and repeat offenders being released from custody with little or nothing to prevent them from reoffending?” We hear this from police all the time. It is the revolving door. Police put themselves in danger to catch criminals who are terrorizing neighbourhoods and put them in jail, but they are out the next week. It is a revolving door of essentially 100 to 200 offenders in cities, particularly in vulnerable neighbourhoods. They are the cause of the vast majority of the violence. The police catch and released them every week, putting police lives in danger to secure the safety of vulnerable communities.

The police are catching these guys over and over again, so I have asked them about this. Last year, the Victoria police chief was asked about this too. Of course, we know that in Victoria and Vancouver, it is unbelievable to walk the streets and see the crime that is going on, but as the Victoria police chief said, per the Victoria Times Colonist:

The answer to that...lies in recent extensive changes to the country's bail system that were intended to address clogged courts and the over-representation of vulnerable populations....

The law makes it clear, said Manak, that police are to give primary consideration to the release of the accused at the earliest opportunity and under the least onerous conditions.

I asked police about this. Now, this was a couple of years ago, in 2019, and bail reforms had a bit of time to come into place. However, many in the police forces, the ones who see this more than anyone in the House, believe those bail reforms have further quickened the catch-and-release policies that we have seen. I bring this up to outline that we are seeing a rise in gun violence and violent crime in our cities, and many believe it is tied to the bail reforms from a few years ago, which are coming home to roost now.

We now have Bill C-5. Do members think it is going to get any better when we do not put violent criminals in jail for firing guns at people with the intent to injure them with a bullet, for robbing them at gunpoint or for pushing drugs on vulnerable Canadians and killing 7,000 people last year? What do we think is going to happen to the crime statistics when the bill comes in? Do we really think they are going to go down? I do not think so. Based on the recent policies on bail reform and the feedback I am getting from frontline police officers, I would guess that in a couple of years, we are going to be seeing increased violence in our streets and less safe streets than we have now because of Bill C-5.

House arrest is very interesting. If someone fires a gun at someone, they would not be serving mandatory prison time but would maybe get house arrest. What does that mean? I was not even sure what “house arrest” meant. I kind of thought it meant that a police officer would be stationed outside the house of a dangerous offender who shot a gun at someone, robbed someone at gunpoint or extorted them with a firearm, as they must be watched. It does not mean that exactly. This individual is put in their home in the community, often the one they terrorized, and is in essence left to their own devices.

Can members imagine what is going happen when a vulnerable community has been terrorized by a criminal with a gun, and rather than being removed from the situation and put in prison to serve time for the crime they did to their community, they would be serving a sentence surrounded by the gang influences that led them to a life of crime? How do we think that is going to work?

There were some comments from the members opposite, and I would ask them to consider sexual assault. I went through this already. A person can sexually assault someone and then serve house arrest in the community of the individual they sexually assaulted. It is in the bill. It really does not make a lot of sense to me.

We heard the speech before me by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. I am sure he was very sincere in his speech, and I have a lot of respect for the member. However, whenever he and the Liberals are pushed on this and asked why they go easy on criminals who use guns in dangerous crimes, they say they are also increasing mandatory sentences for them. The argument does not follow. We ask why they are going easy on criminals with guns and they say they are increasing sentencing. It does not make sense. They say they are increasing sentencing, but they are also letting them off the hook to serve house arrest in the communities they have terrorized.

I just went over a situation where a woman with her child was robbed at gunpoint. Robbery with a firearm will no longer get mandatory prison time. That may be something members opposite are uncomfortable with, but that is in their bill. The individual who robbed that woman at gunpoint with her baby deserves to go to prison, no excuses. There is no other way to see it. It is unbelievable. That individual, who the police did catch, was charged with robbery with a firearm and violating his prohibition order for possessing a firearm. He had already been caught before, charged with something and then released. Now he has terrorized the community again and robbed a woman with a baby at gunpoint and will likely be out again.

Recently, I was in Grand Bend, a lovely community on Lake Huron, with the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex. I was speaking to police on the ground there and they told me what has happened as a result of the Liberals' soft-on-crime policy on bail reform. An individual was stabbed to death outside a bar at 2 a.m. in this beautiful little tourist town. It is a very rare occurrence in this otherwise very safe, wonderful community. Two weeks later, when that individual was released on bail, he went into a gas station and threatened the lives of two teenage girls at the cash. This man murdered someone with a knife, an innocent man who was outside of the bar at the wrong time. He murdered him and was out on the streets two weeks later threatening the lives of two teenage girls. That is a result of bail reform and what the Liberals have done with their soft-on-crime policies.

If the Liberals would just take time to talk to the police in their communities, they would hear the same things I am hearing. It is unbelievable. It is as if parts of our communities are becoming lawless.

When we think of police, what do members think it feels like for police officers to endanger their lives and run after the guy I just talked about who robbed a woman at gunpoint? What do members think it is like for them? They are putting their lives on the line and he is back on the street three days later. What kind of incentive do they have to rush to the scene of a crime when they see the same guy they have been apprehending week over week? It is unbelievable.

I would like to move an amendment with my remaining time. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for the purpose of reconsidering clauses 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 & 12 with a view to remove the provisions in the Bill that would eliminate a number of mandatory minimum sentences for very serious crimes, namely robbery with a firearm, weapons trafficking and discharging a firearm with intent, possession of a weapon obtained by commission of an offence and possession for purpose of weapons trafficking.

The purpose of this amendment is to take out the most insane parts of Bill C-5 so that individuals—

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-5, which seeks to make changes to the Criminal Code that would make life easier for criminals charged with violent firearms offences and criminals who are fuelling the opioid crisis here in Canada. Most of the offences we are discussing today, for which the Liberals want to get rid of mandatory jail time, are crimes that involve firearms.

To be clear, the charges for which the government is seeking to remove mandatory jail time are not for otherwise innocent individuals who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. This bill would specifically allow repeat offenders to avoid mandatory jail sentences. These are hardened criminals who have already made the choice to live outside the law and have not made an effort to change their behaviour. These are the people the Liberals would be helping with Bill C-5.

Before I get too far in my speech, and with some leniency from the House as this might be my last chance to speak before we rise for the summer, I would like to draw the attention of the House and those watching at home to something I find quite unique that is happening in my riding leading up the municipal elections on October 24 here in Ontario.

In Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, there are seven lower tier municipalities. Come election day, at least six of those will have a new face as head of council. So far, six of the seven mayors, with the exception of David Burton of Highlands East, have announced they will not be seeking re-election.

That is a major changeover, and I would be remiss if I did not take this time to acknowledge the immense contribution these remarkable individuals have made in their communities. I will quickly name them and then get back to Bill C-5.

In Algonquin Highlands, Carol Moffatt, after 16 years of public service, will not be on the ballot. Mayor Moffatt was first elected as councillor in 2006. She was elected mayor in 2010 and then acclaimed as mayor in 2014 and again 2018, where she led one of two all-female municipal councils in Ontario.

In Brock Township, after the sudden passing of the township's first female mayor, Debbie Bath-Hadden in 2021, John Grant, a former councillor and Durham regional councillor and mayor, stepped into the role and pledged to guide the municipality with a steady hand into the next election.

Scott McFadden will not seek re-election in Cavan-Monaghan after being first elected as deputy mayor in 2010, then elected mayor in 2014 and re-elected in 2018.

After 16 years in public service, Andrea Roberts will not re-offer as mayor of Dysart. In addition to leading council, Mayor Roberts previously served as councillor and deputy mayor. Joining her is Patrick Kennedy, deputy mayor of Dysart, who informed the community recently he would not be seeking re-election after just one term.

In Kawartha Lakes, Andy Letham will not seek a third term as mayor. He was first elected to lead the municipality in 2014 and re-elected in 2018. He also spent a term as a councillor in 2003.

Brent Devolin, first elected in 2014 and re-elected in 2018, will not seek re-election and a third term as mayor of Minden Hills.

Over the years, in my previous role with my predecessor, I got to know each one of these municipal leaders very well. I consider them friends and not just colleagues. Each council and staff faced many challenges during their time. They dealt with natural disasters and the COVID pandemic while at the same time claiming many accomplishments, such as new community centres, Internet connectivity, improved roads and bridges, new parks, and increased water and sewer capacity to prepare for future growth. The list, of course, goes on.

It is no secret that municipal representatives are often the closest to the issues being felt at home. Most, especially in small and rural communities, are accessible to the public and many openly publish their personal telephone numbers. All of the mayors and deputy mayors I just mentioned, along with the councillors and staff, have placed their marks on the people they serve. I am confident to say that those not seeking re-election depart leaving their respective municipalities in strong shape and well prepared for the future.

Now, I move on to today's debate on Bill C-5. As I mentioned off the top, it is a bill that would remove mandatory jail time in some circumstances for a lot of crimes that involve firearms. Again, the charges for which the government would be removing the mandatory jail time would specifically allow repeat offenders to avoid mandatory jail sentences.

For example, the bill proposes to eliminate mandatory jail time for criminals charged with robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, importing or exporting knowing a firearm is unauthorized, discharging a firearm with intent, using a firearm in the commission of an offence, possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition, possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence, and possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking. These are just a few of the types of offences for which mandatory jail time would be removed under Bill C-5.

If people do not think it can get much worse after the list I just mentioned, it really does. In this bill, the Liberals are making more criminal charges eligible to receive conditional sentences, also known as house arrest.

There may be cases where house arrest is acceptable, but house arrest should never be made available to dangerous offenders and criminals whose actions have victimized an innocent person or family. Should a criminal who abducted a child under the age of 14 be eligible for house arrest? Should a criminal who benefits financially from the scourge of human trafficking be eligible for house arrest? Should someone convicted of kidnapping get house arrest? Should criminals charged with sexual assault be able to serve their time back in that same community, potentially near their victims?

The Liberals say yes to all of the above. There is an even better one still to come. The Liberals are trying to expand house arrest for those charged with prison breach. In what world does that make any sense? We would be rewarding people for breaking out of prison with house arrest, so they do not have to bother spending time behind bars if they can just break out.

As many members have said in this debate, one really cannot make this stuff up. The government is trying to make a complete mockery of the Canadian justice system, demoralize law enforcement and frighten victims, all at the same time.

A few months ago, the community I live in, Lindsay, held a public forum. The specific topic was to talk about the increase of petty crimes in the neighbourhood. Citizens did not feel safe. They had concerns that criminals were getting arrested, and a few moments later they were out and back on the streets, what is called a “revolving door”. They did not seem to feel that the justice system was working for them. We had a community meeting to discuss this. What was talked about a lot at the time, a few months ago, was Bill C-75, another bill that decreased sentences and made them more lenient so criminals could get out of jail more easily. The Crown prosecutor made that very clear. The Crown's hands were tied. This was a piece of legislation, and obviously the law has to be enforced through the judicial system, so these were the cards they were dealt. The community felt it.

As my friend from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon just mentioned, people need to have faith in the criminal justice system. When they pay their taxes and do everything right, they expect a safe community and they expect their government to work for them and to provide laws that allow law enforcement to do its job and keep the community safe. They just were not feeling it.

These people are just becoming victims, scared in their own community. People are scared to go out at night. This is a community of 20,000 people. It was unheard of, just a few years ago, for people to feel they could not leave their house at night. It is unbelievable. It really is. We have just heard story after story from colleagues in this place about how communities are becoming less safe because of poor legislation brought in by the government.

If we want to talk about ways to help people, this party had a massive plan to fund mental health and treat it as health, to talk about getting people treatment for their addictions and expanding economic opportunities across the board to Canadians in general. There was a robust plan to deal with that. At the same time, those who are committing the most heinous of crimes, the ones I just mentioned, should be behind bars, not walking our streets. I know police have said we cannot arrest our way out of this, and I totally agree. That is why we had those robust options, as well as putting those who are violent, repeat offenders behind bars, where they deserve to be, not out on our streets.

To conclude, I will be strongly voting against Bill C-5, and I encourage each and every member of this House to do so as well.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill S-206, an act to amend the Criminal Code on disclosure of information by jurors.

Bill S-206 proposes an amendment that seeks to help jurors who face mental health challenges flowing from fulfilling their civic duty and after completion of a jury trial. It proposes to do so by adding an exception to the offence of disclosure of jury proceedings under section 649 of the Criminal Code.

The substance of this legislation is short and straightforward and I believe is targeting an important issue deserving of our attention. Indeed, when we situate the bill in the present context of the ongoing COVID‑19 pandemic, we can all understand the importance of supporting the well-being and mental health of Canadians, and particularly those who participate in the justice system.

We know the pandemic has affected the mental health of Canadians. According to the Public Health Agency of Canada, almost half of all Canadians have reported that their mental health has worsened since the beginning of the pandemic. A Statistics Canada survey on COVID‑19 and mental health in September 2021 indicated that one in four Canadians, or 25%, age 18 and older screened positive for symptoms of depression, anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder in the spring of 2021, up from one in five, or 21%, in the fall of 2020.

A more recent study in January 2022, from the Angus Reid Institute, found that the population is largely fatigued, frustrated and anxious, with one in three Canadians, or 36%, stating they are struggling with their mental health. According to this study, this represents an increase from the one-quarter who responded in November 2021, prior to omicron becoming the dominant COVID‑19 variant in Canada.

Canadians across the country who are experiencing mental health difficulties are the very same population called upon for jury duty by way of provincial and territorial legislative processes governing the criteria with respect to who may serve and be summoned as a juror. I am very pleased that the government is committed to supporting Canadians and their mental health through the COVID‑19 pandemic and beyond, such as through its record of investing millions into mental health and distress centres.

Thanks to the previous work undertaken by the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to study counselling and mental health supports for jurors, we have a better understanding of the experience of Canadians who serve on juries and the potentially long-lasting impacts of such service. The committee's May 2018 report entitled “Improving Support for Jurors in Canada” documented that many former jurors described their jury duty experience as positive. However, the report also includes testimony from jurors who served on difficult and unfortunately disturbing criminal cases ended up encountering much mental health distress and suffering, and in some instances even reported post-traumatic stress disorder following their service. It is conceivable that jury duty during any pandemic could give rise to additional stresses and strains on an individual, for example, concerns over their safety and physical-distancing requirements being respected at all times.

I believe that if serving on a jury creates a need for mental health supports, then there should not be barriers for those who must access them. Bill S-206 proposes to amend section 649 of the Criminal Code by adding a narrow exception to the offence prohibiting jurors from disclosing information otherwise disclosed in open court to enable them to share this information in the course of receiving mental health treatment from a health care professional.

While the purpose of section 649 of the Criminal Code is to protect the integrity of the jury deliberation process, the offence has been identified as posing a barrier for jurors in accessing mental health supports by former jurors and in the report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The amendment proposed in Bill S-206 would address recommendation 4 of the report of the standing committee, which proposes that there may be a more lenient secrecy rule for jury deliberations. The committee's recommendations were unanimously supported.

I certainly support the recommendation and I support this bill. For instance, former Bill C-417 in 2019 unanimously passed in the House of Commons following the adoption of amendments by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

I call on all members to support Bill S-206 because it would allow former jurors to be freer in expressing their thoughts and feelings to a health care professional on matters that may have deeply disturbed or upset them or caused significant stress during their service as a juror.

It is a remarkable aspect of our justice system that jurors across the country and in countless courtrooms meet the challenges of jury duty, and so it only makes sense that they would be able to receive the support they need to return to their lives afterward. I am pleased that the government expressed its support for former Bill C-417 and is now in support of Bill S-206. The government has introduced, and Parliament has enacted, a number of changes to improve the jury regime in the Criminal Code.

For example, the Government of Canada introduced legislation that was passed by Parliament in 2019, former Bill C-75, which included several Criminal Code amendments to improve the in court jury selection process. These amendments abolished peremptory challenges, which have been linked to discriminatory application to exclude potential jurors from jury duty; simplified and strengthened the challenge for cause process; modernized the grounds for such challenges; and clarified the power of judges to stand aside jurors to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

More recently, on February 8, 2022, the government introduced Senate legislation to help address the challenges faced by criminal courts caused or exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other Acts relating to the COVID-19 response and other measures, includes proposed amendments that would, among other things, increase the use of technology in the jury selection process, including allowing prospective jurors to participate by video conference where the court considers it appropriate and with the consent of the prosecutor and the accused.

The pandemic and the resulting public health guidelines for physical distancing have made it especially challenging for courts to conduct jury selection proceedings, as these proceedings can sometimes involve several hundreds of people being physically present in the same location at the same time.

The amendments proposed in Bill S-4 would help provide courts with greater flexibility in how jury selection processes are held, and it may serve to be a useful tool in accommodating prospective jurors who have been summoned to participate in the selection process.

Our government is proud to support this bill, as it recognizes the vital role and dedicated service of jurors in the Canadian justice system. As we bring the justice system into the 21st century, we will work to ensure jurors can be better supported in their roles in addition to facilitating the sharing of best practices between jurisdictions.

I want to take a moment to commend my colleagues on the justice and human rights committee for working collaboratively to study and pass this important bill. It is an example of the progress we can achieve when we work together, across party lines, to support all Canadians.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Justice

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the opportunity to rise to speak to the estimates. Several important steps are being taken by the government to support the effective and efficient functioning of the justice system, in particular regarding access to justice for youth, indigenous and Black persons and those who are economically disadvantaged.

As the House is well aware, our justice system has been faced with mounting challenges in recent years. Some of these challenges, such as the increasing length and complexity of trials, preceded the COVID pandemic. Other challenges, such as the need to conduct trials virtually, were generated by the pandemic. Some of the justice system's challenges were felt most acutely by our provincial partners, as they bear the responsibility for the administration of justice, including the increased costs of technology and other public health measures.

Of course, many of these challenges affect not only governments, but also individuals. These include the many individuals who struggle to afford legal assistance when they need it. Many of them also experience systemic disadvantages and discrimination. In some cases, these individuals come into contact with the justice system.

Through the budget, our government made multiple investments to support the justice system to ensure that it treats those who come before it in a fair, equitable and effective manner. Budget 2021 announced an ongoing annual $43.3-million increase in funding for the youth justice services funding program. New six-year funding agreements for the April 21, 2021, to March 31, 2027, time frame were successfully negotiated and are now being put into place with the provinces and territories to implement this funding.

This funding will enable the expansion and sustainability of critical youth justice services and programs delivered by the provinces and territories. Priority funding areas under the youth justice services funding program include diversion and alternatives to custody programming, which will allow more youth to stay out of the formal youth criminal justice system and/or custody. This new funding will allow jurisdictions to further develop and expand the range of culturally safe and responsive programming available to better support indigenous youth and other racialized youth populations overrepresented in the youth criminal justice system. This is particularly true for diversion programming, for which an increased demand is anticipated resulting from the implementation of former Bill C-75.

While we are all pleased that there has been a downward trend in youth crime rates over time, this new funding is needed, as there has not been an increase in funding since 2006, when the Harper government came into power and implemented its failed criminal justice policy that did not focus on rehabilitation or diversion. We are fixing that through many measures, including budgetary measures such as this one and Bill C-5.

The general youth population is increasing, which is expected to affect the demand for youth justice programming and apply additional pressures on the provinces and territories. There is a need to respond more effectively to the diversity of risks and needs of today's youth population. The new funding will therefore enable the sustainability and expansion of critical and more responsive youth justice services and programs.

Our government also re-profiled $40 million in funding for criminal legal aid, provided through the 2020 fall economic statement to 2021 and 2022-23. The COVID pandemic generated significant multi-faceted and long-term impacts on legal aid in Canada. It also produced socio-economic conditions that foster high demand for legal aid, while simultaneously complicating the delivery of legal aid services and limiting non-governmental income sources such as law foundations. This additional investment of $40 million in criminal legal aid funding provided over two years is allowing legal aid plans to better align themselves with the reopening of the courts and provide services to accused people whose cases are backlogged. The additional funding also addresses deficits resulting from decreased law foundation funding and supports legal aid plans in fully implementing technological innovations and ensuring interoperability with the courts.

Vulnerable populations, including low-income individuals and women, have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. In view of their mandate to help the disadvantaged, some legal aid plans relaxed eligibility guidelines early in the pandemic to support individuals facing job loss.

As the courts reopen, they are dealing with backlogs of cases accumulated during the pandemic. The additional funding for criminal legal aid will enable jurisdictions to meet increased demand, thereby reducing the number of individuals who self-represent. Self-represented accused people cost the system both money and time because of adjournments, multiple court appearances, a lack of information and confusion about proceedings. We are continuing to provide additional needed support to the legal aid system to address these systemic pressures so the justice system remains accessible to all Canadians.

The past decades have seen a criminal justice system characterized by the increasingly disproportionate representation of indigenous and Black persons and vulnerable persons such as those experiencing a mental health and/or substance use disorder. The 2020 fall economic statement announced $6.6 million over five years, followed by $1.6 million annually, to support the implementation of impact of race and culture assessments, or IRCAs, nationally. From this, $1.3 million is available for 2022-23. IRCAs are better pre-sentencing reports that help sentencing judges better understand the effects of poverty, marginalization, racism and social exclusion on the offender and their experience with the criminal justice system.

Federal funding will support the development of training curricula for IRCA writers, professional development programs for criminal defence lawyers and Crown prosecutors, and education programs for judges on IRCAs and on the preparation of IRCA reports for eligible racialized accused. The Government of Canada is committed to providing fair and equal access to justice for Black individuals and other racialized people by addressing systemic racism and discrimination in the criminal justice system and overturning a decade of failed Conservative criminal justice policy.

Building on previous investments, budget 2021 also announced an investment of $26.8 million for 2021-22 to support the delivery of immigration and refugee legal aid services. This funding supports access to justice for economically disadvantaged asylum seekers by ensuring that provinces delivering immigration and refugee legal aid have the capacity to maintain service delivery levels. This includes the processing of many asylum claims from individuals who arrived in Canada prior to the pandemic-related border closures, those who made asylum claims from within Canada during the pandemic and those who are now arriving at Canada's borders.

Additionally, the 2020 fall economic statement provided $49.3 million over five years, starting in 2021, and $9.7 million in ongoing funding to increase the application of Gladue principles in the criminal justice system to help address the overrepresentation of indigenous people and address systemic discrimination. As the House is aware, Gladue principles seek to ensure the systemic or background factors that may have played a part in bringing an indigenous person in contact with the law are considered in criminal justice decision-making, and that community-based, culturally appropriate restorative and traditional indigenous justice supports are available to help individuals meet the conditions of their sentences and implement healing plans.

This investment includes funding to support the development and expanded use of Gladue reports, including the training of Gladue report writers, and will support community-based and indigenous-led post-sentence Gladue aftercare. This funding will also support projects focused on addressing systemic barriers and bias in the criminal justice system. The implementation of Gladue principles in the criminal justice system is also a key federal initiative in the Government of Canada's federal pathway to address missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people.

Finally, building on the success of our existing work to address overrepresentation in the criminal justice system, and to improve indigenous people's access to justice in all areas of the justice system, budget 2021 provided $27.1 million over three years for indigenous community-based justice programs to address long-standing program integrity needs and to provide trauma-informed training on working with victims of crime. Funding will also help indigenous families navigate the family justice system and access community-based family mediation services.

Among other objectives, these efforts seek to prevent crime and protect victims by addressing matters before they escalate. They also aim to help decrease the disproportionate number of indigenous children in care across the country and allow these children to remain with their families where appropriate and connect to their communities and culture where possible. In tandem with support for the implementation of Gladue principles, this work will further support the Government of Canada's efforts to advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples in Canada, eliminate systemic discrimination from the justice system and respond to the MMIWG final report's calls for justice and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action.

Through the main estimates, we are seeking to access the funding to support these initiatives this year. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on the critical steps we have taken to support the justice system, and I hope that all members of the House will support these estimates to advance this important work in criminal justice reform.

Bill C-5

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the city of Cranbrook is family friendly, but that reputation is under threat because of Bill C-75's existing offender release legislation. Bill C-5, now being studied at the justice committee, would remove mandatory minimum penalties and introduce new catch-and-release conditional sentencing orders. This would make the existing situation worse. In fact, the Attorney General of B.C. has acknowledged the problem and pointed a finger right at the federal government's legislation.

As we work to address the opioid crisis, Canadians should not be left to accept criminal behaviour, vandalism or violence in our communities. Residents have had enough. Individuals are being threatened with machetes. Businesses are being broken into, and students are being intimidated at work. How many other small communities across Canada have the same situation?

As we consider Bill C-5, we must pursue legislation that serves to make our communities safer. This will only be realized when the government stops aiding offenders and begins to prioritize victims.

Justice

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-5, particularly to dispel some possible misunderstandings about the impact these sentencing reforms would have on the human trafficking regime in the Criminal Code.

Some critics of this bill suggest the proposed reforms would allow hardened human trafficking offenders, who may be linked to organized crime or who are otherwise observing harsh sentences, to serve their sentences at home. This is simply not true.

Currently, all offences that carry mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment in the Criminal Code are ineligible for a conditional sentence. Bill C-5 would not change this. If the proposed reforms were to pass, offences carrying MMPs would continue to be ineligible for conditional sentences. To be completely clear, the offence of human trafficking, as well as any child-related trafficking offences, carries mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment and thus would continue to be ineligible for a conditional sentence.

I want to make clear that when there is no MMP for any provision, CSOs can only be considered by the court in a specific set of circumstances. Namely, where a sentence of less than two years is appropriate, where serving the sentence in the community would not endanger the same of the community, and where such a sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing, including deterrence and denunciation.

Our government is committed to fighting human trafficking. With former bill, Bill C-75, which came into force in June of 2019, we took measures to facilitate the prosecution of human trafficking offences under the Criminal Code.

In September of 2019, we launched the national strategy to combat human trafficking, which brings together federal efforts and is supported by an investment of $57.22 million over five years and $10.28 million ongoing. This builds on previous investments of $14.51 million over five years and $2.8 million per year to establish a Canadian human trafficking hotline, which launched in May of 2019.

In February of 2021, we also launched the national human trafficking public awareness campaign to raise awareness among Canadian youth and parents of the misperceptions of human trafficking and increase understanding of the warning signs.

Our government has taken strong measures to combat human trafficking at it roots, instead of fuelling the ideological tough-on-crime narrative, which has not proven to be true empirically, has not served our communities and has not made us safer nor helped victims.

Let me be very clear. Human trafficking is a serious offence for which courts impose stiff, denunciatory terms of imprisonment in the majority of cases, and that is what we and all Canadians expect from a court system. I have the utmost faith that, after the passage of Bill C-5, sentencing courts would continue to impose fit and appropriate sentences that reflect the seriousness of each offence and the moral blameworthiness of the offender before them in all cases.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time this morning with my hon. colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

It is an absolute honour and privilege to rise and reply to the Speech from the Throne. I listened very carefully to the speech and identified two concerning issues that I heard repeatedly while knocking on thousands of doors during the past election campaign, namely the escalation of crime, particularly gun offences, and the failure of the Liberal government to prioritize a meaningful relationship with our indigenous neighbours.

The safety and security of Canadians must be the top priority for the government. As a former Crown attorney, I am deeply concerned about the escalation of crime in Canada and particularly in my riding of Brantford—Brant. Unfortunately this topic was completely neglected in the throne speech, despite many details published by the Canadian Centre for Justice and Community Safety statistics.

The report shows that in 2020, Canadian police services reported over 2.2 million Criminal Code and other federal statute violations of which 743 were homicides, which is 56 more than the previous year. Let me repeat that number: 743 people killed in Canada last year and yet there is no plan to reduce the escalation of crime in the throne speech. Canadians deserve better. My riding deserves better. People want to feel safe and protected in their home and communities. The Liberal government must stop playing politics and pushing its ideological agenda. It must fight crime and finally end these horrible trends in Canada.

The fact that crime was not addressed in the Speech from the Throne did not surprise me. If we reflect on the Liberal government's track record on this issue, we would see that there is nothing new here. In 2019, the Liberal government, while having a majority in the House of Commons, put into effect Bill C-75, the criminal justice bill. Liberals were claiming that the bill was designed to reduce sentences for milder offences, but the reality was that it implemented softer sentences for serious violent crimes including participation in an activity of a terrorist group, abducting a child and participation in activities of criminal organizations, just to name a few.

In 2020, the same Liberal government tabled a bill colloquially known as the “no more jail time for criminals” bill, which proposed to reduce jail time for dangerous offenders. If implemented, it would have allowed individuals found guilty of horrific crimes like sexual assault, arson and kidnapping to serve their sentence under house arrest instead of real jail.

It would also remove mandatory jail time for anyone who commits robbery with a firearm, trafficking in crystal meth and criminals who smuggle firearms across the Canada-U.S. border. When talking about the smuggling of firearms across the border, it is very concerning during the last session when the Liberal MPs, with the support of their loyal and faithful NDP friends, voted down the Conservative bill that had been designed to address the prevalence of smuggled weapons and the rise in gun crime.

The “soft on crime” agenda is simply irresponsible and dangerous. The Liberal government must do better to ensure the safety and security for everyone wherever they live in Canada.

For six years, in throne speech after throne speech, we heard the same rhetoric: the government is going to get handguns and assault weapons off the streets; we have to focus on reducing gun violence, we have seen the devastating effects of gun violence; too many lives lost; too many families shattered; time to show courage and strengthen gun control; the government will invest to help cities fight gang-related violence. Now, in 2021, our throne speech makes one opening statement: The Liberal government will ensure that it will take steps to allow our communities to be safe.

During the election campaign, the Prime Minister promised to give $1 billion to provinces and territories that want to ban handguns, but the reality is this would not lower gun violence, as almost 80% of the guns used to commit crimes in Toronto, for example, are illegal handguns originating in the United States. As quoted in the press recently, “Since criminals aren't deterred by the Criminal Code, it's a given they won't be deterred by any provincial legislation or municipal bylaws.”

The Prime Minister and his government know this. The 2018 paper by Public Safety Canada “Reducing Violent Crime: A Dialogue on Handguns and Assault Weapons” reports that the vast majority of owners of handguns and other firearms in Canada lawfully abide by requirements; that most gun crimes are not committed with legally owned firearms; that any ban of handguns or assault weapons would primarily affect legal firearms owners; that jurisdictions differ in their approaches to controlling handguns and assault weapons; and the data do not conclusively demonstrate that these handgun or assault weapon bans have led to any reductions in gun violence.

The former minister of public safety and former Toronto police chief told The Globe and Mail in 2019 that banning handguns would not work because most illegal guns are smuggled into Canada from the United States. The former minister was quoted as saying:

I believe that would be potentially a very expensive proposition but just as importantly, it would not...be perhaps the most effective measure in restricting the access that criminals would have to such weapons, because we'd still have a problem with them being smuggled across the border.

The Prime Minister is now poised to reintroduce legislation that died on the Order Paper when the election was called last August to remove minimum sentences for many gun-related offences, including robbery with a firearm, discharging a firearm with intent, reckless discharge of a firearm and possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition. This is another example of the government's soft-on-crime agenda that will not reduce gun crime.

The Prime Minister and his government are completely tone deaf on what it takes to keep our community safe. It is time to target the real source of the problem. It is time to take bold and decisive action to strengthen our borders, provide the maximum support to our Canadian border agents and work in partnership with the U.S. authorities to stem the tide of illegally smuggled firearms.

On September 30, I proudly attended the ceremony on Parliament Hill and stood shoulder to shoulder with indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians, reflecting and honouring the victims and survivors of the residential school system. The good people of Brantford—Brant sent me to Ottawa for this purpose. I am honoured to represent my riding, which includes the largest first nations reserve in Canada. On the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, I did not take a personal day and spend it on a beach.

This year's throne speech was delivered by the Her Excellency the Right Hon. Mary Simon, the first indigenous person ever to hold the position of the Governor General of Canada. As Canadians, we are very proud of this historic moment. This past summer, the collective consciousness of all Canadians was shocked and saddened with the discovery of unmarked graves at the sites of former residential schools. It is our collective responsibility to accept the truth and reflect on the failed and tragic policies of our previous leaders.

Six years ago, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission presented its final report. It presented 94 calls to action to help redress the legacy of residential schools and advance the process of Canadian reconciliation. Under the watchful eye of the Prime Minister, the Liberal government has failed to implement the vast majority of them. According to a 2020 status update on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls to action conducted by the Yellowhead Institute, only eight actions had been implemented. At this rate, it would take until at least 2062 to complete all 94 calls.

I am honoured to represent my riding, which includes the largest first nations reserve. Throughout my entire life, and especially during the campaign, I have had many opportunities to discuss the myriad of issues that people on reserves are facing every day. As their representative in Ottawa, I will fight tooth and nail for their interests. My—

Income Tax Act

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I disagree very much with the previous three speakers, so much so that I am not even sure I am going to refer to the notes that I have in front of me, but let me see if I can make some sense out of the nonsense that I have heard and the falseness of the arguments that have been presented about this very important Private Members' Bill.

In recent years, we have seen crime rates rise across Canada and that crime is getting more severe. This is especially true in rural Canada. In 2017, the crime rate was 23% higher than in urban centres. In some parts of the country, particularly in the Prairies, it is staggeringly higher: between 36% and 42% higher. While provincial governments have responded with concrete measures to tackle this serious issue, the Liberal government has not only refused to take any meaningful action, but has actually made the situation worse.

I want to thank my colleague for Prince Albert for introducing this Private Members' Bill, Bill C-234. This bill seeks to create a non-refundable tax credit for home security measures. It is unfortunate that this bill is necessary, but the Liberal government refuses to undertake the necessary reforms to our justice system, something that no one from the Liberal Party, the Bloc or the New Democratic Party wants to talk about. This is necessary to protect rural Canadians. The issue is the justice system.

We need to do what we can to support Canadians in their efforts to acquire and put in place the devices and mechanisms so that they can feel safe, or at least have some semblance of feeling safe, in their homes.

During a recent study, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women heard testimony from two women who had been repeat victims of rural crime. These women spoke about the toll it takes on a person's mental health when they are constantly worried about being victimized over and over again. They spoke about how repeat offenders from outside their communities target them because they know that help from law enforcement is a long way away, and that if the police come to the scene the criminals are already usually long gone.

They told us how the vast majority of people in their communities have been victims of crime, often more than once, and that many people do not even bother reporting crime anymore: They do not see the point because the justice system continues to let them down. They also spoke about how these criminals are more often armed with firearms and are not afraid to use them, yet shamefully the Liberal government is cracking down on farmers and hunters and law-abiding firearms owners while softening punishments for criminals who use their firearms illegally.

The idea that Canadians are giving up on the idea of justice should be of deep concern to all members of Parliament. When people see that the system does not work for them, they lose confidence in it. When that system is the police and the courts, the consequences of inaction are dire. It is already starting to happen: An Angus Reid poll from January 2020 found that confidence in the RCMP, local law enforcement and the criminal courts has been declining steadily since 2016. The same poll noted that in 2020, 48% of Canadians said they noticed an increase in crime, while only 5% of Canadians thought there had been a decrease.

People may be wondering how we got here. I grew up on a farm. When I was a young man, we were not particularly worried about crime at all. We could leave our doors unlocked when we worked in the fields or went into town. We could leave keys in the ignition of our pickup trucks with the windows rolled down when we parked in town to go into a store for a few minutes. We did not wake up at night scared that someone was armed and prowling around our yards looking to help themselves to our property. The only problem we really ever had was that once in a while, somebody would come into the yard, pull up to the gas tank and fill up their car.

However, the world is a different place now. For the past five years or so it has been getting worse. When it comes to rural Canada out west, the Liberal government does not get it or simply does not care, as we have seen from the member for Kingston and the Islands. He never mentioned crime, which is what this bill is all about. He never mentioned the justice system, which is what this bill is all about. He never mentioned that businesses can write off all of the things that this bill proposes to do, but private citizens cannot. He never mentioned those things at all.

Very often it seems that rural Canadians are the last of the Liberals' worries. Policies that are touted as landmark achievements of the government are typically at the expense of rural Canadians: the carbon tax, the tanker ban, the no-more-pipelines bill and the gun grab, just to name a few.

Another extremely damaging policy that has contributed to the increase in rural crime is Bill C-75 from the last Parliament. Bill C-75 took a number of very serious offences and made them hybrid offences so that they could be dealt with through a fine or a minimal amount of jail time. It also made the requirement that bail be given at the earliest opportunity with the least onerous conditions.

My colleague's legislation was brought forward, in part at least, in response to the Jordan decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. This decision clarified that the timeline for a trial to begin is in order for the Crown to uphold the constitutionally protected right to trial in a reasonable amount of time.

One would think that if the justice system was backed up with numerous serious cases, to the point where trials were being thrown out, the logical decision would be to increase the capability and capacity of the justice system to appropriately deal with it.

This would have allowed accused individuals to have their right to a fair trial upheld in a timely fashion and kept public safety and the administration of justice as a key objective for the security of Canadians.

Instead, the Liberals took the path of least resistance and decided to clear up backlogs of serious offences by giving prosecutors the ability to offer light sentences for serious offences. They also ensured that more people got out on bail just for good measure. The Liberal government, through its changes, took the already quickly revolving door of the justice system and made it spin even faster.

For rural communities, this meant that offenders who regularly target residents would be back on the street shortly after being arrested. In rural Canada, where a small RCMP detachment can be responsible for a vast geographic area, the government has created an almost impossible task. Instead of getting tough on crime, which I vividly recall our current Attorney General of Canada referring to as “stupid on crime”, the government decided to put criminals' needs ahead of victims and their families in rural communities.

It is important to note that those tough-on-crime policies that the Minister of Justice smirked at were hugely successful at reducing the crime rate and the crime severity index and in instilling confidence in our justice system. Instead of doubling down on our Conservative formula and putting public safety at the heart of the justice system, the Liberal government has now also introduced Bill C-22. This bill slashes punishments for a number of serious firearms-related offences and ensures that all of the offences that the Liberal government hybridized in Bill C-75 are now eligible for conditional sentencing, which basically means jail time in one's house.

My constituents are absolutely shocked at the Liberal government's decisions to put the wants and desires of criminals above the needs and safety of law-abiding Canadians. Instead of providing them with assurances that the government understands the issue and that they are working to restore confidence in our justice systems, the Liberals have done the complete opposite.

That brings us back to Bill C-234. This bill is starting down the path of trying to correct what the Liberals have broken since forming government in 2015. Since that time, we have seen crime increase in frequency and severity, yet the Liberals have taken no meaningful steps to curtail it, only to exacerbate it. That is why my Conservative colleagues and I have formed a Conservative rural crime caucus to come up with solutions to this epidemic that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General cannot seem to be bothered with.

The legislation that we are discussing today is a great first step in addressing the rural crime epidemic. It will help Canadians get the tools that they need to protect themselves and their homes from criminals by providing a non-refundable tax credit. Tools like security gates and other access control devices to keep the yard safe could help deter criminals by preventing access and making it harder for criminals to target a rural property. Cameras and alarms could help provide valuable information that law enforcement could use to hopefully identify and catch these criminals, even if they are not able to respond while the crime is in progress because they are so far away.

While this bill is an important step, Conservatives understand that it cannot be our only step. Deterring criminals to find a less prepared victim is not a permanent solution. To that end, I was pleased to introduce my private member's bill, Bill C-289, back in April. It seeks to create an aggravating factor for targeting people or property that is experiencing increased vulnerability due to its remoteness from emergency police or medical services.

My bill would also seek to make existing aggravating factors for home invasion more inclusive of rural properties and face the realities of rural crime. Last, Bill C-289 would ensure that a judge would give careful consideration as to why an offender did not get bail when the judge is considering extra credit for time that was served before the trial.

Rural crime is a complex issue. Given the unique challenges posed by geography and more humble resources in many of the communities, it requires a thorough, multi-faceted approach, and the federal government needs to be an engaged partner. In fact, over a year ago, there was agreement for the provincial and federal government to create a pan-Canadian working group on rural crime. We have heard nothing about this since then from the Liberal government. While the governments across the west in the provinces have been quick to back up these words with action, we have seen no movement from the Liberals at all. The provinces have done an admirable job, but we cannot escape the reality that this is an issue that requires federal leadership.

This should not be a difficult decision for the government, so it raises the question of why the government is so opposed to doing the right thing. Is it because the government really has no understanding of the challenges facing rural Canadians? Is it because rural crime is disproportionately an issue based in the west and the electoral math does not portray it as a worthwhile initiative when there are plenty of policies that the government still wants to enact? Is it because the Minister of Justice is so blinded by ideology and so committed to his hug-a-thug plan that he is willing to let rural Canadians bear the cost of his inaction?

Canadians have a right to life, liberty and security of the person. For rural Canadians in many parts of our country, the Liberal government is not creating the conditions for those rights to be realized.

Sex-Selective Abortion Act

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I am here today to speak to private member's bill, Bill C-233, an act to amend the Criminal Code, sex-selective abortion, at second reading.

I really wish I did not have to do this. I am, quite frankly, disappointed that I have to spend time in the year 2021 on the abortion debate in Canada, when a woman's right to choose has been law for over 30 years. It really is unfortunate that members of Parliament are still seeking to restrict that right.

The sponsor claims that this bill is to address sex-based discrimination. To achieve that goal, this bill would create a new Criminal Code offence prohibiting doctors from performing an abortion when they know it is being sought solely on the grounds of the genetic sex of the fetus.

While I note that the offence is ostensibly aimed at doctors, I must point out that it would also criminalize women as parties to the offence. Make no mistake, Bill C-233 will limit a woman's right to choose by doing this. Criminalizing a woman for seeking an abortion is a violation of the fundamental rights of women in Canada, and it is just plain wrong.

I would like to speak to what we know about the impact of using criminal law to regulate abortion. We need not look further than Canada's own legal history of abortion regulation and its impact on Canadian women. That history reflects what the international evidence tells us. Criminal restrictions on abortion result in women having less access to them, and having less access negatively impacts women's equality rights.

Let us take a look at how we got to where we are today. Currently, no criminal offences apply to abortion, and the provinces and territories are responsible for providing safe abortion services to Canadian women. However, we must not forget that, until 1969, abortion was absolutely prohibited in Canada. That meant that very few, if any, safe options were available to women. Women were forced to either bring an unwanted pregnancy to term or access unsafe and unregulated methods such as back alley abortions, which often led to infection and death.

Women who sought abortions also risked criminal sanctions, and doctors who provided safe abortions risked punishment. Many of us will remember Dr. Morgentaler. He was incarcerated for saving women's lives. He risked his own safety to champion women's rights and for that he was awarded the Order of Canada in 2008.

I cannot emphasize enough how much we do not want to return to that era. I am proud to live in a country where women have safe access to abortion and do not need to worry about criminal reprisals. Again, I am very disappointed to be here today having to fight against an attempt to limit these hard-earned and important rights.

The evidence before the court in the Morgentaler case highlighted the medical risks and psychological trauma restricting access to abortion caused women seeking abortion services in Canada, and the importance of affording women autonomy to make decisions about their own bodies. The provisions were found to violate women's security of the person rights.

This is because, and I quote Justice Bertha Wilson, the first woman justice of the Supreme Court, who said that those provisions asserted that, “the woman's capacity to reproduce is to be subject, not to her own control, but to that of the state.”

The court found the violation of women's rights by limiting access to abortion to be completely unacceptable, and so do I. The court has been very clear on this front, and I think that a court could also find this legislation unconstitutional for the same reasons, should it pass.

The 1969 provisions remained in the Criminal Code, but were unenforceable until they were repealed in 2019 by our government in the former Bill C-75. Other related abortion offences were repealed by our government in 2018 in former Bill C-51. Even though they were inoperable, I am proud that our government took the important step to remove these discriminatory provisions.

It took more than 100 years to remove abortion-related criminal offences from our Criminal Code, which is, frankly, a shameful mark. However, again, I am quite proud to be part of the government that finally removed them from the books, and I have no intention of supporting any attempt to add them back.

Consistent with the Canadian experience, international research has shown that using the criminal law to regulate any aspect of abortion results in barriers to accessing abortion services, which contributes to gender inequality. For example, international research indicates that laws restricting the use of technology for sex selection purposes, as well as sex-selective abortions, are likely to have harmful impacts on women. These impacts include women seeking unsafe procedures that fall outside regulations, protocols and monitoring.

I fail to see how criminalizing women who choose sex-selection abortion, perhaps because of familial pressure to do so, protects them, or other women for that matter, from discrimination. Rather, a criminal law response is more likely to detract from women's equality rights by creating barriers to accessing abortion.

The United Nations recommends combatting this form of discrimination by addressing the root causes of gender inequality. This includes focusing on advancing access to education, health services and economic resources for women and girls. I am pleased to note that our government has made significant investments to advance gender equality, guided by women and the framework for assessing gender equality results, introduced in budget 2018.

Criminalizing women seeking abortion is not the solution to this problem and would be a massive step backwards for this country. I cannot emphasize enough how disappointed I am to see that there is yet another attempt in this bill to limit a woman's right to choose.

In Canada, I am proud to say that abortion is treated like the medical service that it is and falls within the responsibility of the provincial and territorial health sector. All medical procedures are subject to medical professional standards.

Ultimately, what could happen if we were to enact an offence such as this? Perhaps doctors would refuse to provide abortion services out of fear of criminalization, because they believe their patient may be choosing abortion for the wrong reasons. Perhaps a woman who needs access to an abortion would be afraid to seek it out in case she is reported and charged for having done so. Perhaps women from certain communities would be denied access to abortion based on discriminatory views about their reason for seeking it. In short, I fear that this bill could undo decades of arduous work to ensure that women never face these barriers again.

I was really disappointed to see the Leader of the Opposition indicate that his caucus will be allowed a free vote on such a fundamental issue as protecting women's right to choose.

I hope that members of the Conservative Party who are currently heckling me will recognize, as all other members of this House do, how important it is to protect equality rights for women in Canada and join me and the government in voting against this proposed legislation.

Public Safety

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Durham region was shaken by two shootings in Ajax last week, which appear to be gang related. According to Statistics Canada, the number of gang-related murders since the Liberals first took office has been higher ever single year than any year under the previous Conservative government. The Liberal government's soft-on-crime approach through bills like Bill C-22 and Bill C-75 has made Canada a safe haven for gang activity.

When will caring about gang violence, the true source of gun crime in Canada, become a priority for the Liberal government?

Criminal Code

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

It is a privilege to rise and represent the constituents of Red Deer—Lacombe in this debate, who would be mortified, I believe, to know what the legislation is actually proposing to do to our criminal justice system, notwithstanding the words coming from government MPs.

Let me start with a little bit of context. I am the chair of the Conservative rural crime caucus and had the pleasure of helping to create a document in 2018 that we published as MPs from rural Alberta. Virtually every one of my colleagues from rural Alberta participated in this. We consulted and talked to a wide variety of people in our province. We talked to victims. We talked to rural crime watch people. We talked to anti-crime organizations. We talked to victims-of-crime services and to law enforcement experts, and we produced a comprehensive, thorough and multifaceted report, which we then tabled at the public safety committee in the last Parliament. My colleague from Lakeland had a motion in that Parliament talking about rural crime.

I want to remind all colleagues in the House that crime in rural areas, and specifically here in western Canada, is significantly on the rise. It has been shown statistically. One does not have to go very far to look. A document from the Angus Reid Institute published January 10, 2020, shows that crime rates in Canada dropped precipitously from 1991 to 2014, falling more than 50% during that period. However, crime rates have ticked upward over each of the past four years for which data is available, and that trend is continuing. It shows that confidence is waning significantly in our law enforcement agencies, courts and provincial jurisdictions. It notes that it is more significantly happening in western Canada, and in the Prairie provinces in particular.

Colleagues can imagine that the proposed changes to this legislation would be somewhat horrific to my constituents who ask me about it. If anybody wants to read the report, “Towards a Safer Alberta: Addressing Rural Crime”, it addresses a lot of crime in general by addressing rural crime. I would encourage them to do so. It can be found on my website, www.blainecalkinsmp.ca. I would encourage people to have a look at it and see what good work MPs in western Canada have done to bring forward the concerns of our constituents.

I want to talk a little bit about the overall Government of Canada's approach since it became the government in the fall of 2015. I am not going to get into too much discussion about specific firearms legislation in Bill C-71 or Bill C-21, but I will talk about Bill C-75 and now Bill C-22, and the soft-on-crime approach that the government seems to have. The rationale that it is presenting seems to basically undermine the needs of victims in this country, especially when some of these crimes are certainly crimes against people. They are not just property crimes.

What are some of the things that the government has done? In Bill C-75, which could be called the prequel to Bill C-22, the government basically hybridized well over 100 offences in the Criminal Code. To those who wonder what that means, there are basically two ways in which a Crown prosecutor can proceed with charges before a justice. One of them is through an indictable offence. Until this bill came along, it usually carried with it a set of penalties for which there was a requirement to spend some time in jail or in custody. Then there is something called a summary conviction offence, which is the equivalent, I guess, of a U.S. misdemeanour. It usually carries with it a very small sentence or time served in jail, in lieu of being unable to pay a fine of some kind.

Here are some of the things for which the current government, in the previous Parliament, changed the sentences from mandatory indictable offences to hybrids. This allows the Crown to plea bargain away serious offences such as impaired driving, punishment for theft, both under $5,000 and over $5,000, possession of instruments for breaking and entering, selling automobile master keys and other items, enabling theft, possession of property, stolen property obtained by crime and, of course, importing or exporting property.

That just names a few offences. As I said, there were over 110 offences that the government essentially reduced the penalties for. In fact, it would now be possible for someone to get a summary conviction offence for abduction of a person under the age of 16 or abduction of a person under the age of 14. Those were also included in Bill C-75. It would now be possible to pay a fine less than someone would pay for failing to stop at a stop sign. That is the legacy of Bill C-75 in the first Parliament.

Now let us fast forward to Bill C-22 and take a look at what Liberals are removing mandatory minimum penalties or just basic minimum penalties for in the Criminal Code. First, there is using a firearm or an imitation firearm in the commission of an offence. Interestingly the government is removing Airsoft and paintball guns from possession completely for law-abiding citizens, but if a criminal is using a firearm or an imitation firearm in the commission of an offence, they will now get the pleasure of going home and sitting there, thinking about what they have done. Possession of a firearm, knowing that its possession is unauthorized, is the whole point. Rather than reducing penalties for people who knowingly use or are in possession of unauthorized firearms, the government is instead taking firearms away from law-abiding citizens who are co-operating with the government. It does not make any sense.

More items include possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence. One of the biggest problems we have with rural crime is people going onto properties to steal vehicles, tools and other items that are easily saleable and marketable on the black market. People also, from time to time, go to these properties purposely looking for firearms to steal. Why on earth would the government want to make it less punishable for these types of thieves who are purposefully targeting establishments, casing rural farms and casing our communities?

Why would we reduce the penalties for individuals who are purposefully trying to steal firearms? These firearms end up on the streets of our cities and our communities and end up being used in the commission of offences. This makes no sense, but the government seems to think that this is a good idea.

Here is something we can categorize in the realm of the bizarre. Why on earth would the government remove any semblance of a minimum penalty for someone who was trafficking weapons and firearms? If we listen to police chiefs or victims' services people anywhere in major urban centres, crime is proliferating especially with the use of handguns and firearms in those communities. We know that most of those firearms are obtained illegally through theft or are smuggled across our border. I would think that the government would say it was going to crack down on smugglers, but it would seem that the government is encouraging smuggling while discouraging lawful ownership. Importing or exporting a weapon knowing it is unauthorized is called smuggling. The bill would reduce minimum penalties for that.

The next item is discharging a firearm with intent. Why would we reduce a penalty for somebody purposely discharging a firearm with intent? This makes absolutely no sense. The Liberal MPs are simply misleading the House and Canadians with what their true intent is with Bill C-22, and it is incumbent upon all of us with a conscience in the House of Commons, and with an eye to doing what is right for the law-abiding citizens that we represent, to defeat this irremediable piece of legislation.

Status of Women

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know well the bill that the member speaks of, as it was one I advocated for immensely. The Liberals took the consecutive sentencing out of it, made it concurrent sentencing and waited three and a half years to bring it in.

The concern my colleague raises is a valid one. That bill should have been brought into force as soon as possible. The bill was passed in this place in 2014. It was supposed to be declared in force in early 2015, but it only happened until Bill C-75, which was at the end of the last Parliament.

Judges Act

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to be here today to address Bill C-3. It has gone through committee and is now back in the House of Commons, and we once again get an opportunity to speak to it.

I want to point out that this is a pleasant departure for the Liberal Party in supporting the bill. In the past the Liberals have typically been odious, pointing out errors that the justice system gets. For them to give clear instructions to the justice system is refreshing. I am excited to see that they are supporting the bill, that they have moved it forward and that we have the Government of Canada pursuing education of judges.

We have seen in the past some horrendous crimes that have been committed in this country, and we have seen sentencing that does not seem to fit the crime. The sentencing does not provide an incentive to not do the crime again. I am talking particularly in the area that I know best, around human trafficking. I have a series of examples in which folks were convicted of trafficking people and the justice system was incapable, or folks in the justice system were rude about what was going on. It led to people being concerned and not willing to come forward when they had a crime perpetrated against them.

I remember one situation in which a gal was talking to me. She had come forward and pressed charges against an individual, but the guy was out on bail very quickly and was standing at the end of her driveway making threatening gestures such as slicing across his throat. This is a justice system that was supposed to be there to protect her. I am happy to see the government supporting the bill to provide judge training, and it is important that we get it right. The justice system should get it right.

I also want to note that I will share my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, a great colleague of mine. I also had the opportunity to tour him across the promised land. He is from Quebec and I am from Alberta. I know there is a bit of rivalry there, although it is more imagined than real because when I had him, a Quebecker, in Alberta, I stuck him in a trench of a pipeline and showed him what pipelines were all about. He was impressed with the size of the farms that we have where I come from. He is the member of Parliament for the maple syrup capital of Canada, and I am the member of Parliament for the honey capital of Canada, which I think is pretty sweet, either way. I do take a little honey in my coffee because I think that makes me a little sweeter all the time.

We have seen human traffickers get off with sentences that were in many cases less time than they had spent trafficking their victims. We have seen traffickers who trafficked multiple girls for several years get months in prison. We also see traffickers, who have made hundreds of thousands of dollars trafficking people, get fines of $5,000. It is important to me that the justice system provides justice and deterrence. It says in the Bible that the law cannot save us, and that is true. The words on a piece of paper will not in the instant save someone, but we do try to rectify these situations after the fact. Our justice system is to bring justice to the situation. We see in the bill the acknowledgement that our justice system does not get it right all the time.

From time to time, things change, things come to light, society changes and society sees the need to shine a spotlight on particular issues. That is what this bill does. I am pleased to support the bill.

However, this is a departure from what we have seen in the past. We have seen the Liberals hesitate on bringing justice through the justice system for human trafficking victims. When it comes to consecutive sentencing, we saw a bill that was first introduced by a Bloc member, then was introduced by an NDP member and it was finally passed under a Conservative government. It was brought into force by the Liberal government.

However, before the bill was brought into force, the government waited for two years to pass Bill C-75. It could have been brought into force immediately when it took power back in 2015, but the government waited in order to pull out consecutive sentencing, because, lo and behold, if a trafficker had to go to jail for an extended period of time, that would not have been right.

The Liberals delayed the passing of that bill. While it had originally been introduced in 2013, it took all the way until 2017 to be reintroduced. We see that when the bill was finally brought, the Liberals had pulled the consecutive sentencing out and went back to concurrent sentencing, saying if someone had trafficked one girl, they were going to jail for a maximum of 10 years, and if they had trafficked 10 girls, they could serve those sentences concurrently. Regardless of how many people they had trafficked, they would serve the sentences concurrently.

That is not justice. That is not bringing people to justice. That is not providing any deterrent. Perhaps the Liberals will stand up and ask me questions about this, and maybe they will clarify whether they actually believe that deterrence should be something that is part of our justice system. Do Liberals believe that deterrence is part of our justice system?

At the end of the day, serious penalties for this type of sexual violence is important. However, it is more important to provide real protection for victims who endure years of trauma and take years to recover, knowing that their trafficker could be out and back on the streets before they have been fully integrated back into society.

Today we see that judges are still handing down human trafficking sentences that do not reflect the seriousness of the crime. The government refuses to send a message to traffickers by mandating serious penalties.

I propose that the government, at the very least, consider adopting a similar approach to human trafficking as it did on this bill. Judicial training on human trafficking law would be unprecedented. Maybe we could go beyond this. Maybe we could look at special courts. I know there are a number of special courts in Canada. We see drug courts where there are two doors. If someone is convicted of a drug crime, there are two doors. One is rehabilitation; the other is jail. People can choose which door they want to go through. If they do not abide by the conditions set when they cross the first door, then they are switched to the second door.

Those kinds of things have been successful in Canada. I think Ontario is the province that has been pushing that the most. I think that is great. In Alberta, we have the child advocacy centre. It is not a special court, but it is a centre where children of sexual abuse come. There are complete wraparound services. It is not a sterile institutionalized facility. There are puppy dogs wandering around. There are nice trees. The whole place is a place to put people at ease.

All of the government services that come into play in a case of child abuse come to the child, rather than sending the child through multiple different institutions. That, again, has been a great model and is something that we could see across Canada, in terms of dealing with human trafficking victims.

While I support the government's initiative around the bill, I hope that we can see some of these other things that Conservatives are pushing for that get our justice system to provide justice but also, on the front end, prevent these crimes from happening by providing a deterrent.

It is always an honour and privilege to rise in the House of Commons.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by thanking my former colleague, Rona Ambrose. She was also the former leader of the Conservative Party and the official opposition in this place. She is the originator of the bill we are debating today. Rona Ambrose has done, and continues to do, a tremendous amount of work on behalf of women and girls, not only here in Canada but around the world. When this bill was introduced in 2017 in its original form, I had the opportunity to sit down with her, hear her heart and understand the purpose of this piece of legislation. At that time, I also had the opportunity to sit on the status of women committee, where we discussed this legislation and its importance at length.

This bill is about ensuring that trust is maintained in the judicial system and that survivors of sexual assault are respected by the judicial system here in Canada and, therefore, feel free and comfortable to come forward with their cases. It mandates that, to be appointed as a judge of a Superior Court, an individual must undergo training with regard to sexual assault law and social context, including attending seminars.

This would ensure that Superior Court judges are equipped with the knowledge and skills needed to address sexual assault trials, and that survivors are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve in such a vulnerable scenario. For the purposes of transparency and openness, judges would also be required to provide written reasoning for their decisions when it comes to sexual assault proceedings. These parameters seem very common sense to me.

One would like to argue that this type of training is unnecessary but, sadly, one scenario after another points to the fact that it would be helpful. For example, in 2014, Alberta Federal Court justice Robin Camp asked a sexual assault complainant, “Why couldn't you just keep your knees together?” That was inappropriate. Most Canadians recognize that this kind of degrading and humiliating language is entirely unacceptable and should never be used in any context, let alone in a Federal Court. This is a classic case of a judge misusing his place of authority and power to further make the victim into yet another victim because of his words, actions and degradation toward her.

I have the highest regard for judges, and recognize the burden they face in having to administer justice and apply the law to determine guilt or innocence. This can be extremely challenging. Although Canada has the best justice system in the world, it certainly is not without its flaws. We put a tremendous amount of trust in our judges to function with integrity and professionalism. We expect the best of them. It is in everyone's best interests, then, that they be equipped with the tools, skills and training necessary for them to do their jobs extremely well.

We all know that sexual assault is a serious issue. I believe we would all agree that it should be eradicated. Unfortunately, however, it is very much a reality. More than 11 million Canadians have been physically or sexually assaulted from the age of 15 onward. This represents 39% of all Canadian women to have experienced this. On average, one woman or girl is killed every two and a half days right here in our own country.

Furthermore, Statistics Canada reports that only 5% of women who are sexually assaulted actually bring it to the attention of the police, not because they do not want justice but because they are afraid of being further victimized. That is only 5%. This statistic should be alarming to everyone but it gets worse: Of the 5% who report their sexual assault cases, only 21% take them to court. Then, of the 21% that go to court, only 12% of those cases result in a conviction. That is 12% of 21% of 5%. This means that there is a 98% chance that sexual assault offenders will go scot-free. That should not be the case. Every single individual in this country who commits such a heinous crime should be put behind bars.

That type of conduct is not acceptable in Canadian society, so why is it that 98% are going free and 2% are being convicted?

This bill falls in line with my party's long-standing commitment to defend victims of crime. Sexual assault is one of the only crimes in Canada right now that is not declining, and the Liberals have failed to work to prevent this. Contrary to the Liberals, the Conservatives believe that we must stand with victims, that we must choose them over criminals and that this is what in fact strengthens our justice system. For that reason, we passed more than 30 justice and public safety bills during our time in office, including the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. We put that bill in place because victims of crime and their families deserve to be treated with dignity, respect and honour. It is absolutely vital that victims' rights be put before the rights of criminals, full stop.

In contrast, during their time in government, the Liberal members across the aisle put in place Bill C-75. This bill decreases sentence times for heinous crimes like female genital mutilation, forced marriage, causing bodily harm and other heinous crimes such as infanticide, etc. There is a whole list of them. It is the complete opposite of what one would hope for from one's government.

I would like to finish my speech by imploring the government across the aisle to continue former Prime Minister Harper's legacy of taking a compassionate stance toward victims. Under the Harper government, more than 30 new laws were passed to protect victims, hold offenders accountable and increase efficiency in the justice system.

During our time in government, we invested $162 million through Status of Women Canada to fund projects to end violence against women and girls.

In 2015, we committed to invest another $200 million over five years. That was cut by the government.

In 2012, Conservatives launched the national action plan to combat human trafficking. That plan was in line with the United Nations trafficking protocol and focused on four pillars: prevention, protection of victims, prosecution of offenders, and working in partnership with domestic and international groups, and $6 million per year was invested into the national action plan to combat human trafficking. Again, the Liberal government has no interest in that plan.

In 2009, we amended the Criminal Code to raise the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16 through this bill.

In 2009, again, we strengthened the national sex offender registry by making it accessible to the public so that people would know if there were high-risk offenders in their area.

In 2010, we implemented the Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act to protect women from repeat violent and sexual offenders.

Through Status of Women Canada, we funded innovative projects to prevent and respond to sexual violence against women and girls, engaged men and boys in ending violence, and addressed harmful cultural practices such as forced marriage and genital mutilation.

Canada's Conservatives believe that the safety of Canadians should be the number one priority of any government and that all forms of harassment, sexual violence and discrimination are absolutely unacceptable and should be condemned. We know that a strong criminal justice system must always put the rights of victims before the rights of criminals. Canada's Conservatives will always stand on the side of those who are victimized.

It is my hope that this bill will bring some level of comfort to victims of sexual assault when they consider pressing charges and bringing their cases before a court. Sexual assault victims are some of the most vulnerable individuals. They need to be treated as such. Many perpetrators are not brought to justice because victims fear that they will meet with prejudice, closed ears or bias. These victims need as much support as they can possibly attain. I hope that this bill will take us one step closer to being able to provide victims with that confidence and that level of security and assurance that they require.

In closing, I look forward to this bill receiving unanimous support in this place so that we can send a unified message to all Canadians from coast to coast that we will always stand on behalf of victims and insist on a fair and compassionate justice system.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-3. The original legislation was first introduced in February 2017 as Bill C-337 by the Hon. Rona Ambrose, the former leader of our party as well as the official opposition. I want to thank Ms. Ambrose for the passionate advocacy that she has taken on this important legislation.

I am also pleased to see that the legislation adopted by the Liberal government earlier this year was reintroduced again now as Bill C-3. In 2017, it received unanimous support from the House of Commons and passed quickly to committee. I guess it should come as no surprise then that it would take over two years for it to move through the legislative process despite having all-party support and it would die on the floor of the Senate in June 2019. Despite finishing the legislative process at about the same time as 15-plus other bills that June, it was held back by the Liberal majority government from receiving Royal Assent. Why, people may ask? Some may suggest it is to play the same Liberal games that many Canadians despise and disapprove of, and that is so it can be renamed and called their own.

This is important legislation as it is a step forward toward actually improving our criminal justice system, something that the Liberal government has done little or nothing on for the last five years. This legislation is about ensuring trust is maintained in the justice system and that survivors of sexual assault are respected by the justice system when they do come forward. The bill requires that to be appointed a judge of a Superior Court, an individual must now commit to participate in continuing education on matters related to sexual assault law and social context, including attending seminars.

This would ensure that Superior Court judges are equipped with the knowledge and skills required to address sexual assault trials and ensure that survivors are treated with dignity and respect. It also provides training to not feed into the myths and stereotypes that often cause women to hesitate to come forward. Personally, I would have preferred that, in addition to the new appointments to the bench, all current judges sitting at every level of court that adjudicates sexual offences in this country be required to participate in continuing education on these matters as well, in the same way that this legislation proposes for new Superior Court appointments.

The bill would also require judges to provide reasons for decisions on sexual assault cases. This is good, as it will give more information to victims and improve transparency for the justice system and the public who watch it.

As a former police officer who has given testimony in a wide variety of criminal cases, including numerous sexual assault cases, I have the utmost respect for the significant challenge and burden placed on our judges. Every day they are tasked with appropriately applying the law to determine guilt or innocence as they adjudicate criminal cases. While Canadians enjoy the best justice system in the world, it is not without its flaws. Judges, after all, are human like all of us and are given the incredible responsibility of applying laws written by other humans, namely parliamentarians in the House. We know that sometimes those laws can also be flawed.

We put a great deal of authority and trust in our judges and so ensuring that people who take up this challenging post are properly equipped, we must ensure that they have the necessary training and knowledge to fulfill those responsibilities to the best of their ability and to the expectations of the Canadian public. This training would eliminate misconceptions, myths and stereotypes that often prevent victims of sexual assault, almost always women, from coming forward and pressing charges against their attackers. This is not a minor issue. The number of sexual assaults that occur in Canada and are never reported is staggering.

Statistics Canada reported that only 5% of women who are sexually assaulted come to the attention of police. I suspect that one of the many reasons is because of the women's lack of confidence in our justice system. Far too few of these crimes are reported, and of the 5% that are reported, only 21% have led to a court case. There are many factors in this, including what evidence might be available, how it might be prosecuted, witnesses who are available, any corroborating evidence, attitude of the justice participants, how judges approach the issue, and maybe many others.

Of the 21% that actually get to court, of the 5% who actually reported being assaulted, only 12% of those cases result in conviction. That is 12% of 21% of 5%. In other words, there is a better than 98% chance of not being convicted of sexually assaulting another person in this country. That is unacceptable. Finally, of all those convicted of sexual assault only 7% result in a prison term. These are terrible crimes and they have lasting, lifelong impacts. Getting a conviction on a sexual assault, let alone having someone sentenced, is far too rare. Most victims of crimes of violent sexual assault will usually prefer not to relive the experience over and over again in our courts, living through the trauma multiple times.

Like I said previously, I have investigated many sexual assault crimes. The heartbreaking experiences of victims are further exacerbated by our justice system. The victims feel they are not being believed. The intrusive nature of the evidence-collection process; retelling their experiences, over and over again; sometimes limited victim supports; and lack of convictions reduce the victims' willingness to come forward. If the assailants are convicted, many victims do not feel that the sentence that is given out fits what happened to them.

This bill is the kind of thing that governments should be doing: working to improve our justice system, working to support victims with better services and working so that criminals who assault others are held accountable and put in jail. Support for victims has been sorely lacking in the last few years. There has been lots of support for criminals, including reduced sentences for some serious and violent crimes, but limited support for victims.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police noted in its brief to Parliament on Bill C-75 that for some criminals, if given reduced sentences, it would mean eliminating certain information being entered into the Canadian Police Information Centre system, including DNA. When the conviction is considered a secondary offence, it eliminates critical information that then limits the ability for police to track and catch that criminal if they commit other crimes. As the CACP put it, this would “have a direct and negative impact on police investigations.” I would add, “and on public safety”.

Canadians should not live in fear. Young women should not live in fear. Victims and their families should not be living in fear. They should have trust and confidence in our justice system. Victims and their rights should always be put ahead of the rights of criminals. Canada's Conservatives recognize that far too often the justice system fails to respect the experiences of victims of sexual assault.

It is time that we end comments and attitudes like that of our Prime Minister, where he said that she “experienced it differently”. Those kinds of excuses allow sexual assaults and sexual harassment to be normalized. Calling it out is a duty of all of us. Acting to stop that kind of behaviour is a responsibility of this House.

My hope is that this bill will be the first step in improving the treatment of victims, increasing the conviction of sexual offenders, improving public safety, and developing the trust and confidence of Canadians in our justice system.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, in terms of the references the member made to Bill C-75, I submit that it is a good day for those of us who were behind Bill C-75. The Supreme Court just upheld the provisions in that legislation that deal with eliminating peremptory challenges when selecting jurors. This ensures we will not have a tragedy of justice like what we saw with the trial of Gerald Stanley.

I appreciate the member's comments, and in his five years in the House I have always thought of him as a thoughtful member. I note that he has done a lot of work on the issue of human trafficking, which he mentioned today. Addressing human trafficking and, more broadly speaking, the issue of sexual violence requires a judiciary that is sensitized to these issues, that is fully up to speed on the current state of the law, that is transparent in providing reasons, etc.

Given that background and his commitment to this pressing issue, which is very closely connected to what the bill is about, he said that he supports the bill. Would that support translate into getting the bill efficaciously and expeditiously to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, where any amendments that might be needed could be moved and debated?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege and honour to rise in my place to add my voice to this very important debate. It has been five years since I was elected, and in those five years I have worked a lot on issues regarding the court system, its handling of sexual assault and human trafficking cases and how to get justice for victims.

This bill is a substantial departure for the Liberals, so I thank them for bringing it forward. Typically, when the Liberals try to fix the justice system, they reduce sentencing. That has been their road map. We saw that with Bill C-75 in the last Parliament. Their solution to fixing backlogs in the court system was to reduce sentencing, and they have been unwilling to take on the justice system and say they get things wrong. On this side of the House, we have been ready to say a certain decision was wrong or was not good enough, or we brought in mandatory minimum sentences to try to fix many of the outrageous deficiencies in the justice system.

This bill is a departure for the Liberals, so I welcome it. They are acknowledging that there is an issue in the court system, a lack of appreciation for victims in the court system. This bill goes some of the way to help that along and fix some of the problems.

I would like to step back a bit. Statistics have been brought up several times. I have been in the House of Commons all morning listening to the speeches, and the stats on sexual assault continue to be brought up. We should be working to have a society in which sexual assault does not happen. If sexual assault did not happen, we would not be talking about conviction rates and that kind of thing. We could have a law on the books for sexual assault and it would not happen, and, therefore, whether judges were educated on this issue would be a moot point because they would not be dealing with those cases.

That said, the rate of sexual assault across the country is going up dramatically, and in other areas of my work in this place I put forward some ideas on why that is. Motion No. 47 was passed in the last Parliament. It addressed misogynistic and sexually explicit material online and how that was impacting Canadian society. There was some good work done at the committee, but the government has failed to capitalize on the committee report, the voices of people who have been victimized and the voices of academics working in this area. They show us that we are in the greatest social experiment in human history, given online sexually explicit content and the education our youth get through that regarding their sexuality. I hope the government is going to be pursuing that. An initiative I have been working on is meaningful age verification, and I hope the government is looking at that too.

There is another part of the debate here today: While the Liberals have brought forward a bill, it is basically a rehash of a private members' bill from my side of the House, though I salute them for that. It is now a government bill, and they had the opportunity to bring forward a bill that contained a whole suite of things they could do to fix the issue of sexual assault in our country. Judge education is an important one, but it is a bit downstream from the issues.

The Bible says that the law will not save us, and that is the case here as well. The best laws in the country will not save us. The law always comes into effect after the fact. It allows us to bring perpetrators to justice, but before that, it does not save us. That is important to recognize.

We should be cultivating in humanity and in the citizens of our country a culture where sexual assault is unthinkable, where individuals hold each other accountable, where there is a large sense of community and where messing with one of us means messing with all of us. In doing so, there would be strong relationships within our society that could prevent this kind of thing from happening. I hope that we can get back to that, as it is more upstream from where this bill is at. That said, I will be supporting this bill, for sure.

Over the past five years, I have been working hard to end human trafficking and specifically the sex trafficking that happens across the world. This is a large and growing issue in our country. The average sex-trafficking case is happening within 10 blocks of where we live, so let us keep our eyes peeled. If we see something, there is a national hotline we can call. It primarily targets women and girls. In Canada, it is estimated that 50% of people caught up in human trafficking and sex trafficking are indigenous. This is to our shame, and we need to be working very hard on this as well.

One interesting thing has happened, particularly with Bill C-75 from the last Parliament, regarding conviction rates and convictions in human trafficking cases. One thing we brought in during the Parliament prior to my getting here, through a bill by the Bloc and the NDP that passed in 2013, was consecutive sentencing for human traffickers. The Liberals sat on this for three years and finally passed it into Bill C-75, but they removed the part about consecutive sentencing and made it concurrent sentencing.

There have been some egregious court decisions that have come out since, and I will give some examples.

Imani Nakpangi was a human trafficker who sold two girls in the Toronto area. He trafficked these girls for almost two years. He ended up being the first person in Canada convicted under our new human trafficking laws. In one case, he received a three-year sentence for trafficking a girl for over two years, but spent only 13 months in prison. This gentleman had made $350,000 selling the body of a young girl and he spent less time in prison being rehabilitated than he spent trafficking this girl.

There was the case of Michael Mark. He received a two-year sentence. He victimized a 17-year-old girl for over two years and spent only a week in prison after his conviction.

These are some egregious examples where the justice system has, in my opinion, made mistakes. These are things we need to work to correct. While I commend the government for this bill today, it seems to be at odds with other things the government has done, particularly Bill C-75. We see the insignificant sentences that came from it.

We also see, over and over again, this place attempt to bring the judiciary to bear on these things by creating minimums, because we cannot let these guys out of jail after spending one week in prison for trafficking a girl for two years. We create a minimum for that, like a three-year or 10-year minimum sentence, but we see the courts strike those down, so there are, to some degree, some issues in the judiciary. This place has the ability, opportunity and mandate to direct that to some degree, so that is what we are doing.

I already talked about consecutive versus concurrent sentencing. It has been troublesome to get things going there. The bill from 2013 also had other tools for the police to use to help convict human traffickers, but the Liberals never brought that into force. They left it on the table for three years before they passed it in Bill C-75, while taking out the consecutive sentencing.

There are serious crimes that are being perpetrated in this country, and we need to ensure that judges get things right.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Pickering—Uxbridge.

I am pleased to contribute to today's second reading debate of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code, which aims at ensuring all newly appointed provincial superior court judges participate in continuing education in sexual assault law and social context.

It would further require the Canadian Judicial Council to report the participation of all sitting superior court judges in sexual assault law education. Finally, the bill would also require judges to provide reasons, in writing or on the record, for decisions in sexual assault matters.

I would like to focus my remarks today on the challenges the criminal justice system is facing in responding to sexual assault in Canada. Further, I would like to discuss how Bill C-3 aims to address these issues by building on recent measures our government has undertaken.

Sexual assault is a gendered crime. Women are almost four times more likely to be sexually assaulted than men. Statistics Canada has reported that 30% of women in Canada, compared with 8% of men, have been sexually assaulted at least once since the age of 15. That is 4.7 million women and 1.2 million men who have been victims of sexual assault.

It is estimated that only 5% of sexual assaults are reported to police. In 2017, only 32% of sexual assault charges proceeded to trial and only 41% of those resulted in a conviction. In other words, less than 2% of sexual assaults in Canada resulted in a conviction in 2017. I would like to note that the number is likely much lower.

In 2018, it was estimated that only 35% of reported sexual assault cases resulted in charges being laid. If we apply this number to the 2017 data, the result is that only 0.23% of sexual assaults in Canada result in a conviction. The data paints a bleak picture and illustrates the challenges our criminal justice system is facing in responding to sexual assaults.

In recent years, this government has made important changes to sexual assault law. These reforms were aimed at enhancing the equality, privacy and security rights of complainants by countering the myths and stereotypes that have persisted in our criminal justice system, while also balancing the rights of the accused in a manner consistent with relevant Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence. These myths include deeply rooted beliefs of how so-called real victims react to sexual assault and myths concerning the reliability of women's testimony when they make sexual assault complaints.

In June 2017, our government launched its action plan to combat gender-based violence. The plan is called “It's Time: Canada's Strategy to Prevent and Address Gender-Based Violence”. It is a coordinated, multisectoral strategy based on the three pillars of prevention, support for survivors and their families, and promotion of responsive legal and justice systems. The government has invested substantial sums to support the implementation of this government-wide initiative, which aims to combat gender-based violence, coordinate existing programs and lay the foundation for a broader package of measures.

Additionally, through former Bill C-51, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another act, which received royal assent in 2018, we amended the Criminal Code to clarify and strengthen Canada's sexual assault laws.

For instance, these reforms clarified that an unconscious person is incapable of consenting to sexual activity; an accused cannot rely on the defence of mistaken belief in consent if there is no evidence that the complainant voluntarily and affirmatively expressed consent; sexual history evidence must never be adduced to infer one the twin myths, namely, that the complainant is more likely to have consented or is less worthy of belief based on the sexual nature of that evidence; and the admissibility of the complainant's private records that are in the possession of the accused, such as counselling records or private journals, is determined through a special procedure similar to what applies to the admissibility of sexual history evidence and the production of third party records.

In addition, our government has funded the creation of pilot programs in various provinces to provide independent legal advice, and in some cases, legal representation to survivors of sexual assault. The provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Ontario, as well as Yukon Territory, have reported that these programs have been beneficial to survivors of sexual assault. Our government has also provided funding to the National Judicial Institute to develop judicial education on gender-based violence, including sexual assault.

Finally, through former 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, which received royal assent in June 2019, we restricted the availability of preliminary inquiries to offences punishable by 14 years or more imprisonment. This means that preliminary inquiries are no longer available for many sexual assault offences so that many complainants will not have to testify twice, once at the preliminary inquiry and again at trial. We know that testifying in court is often a harrowing experience because it requires victims to relive the trauma they have experienced.

As such, the criminal justice system has become more compassionate to survivors of sexual assault. Although we have made significant progress in recent years, we must continue our efforts to ensure that survivors of sexual assault are treated with respect and dignity in their interactions with the criminal justice system. It is imperative that judges have the necessary training regarding the complex nature of sexual assault law and the myths that too often surround it. Bill C-3 aims to ensure that decisions in sexual assault matters are not influenced by myths and stereotypes about sexual assault victims and how they have behaved, which the Supreme Court of Canada has found distorts the truth-seeking function of the court.

Through this bill, we hope to enhance the confidence of the public and survivors in the handling of sexual assault matters by our criminal justice system. This is why the bill would require all candidates seeking appointment to a provincial superior court to agree to participate in continuing education in sexual assault law and social context, and to require judges to provide reasons in writing or on the record for decisions in sexual assault matters.

The proposal in Bill C-3 to require candidates to commit to continuing education after appointment would ensure that newly appointed provincial superior court judges fully understand the complex nature of sexual assault law. It would also require that the training created by the Canadian Judicial Council be developed in consultation with survivors of sexual assault, their support groups, and other individuals or groups the council considers appropriate.

The bill also provides for the introduction of a requirement that the Canadian Judicial Council report on the participation of all current superior court judges in sexual assault law education. This measure would increase accountability for sexual assault law education and act as an incentive to encourage the participation of current superior court judges in sexual assault law education.

Bill C-3's specific proposal to require judges to provide reasons in a determination of sexual assault matters would be included in part VIII of the Criminal Code with other sexual assault provisions to ensure that provisions relating to sexual offences are clear and accessible to those applying them. Essentially, this will create almost a mini sexual assault code within the Criminal Code and will help to prevent the misapplication of sexual assault law. Further, it would help improve the transparency of sexual assault decisions because recorded and written decisions can be reviewed.

Improving the handling of sexual assault cases in our criminal justice system goes beyond partisan politics. This bill, originally a private member's bill introduced by the hon. Rona Ambrose, the former interim leader of the Conservative Party, will help to increase the confidence of sexual assault survivors and the public in our criminal justice system. We must work together to transform the criminal justice system into a fair, more effective, accessible and efficient system for all Canadians. I urge members of the House to support the passage of this bill.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has been quite a while since I have been physically present in the House. This is my first day back, partly because of the COVID pandemic, and partly because the Prime Minister decided to shut down Parliament and prorogue to get away from the WE scandal that was damaging his reputation, due to the Liberal corruption and involvement there.

As I am here today, I want to say that 2020 has been a difficult year for everyone. My heart goes out to those Canadians who have suffered in many ways, including from the loss of a loved one, from separation and from isolation. We all need to work together to do the right thing and move forward.

As is my habit when it comes to the throne speech, I am going to talk about what I liked in the throne speech, what I did not like in the throne speech and what I thought was missing in the throne speech.

In terms of what I liked, there were a lot of noble ideas, including things that the citizens of Sarnia—Lambton could agree with and get behind, but without any evidence that action was going to be taken.

This is the third throne speech I have had the pleasure of hearing. This one was really reminiscent of 2015, with a lot of the same buzz phrases, such as “the middle class and those hoping to join them”, and “a whole-of-government approach”. Nobody really knows what that means anyway. Resiliency and agility were mentioned as other buzz words, but again, it was mostly a regurgitation of promises previously made.

I think addressing the opioid crisis is a priority, but that was a promise made by the government years ago and we are having more deaths from the opioid crisis than from the COVID crisis. Some of the other things in the speech, like pharmacare, the Liberals have been talking about since 1992. We continue not to see anything.

The speech mentioned pay equity for women. I was on the pay equity committee when I was first elected in 2015, and there has been no action taken in five years. Where is that action?

Concerning the truth and reconciliation recommendations, the government has said that the relationship with indigenous people is its number one priority, but since 2015 we have seen no action on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendations.

Achieving the Paris targets by 2030 is certainly a noble theme, because those targets came from the previous Conservative government. The reality is that the Liberal government is not going to achieve the 2030 targets, and it is now talking about exceeding those targets.

These things may be noble, but where is the action?

One of my constituents pointed out that the promise to plant two billion trees in 10 years is way behind, and if the Liberals want to get going, they are going to have to plant 547,945 trees each day for the next ten years. That is another promise I do not believe is going to happen.

Affordable housing is something we desperately need in my riding, and I have been waiting for it. The Liberal government has been talking about a national housing strategy and affordable housing since I got elected. I do not know if the money is just going to the Liberal ridings and not to the Conservative ridings, but I am still waiting. It is a crisis and something we need to get behind.

I was very happy to see something about seniors in the throne speech because, in 2015, they eliminated the minister of seniors, which seemed wrong. Half of the people in Sarnia—Lambton are over 60, so seniors are important to my riding.

The Liberals said they were going to take action on long-term care. Certainly, this pandemic has shown us that we need to do something there, but there needs to be recognition that if we come up with national standards for long-term care, more resources are going to be needed. More helpers will be needed: there are not enough workers. That will increase the cost of long-term care.

How will the many seniors living on a fixed income be able to pay for that, especially single seniors, who are among the poorest in the country? Although there are a lot of noble themes, a lot was just a regurgitation of old promises.

What I did not like in the throne speech was the way the response to COVID-19 has rolled out. It has been a gong show from the beginning. The health minister said there was very little risk to Canadians. She said border controls do not work, and then flip-flopped on the mask issue. I have been sending rapid tests for approval to the Minister of Health since April of this year. To see that the Liberals are still nowhere in terms of implementing rapid tests is a big deal.

It is especially a big deal in my riding, because it is a border riding. Lots of folks are intermarried. There are people who have not been able to travel to see their dying parents, attend weddings or funerals, and a lot of people own property on both sides. Rapid tests would be a great way to make sure people could be tested for COVID, found negative, come across to do what they need to do to be part of their families without risking Canadians, and return. It is incredibly important to get this out and not just say the words but get it implemented, and implemented using a protocol at the border that I suggested to the health minister.

There were some other things that I did not like. Sarnia—Lambton has 30% of the petrochemical oil and gas production in the country, and there was no addressing western alienation or the oil and gas industry. I see nothing but further erosion with respect to this very important industry.

I have three refineries in my riding: Suncor Energy, Shell Canada and Imperial Oil/ExxonMobil. We heard today about the job cuts at Suncor. The day that it looked like the clean fuel standards were being put in place, Shell went up for sale. The Imperial Oil refinery officials are saying it is existential to them: If they do not get an exemption from the clean fuel standard, it will cost three or four billion dollars a year, and the company can be more competitive in other parts of the world. Those were things that I did not like in the throne speech.

I also did not like the single-use plastics ban that was announced. This is hypocrisy from a government that gave $35 million to Nova Chemicals, in my riding, to incentivize the stakeholders to build a $2 billion expansion in Sarnia—Lambton instead of in Texas. Of course, the Liberals had to make concessions on the carbon tax because that was not going to be competitive with Texas. We are talking about 1,500 jobs each year for the next five years, and then a bunch of permanent jobs. Now the Liberals say they are going to ban single-use plastics, which puts this project at risk. These are Canadian jobs.

Single-use plastics are not the problem in Canada. I would point out that in the middle of a pandemic, in order to keep every Canadian safe, every bit of food we got from any place was packaged in individual single-use plastics, and everybody who went to the hospital was treated with little implements that were single-use plastics that were wrapped to be sterilized. When Gatineau floods every other year, the sand is put into single-use plastic bags to keep the damage from happening. The issue in Canada is not single-use plastics. We collect a whole bunch of plastics, but we only recycle 9% of them. The issue we should be looking at is microplastic pellets in the Great Lakes. Those issues are fact- and evidence-based. The Liberals talk about being fact- and evidence-based but, honestly, they are way off base on this one and they are going to cost Canadian jobs again for no reason. I did not like that.

The response to crime is always rich coming from a government with Bill C-75, which reduced incidents like forcible confinement of a child down to a summary conviction of less than two years or a fine. It is always fun to hear what the Liberals have to say about crime. Once again, they are going to tackle crime by putting in a handgun ban. I can assure them that the criminals of this country are not going to obey a handgun ban. The lawful gun owners will, but they are not the problem. Ninety-five per cent of gun crime in this country is committed with illegal guns and guns used illegally. Once again, the Liberals are attacking the wrong problem.

What was missing in the throne speech?

An economic recovery plan was mentioned that is going to create a million jobs. I am not exactly sure where those are coming from, because the Liberals are eliminating oil and gas jobs, they are going to kill the plastics industry and they have not done anything for forestry. It goes on and on. That was missing.

Broadband Internet is a noble theme. Where is the money? My riding was promised $12 million in 2015 or 2016, and we are still waiting for that.

What about the duty-free business? I know the tourism industry is under duress. Duty free is 100% export and right now, the government is doing nothing except closing the borders and depriving tourism businesses of their revenue. Every dollar not spent there is a dollar spent in the U.S., so there is an opportunity.

Finally, I would say the understanding that it is a great time to invest misses the point that, if interest rates increase just 1%, that adds $12 billion to the debt. Provinces are crying out for more health transfers. We give about $40 billion total in health transfers, and a 1% interest rate increase could be $12 billion. Four per cent could be the entire health transfer.

We are really restricting our ability to help the country by not understanding basic math and basic economics.

With that, I will summarize by saying that it was a disappointment, but there is more to come.

Justice

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, our government introduced Bill C-75 in the last Parliament in order to prevent people from entering into the justice system, into that revolving circle of a justice system, without having any impact on reducing crime. We introduced good measures to fight crime efficiently, to fight crime fairly, to protect victims, but also to prevent the over-criminalization, particularly of certain peoples, like indigenous peoples or racialized peoples, in our criminal justice system.

Opposition Motion—Instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to extend my condolences to the family and friends of Marylène Levesque, who was killed by an inmate on day parole.

I also want to commend my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for the speech he gave today. What is more, I want to thank him for moving this motion. Before I read out the motion, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the excellent member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

Today, we are debating a motion. However, I do not think that Parliament should have to take such action just to get the government to listen to reason. Democracy and procedure require us to study today's opposition motion. It is moving things forward. In fact, the government seems to be receptive. We will see what happens when we vote on this tomorrow.

The motion reads, and I quote:That the House: (a) condemn the decision of the Parole Board of Canada that led to a young woman's death by an inmate during day parole in January of this year; and (b) instruct the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to conduct hearings into this matter, including a review of the changes made by the government in 2017 to the board's nomination process, with the view to recommend measures to be taken to ensure another tragedy such as this never happens again.

Let me summarize the facts. Eustachio Gallese, a 51-year-old man, was found guilty of killing his wife in 2006 by beating her with a hammer and stabbing her repeatedly. He was granted day parole despite his history of violence against women. My goal today is to talk some sense into parliamentarians. This is 2020, and it is unacceptable for a Canadian woman to be victimized because of an administrative error or poor judgment on the part of the Parole Board members who made it possible for this man to commit the unthinkable.

When the Parole Board extended the offender's day parole last September, it mentioned a risk management strategy. I do not understand how anyone could have thought they were managing risk with a strategy that enabled this man to do what he did. Mr. Gallese was allowed to meet with women, but only to satisfy his sexual needs.

Our current laws governing sex work were introduced by the Conservative government in 2014 and prohibit the purchase of sexual services. How could the Parole Board of Canada allow one of its clients to do just that? I said “client”, but what I really meant was “murderer”. How could they give this man permission to commit a crime? It is illegal to purchase sexual services, yet a federal institution approved the practice. Those people knew perfectly well where that man was going. That raises some important questions.

The Liberal government's correctional system has been called a revolving door, and it has cost innocent people their lives. Canada's Conservatives strongly condemn the Parole Board of Canada's decision to release a convicted murderer with a history of domestic violence on day parole so he could meet women to satisfy his sexual needs.

Ask any Canadian. Everyone agrees. That is unacceptable. How could anyone mess up so badly? Today's motion, the product of some conscientious work on the part of my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles and the official opposition, urges the government to take action.

This was a senseless decision. It was plain wrong, and last month it led to the death of a young woman, something that could have been prevented. We must have the means to prevent this from happening again. There must be justice for Marylène Levesque, and we must ensure that such unspeakable crimes never happen again.

We must protect honest Canadian citizens and put them first, ahead of those in prison, the criminals and the repeat offenders. That is essential. We must protect our society from people who unfortunately are deviant or criminal or who suffer from mental health issues. There are many reasons to justify this action. We must put mechanisms in place to protect our society.

How could they release a murderer who killed his wife on day parole? His history with women was well known. How could they let him become a client of an erotic massage parlour so he could satisfy his sexual urges? He killed his wife, was aggressive with several other women, and yet the Parole Board agreed to let him satisfy his sexual urges in a hotel with the board member's consent. I do not understand what happened. I do not know why the murderer did this. Above all, I do not understand why the board member let this man cause irreparable harm.

We have to wonder where we are headed with this government. What does the future hold for our society? We have to protect our citizens. We have to protect the victims. We should not bring in measures to support and pamper our criminals even more. They have to suffer the consequences of their actions. Our society has to protect Canadians, both women and men.

As my colleague from Shefford said, Dave Blackburn, a leading expert, was indeed a candidate for the Conservative Party of Canada. We had an excellent roster of candidates who made us optimistic about our chances for forming the government. Unfortunately, democracy decided otherwise.

In an article in the Quotidien on January 29, Dave Blackburn said that the Parole Board of Canada's decision to release this offender on parole, essentially giving him free rein to commit his irreparable act, was unjustifiable.

This government is incapable of governing and making effective decisions in the interest of Canadians. I will give some examples that illustrate the current government's incoherence when it comes to protecting honest citizens. I will list them without elaborating: the Tori Stafford case; Bill C-75, the firearms bill, which vexes honest citizens, hunting enthusiasts and sport shooters; and the legalization of cannabis.

In closing, I would like to remind hon. members that the 2019-20 departmental plan mentions a continuing increase at the national level in the number of offenders managed in the community. Their average annual number rose to 9,000 in 2017-18 from 7,700 five years earlier, a veritable explosion. I think that the measures the government across the way has implemented since coming to power in 2015 are not working. It is not dealing with things in a clear manner and it is not protecting the public.

I was going to talk about a file we should be working on to provide help to people in need, to make our society even more prosperous.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak to this very important opposition day motion that comes as a response to the tragedy that occurred in Quebec City a week and a half ago.

It is a disaster wherein a young woman was let down by the justice system and murdered by a violent criminal. Our motion calls for:

...the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to conduct hearings into this matter, including a review of the changes made by the government in 2017 to the board’s nomination process.

It is the responsibility of the House to ensure measures are taken so that no tragedy like this ever happens again.

This terrible situation should not have been allowed to happen the first time. We have a man given a life sentence for horrifically murdering his 32-year-old female partner. The criminal was assessed as a high risk to reoffend, particularly with a partner, but as it goes, and as we have seen happen time and again, an offender serves a portion of a sentence and is then turned loose, regardless of the risk to reoffend.

In this case, the man was granted day parole as a violent criminal with a risk to reoffend, and then had his day parole extended last September by the Parole Board. They noted that a risk management strategy had been developed to allow this man to meet women for his sexual gratification. How did this not raise a red flag within the Parole Board? A violent criminal with a particular risk to reoffend against vulnerable women was encouraged by his parole officer to solicit sex from vulnerable women.

The result was a preventable and truly heartbreaking tragedy. The lack of regard for the safety of Canadians is astounding. The Parole Board put this criminal's supposed needs above concern for possible future victims, showing an extreme lack of foresight and prudence.

Two former Parole Board members have pointed to a change in the Parole Board of Canada's nomination procedures. This has resulted in a lack of experienced members. That may have been a factor in this murder.

If that is the case, that inexperienced Parole Board members made this decision and got it so wrong that it resulted in the murder of a vulnerable young woman, then those members who made the decision and the people who appointed them must face consequences.

This woman's death could have been prevented. An inquiry into the Parole Board's decision must be made. I am sure that all of my colleagues in this place will join me in condemning this inherently unjust decision, and call for an external inquiry.

When the Minister of Public Safety was asked about this and what was being done to get to the bottom of this case, he told the House on Monday that a full investigation would be conducted jointly by the commissioner of corrections and the chair of the Parole Board of Canada to determine the circumstances surrounding the killer's release, and to ensure lessons are learned from it. The Parole Board will investigate the Parole Board, continuing the legacy of unaccountability.

Canadians need and deserve an external inquiry so that we can make sure prudent decisions are made in the future and that violent offenders are not encouraged to solicit sex from vulnerable women, victims of prostitution, victims of what appears to be a reckless decision by the authors of the so-called risk management strategy.

This case is a prime example of a failure on the justice file, of a revolving-door prison system, and of putting criminals ahead of victims. With the passage of Bill C-75, the previous Liberal government cemented its legacy as being soft on crime. It made sweeping changes that were very concerning and weakened our justice system.

That piece of legislation watered down penalties for over 100 serious crimes. Dangerous criminals should not be getting fines for serious offences such as gang crime, using date rape drugs and impaired driving causing bodily harm. Across our country, victims' groups and law enforcement have opposed the government's weakness on crime and its refusal to take violent crime seriously.

Canadians deserve better than a Prime Minister who prioritizes the rights of criminals over the rights of victims. Conservatives will always put the rights of victims and law-abiding Canadians ahead of the rights of criminals.

This case is a continuation of the Liberals' soft-on-crime approach failing victims. If we look back at the previous Parliament, there are glaring examples of where the government unjustly put criminals before victims.

In 2018, Liberals fought tooth and nail against doing the right thing and putting Tori Stafford's killer behind bars after the killer had been transferred to a healing lodge. It was only after a public outcry, and weeks of pressure from the family and the official opposition, that they relented and put the killer back where she belonged.

A further example is when the Liberal government defended its decision to use veterans' benefits to pay for mental health services for a man who never served a day in his life in the military, but was locked up for murdering a female police officer.

Although the killer claimed to have PTSD from committing this truly heinous crime, the Liberals continued to defend their use of those benefits for this individual. It was out of touch, it was unjust and it again put the supposed rights of a criminal before the victim.

This approach is in stark contrast to the legacy of the Conservatives on the justice file. Our record is based on the most foundational meaning of justice being rendered to the other where it is due. This was showcased in the Victims Bill of Rights, which set a path for victims of crime to be protected and to have their voices heard during judicial proceedings and the subsequent incarceration of an offender.

The Victims Bills of Rights has much to offer victims. They should have their security considered by the appropriate authorities in the criminal justice system, and they should have the right to convey their views about decisions made by appropriate authorities in the criminal justice system that affect their rights under this act, and to have them considered. The right to have their security considered is truly foundational.

In closing, Canada's Conservatives are calling on the Liberal government to condemn the board's extremely misguided, reckless and negligent decision, and to conduct hearings into this matter, including a review of the changes made by the Liberal government in 2017 to the board's nomination process. This motion should be supported by all members of the House to correct an injustice, to review the circumstances of the Parole Board's shocking decision and to hold those responsible to account.

Nothing we can do will bring these young women back. However, as lawmakers, we can make sure it does not happen again. That starts by putting the rights of victims before those of criminals, and by supporting this motion to conduct hearings into this matter. I am calling on all members of the House to support our motion.

Opposition Motion — Instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the Conservative motion by my hon. colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

The motion denounces the decision made by the Parole Board in Quebec that cost the life of a 22-year-old woman at the hands of a dangerous repeat offender. It seeks immediate action to review Parole Board nominations that contributed to putting a dangerous offender on the streets, and to have Parliament recommend steps so that this will never happen again.

Given the recent comments by the Minister of Public Safety on finding common ground with all parties to protect Canadians, I would think that he would be supportive of our motion. I imagine every member of the House will condemn the murder of a young woman by a man who beat his previous partner to death with a hammer, and who was released on parole with permission to seek out women in order to manage his sexual needs.

As one columnist noted, it appears the Parole Board's release plan assumed this offender's right to access a woman's body. Any man who cannot control his urges is not fit to be released back into society. Our country is founded on freedom and respect: respect for one another, respect for the law and respect for our values. In this case, the Parole Board's decision is reprehensible.

I will not pretend that this entire problem is the fault of the Liberal government or of any single previous government or decision. The problem we face is a parole and release system that favours offenders over victims. It puts the rights of offenders ahead of the safety of our communities.

This is a result of the current government's inaction, as well as previous governments' actions or inactions, court rulings and court precedents. None of that should prevent the House from challenging the status quo and moving toward a better system of preventing the release of those who are not ready to be law-abiding members of our society.

Let me be clear. We are not talking about anyone who has ever gone to jail. We are not saying that if people have done something wrong, as we all have at some point to different degrees, there is no redemption. I believe in redemption.

For those who have committed crimes, we lay out very clear ideas of what that looks like based on their efforts to reform, to rehabilitate, to seek to address their failings or challenges, to train and educate themselves for a post-release period and to never again be in trouble with the law. However, there have been too many instances like this one. There have been too many recent decisions by Liberal-appointed Parole Board members to release repeat dangerous offenders back into our communities without the adequate protections and information. That lack of accountability and of good, sound decision-making is why the House urgently needs to review and revise how it treats violent offenders.

Dangerous offenders are deemed by the courts. They are held for indeterminate prison sentences because of the malicious repeat offences they have carried out. Dangerous offenders have a pattern of behaviour and persistent aggression that makes them a threat to others.

It is not up to society to accept dangerous offenders. It is up to those dangerous offenders to accept the laws and values of our society in order to be released. However, the Liberal government seems too eager to defend the rights of dangerous offenders and others who are brought before the courts. Dangerous offenders get off too easily under the Liberal government.

Under Bill C-75, in order to address court backlogs, the Liberals reduced sentences and allowed sentences for more violent crimes to be reduced, even to fines. Under Bill C-71, Liberals went after law-abiding firearms owners for the actions of criminals and gangs. In national security laws, they increased red tape, put more effort into watching the public servants who defend Canadians and put less effort into monitoring known radicalized threats, returning ISIS terrorists and foreign threats.

Two years ago, we went through a very similar scenario. Canadians were outraged when Terri-Lynne McClintic, a woman who helped lure, assault, rape and murder eight-year-old Tori Stafford, was transferred to a lower-security healing lodge instead of staying in prison. The indigenous community not far from my riding did not want her there, as she was not indigenous. This raised many questions as to why she was being transferred in the first place. No child predator should ever be sent to a prison where children and families are present.

The Liberals said nothing was wrong, launched a months-long investigation and then determined that they were wrong. They slapped a minor edit on their policies and said everything was fine and would be fine. If the policies were applied properly the first time, that transfer never would have happened.

The offender at the centre of the tragedy is a violent, dangerous offender, whether the law puts that label on him or not. The Parole Board and the minister should have known and should have had the processes in place to prevent this latest tragedy. However, there is no accountability left for the minister or government. Did the Parole Board fail in its duty to Canadians in this circumstance? Yes, it did. Was it likely that former minister Ralph Goodale's decision to appoint fresh and untrained people in the position to make these decisions a factor? It certainly appears that way.

Under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the purpose of conditional release is to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society that will best facilitate the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the community as law-abiding citizens. The act specifically notes that the paramount consideration by the Parole Board is public safety protection. The release of offenders who are deemed unable to stop themselves from harming others, who pose a risk to women or who have been instructed to break the law by hiring women for sex can in no way live up to the standards set out in law.

Even if there was some justification for a dangerous, violent offender to be released, parole officers are overwhelmed with workloads. According to their union, workloads are insurmountable and there is a real risk to Canadians because they cannot keep tabs on parolees. With the Liberals releasing many dangerous offenders into the community, this issue is being compounded.

For example, Madilyn Harks, formerly known as Matthew Ralf Harks, is a serial rapist who has preyed on young women, with three convictions for sexual assault against girls under the age of eight. She was released into Brampton, one of the largest suburbs in Canada, despite posing a risk to the tens of thousands of children in that community. After public outrage and political pressure on local Liberal MPs, she was removed. Was she a risk to Canadians? Absolutely. Was she placed in a poorly chosen spot? Absolutely. It was only fixed, though, after political and public outrage.

Randall Hopley, a serial child predator, was released into Vancouver despite the Parole Board stating that it was unable to manage his risks to Canadian children. Peter Whitmore, who has many convictions for assaulting young boys, has repeatedly received light sentences for the rape and assault of children. After abducting two boys, tying them up and raping them, he has been locked up again. However, he is now eligible for parole, and it would seem only a matter of time before the Liberals' Parole Board will release him again, if we can believe it. There are many examples like this, more than time allows to mention here.

None of these crimes needed to happen and none of these victims needed to be put at risk and victimized. However, we can all agree that we presume innocence and that the taking away of freedoms under the Criminal Code should not be treated lightly. There are times when it is clearly the best and only course of action. The actions of the guilty are the fault of the guilty. There is no right to cause pain, harm and suffering to others. When the Parole Board sees a threat that is not manageable, there needs to be a mechanism to ensure that Canadians are not put at further risk. We do not need to accept the decisions of murderers, rapists, pedophiles or repeat and serial offenders as a foregone conclusion. However, once people have reached that state, it is incumbent upon them to show and act in a manner that enables their release, not the other way around. It is not beholden on Canadians to accept their intolerable and hateful acts. Criminals are not the victims.

In conclusion, my colleague's motion is justified in light of the many issues facing our communities. Public safety has been put on the back burner time and again by the government and its political manoeuvring. Reforming how we manage dangerous offenders would seem something that all parliamentarians can get behind and can contribute toward protecting Canadians.

However, I suspect that the Liberals will invent yet another excuse why action is not needed right now. They will respond by saying that they have an internal inquiry under way, a response we have heard many times. However, there is an inherent bias to defend the system by those in charge of making those very decisions. Another McClintic-style “sweep it under the rug” decision should not be tolerated.

It is time that other members of Parliament took the role that the minister is too timid to tackle. I encourage my colleagues to vote in favour of a study to strengthen and review the parole system, ensure the appropriate funding is in place and that the safety of Canadians comes ahead of any Liberal political concerns.

Justice

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, it was the federal government's view that the Interpretation Act and the case law provide that amendments to the jury selection process should have been applied as of the date Bill C-75 came into force. Federal prosecutors adopted this approach, and we are happy that the Ontario Court of Appeal has agreed.

Given that there is litigation in issue, I have tasked my department and legislative drafters to ensure that temporal provisions are always considered as we move forward.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough.

The Liberal government's poorly drafted Bill C-75 means criminals are now facing retrial and victims of crime will have to relive the horrific situations yet again in court. This is a significant failure of the Liberal government to protect victims. We already know that the sloppy implementation of the bill will lead to retrials in Ontario.

When will the Prime Minister act before more criminals go free?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to welcome back the hon. member for Beauséjour. I will go so far as to say that I missed his sense of humour.

We introduced a number of important changes in Bill C-75 to make our criminal justice system more efficient, more fair and more just. Among these were the ways in which juries were selected, to increase transparency and to address long-standing concerns of Canadians as regards this process.

We are aware of the Ontario Court of Appeal's ruling and we will continue to monitor the situation.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals carelessly rushed through changes to Canada's criminal justice system in Bill C-75. Conservatives raised concerns over the impacts of the bill and how it would impact and harm victims of crime. Legal experts warned the Prime Minister that his poorly drafted legislation would result in guilty verdicts being nullified. Now in Ontario we see that is indeed the case.

What is the Prime Minister planning to do now that criminals are being set free and victims will have to go through painful retrials due to the government's incompetence?

Motion in relation to Senate amendments

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Order. It being 8 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendments tabled by the Senate to Bill C-75 now before the House.

Order. What I am hearing is over here. Order. I have spoken to both members, and I expect them both to be silent and keep their hands down for a while.

The question is as follows—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the bottom line is this: Those who find themselves elected in this place find themselves in a very honoured position and have every responsibility to stand up for the rights of victims first and foremost. Bill C-75 fails to do that.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

It is shameful. I'm glad you recognize it.

The Prime Minister insists consistently on putting criminals before victims. This is wrong, because Canadians elect a government to look after their safety, security and well-being, to ensure that this country is running on all cylinders, that Canadians have a vibrant future that they can dream for, work toward and step into and be excited about for their children and grandchildren. The bill we are discussing today, Bill C-75, which makes changes to the criminal justice system, actually puts this country at risk and victims in serious danger. It rewards criminals.

The role of every government is to keep citizens safe. It is to facilitate an environment of economic prosperity in which people are free to use their time, their talent and their energy to build wealth and achieve the financial outcomes they desire. This means protecting our borders, investing in necessary infrastructure, decreasing taxes, exercising fiscal restraint and scrapping unnecessary regulations. It means respecting the rights and freedoms of Canadians and celebrating the contributions of those who work hard, rather than turning them into criminals. I am talking about the retired widow who lives next door to me, the local business owner who serves coffee when I go there, the medical practitioners who look after our health, the students who dream for a vibrant future and the veterans who have faithfully served this country. These are the faces that government should be looking into when it makes decisions to rule this country.

During his time as prime minister, John Diefenbaker told party members, “I was criticized for being too much concerned with the average Canadians. I can't help that; I am one”, and so it is today. Just as the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker did all those years ago, my colleagues and I on this side of the House are committed to standing up for everyday Canadians, those who work hard and want a vibrant future not just for themselves but for their children and grandchildren.

When we mess around with the justice system with a bill like Bill C-75 and when we reward criminals who commit some of the most heinous crimes imaginable and allow them to go free or we diminish their sentence to a mere fine, we depreciate the value of our country and we fail to look after the well-being of Canadian citizens.

In this place, there are 338 of us who were elected to do far better than that. I would expect much more from the current Prime Minister and much more from the members who govern with him. There is no greater honour than to serve in this place, to be elected by the people of Canada and to have the opportunity to function as a voice on their behalf. I would call upon this House to steward that honour and to vote this bill down.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today in the House we are discussing Bill C-75. The bill is supposed to strengthen the justice system. It is meant to better protect Canadians. It is meant to reduce delays and it is meant to modernize the criminal justice system.

In part, it does this by facilitating the administration of justice down to the provinces. However, the reality is the bill is yet another example of the current government's dirty habit of saying one thing but doing another. It is known as Liberal hypocrisy, or sometimes people refer to it as Liberal logic.

At the end of the day, this will in fact severely damage Canadian society and our justice system as a whole. Despite the rhetoric from across the way and despite the current heckles, the Liberals decided that they would not properly consult with stakeholders. They rammed the bill through without giving it careful consideration, without paying attention to the call for further discussion and certainly without adequate debate in this place.

As a result, Canadians are stuck with a piece of legislation that has a number of flaws that are very significant in nature. One of the flaws has to do with hybridization. Putting aside the issue of reducing the penalty of very serious crimes for just a moment, which I will come back to, hybridization also results in many crimes being moved from Federal Court into provincial court.

The Canadian Bar Association had this to say with regard to hybridization. It said this“would likely mean more cases would be heard in provincial court. This could result in further delays in those courts”. In other words, we already have a backlog within our justice system and the Canadian Bar Association is saying that Bill C-75 would result in an even further backlog, which is problematic because these individuals do need to go to trial. These cases do need to proceed, so holding them up even further is actually an injustice to the victim.

Furthermore, it should be noted that it is the government's chief responsibility to care for the safety and well-being of its citizens, to defend the vulnerable, to create laws that put the rights of victims first, which is why it is extremely alarming to see that the Prime Minister is actually pandering more to criminals than standing up for victims.

Bill C-75 reduces penalties for some very heinous crimes including participating in a terrorist group, trafficking women and girls, committing violence against a clergy member, murdering a child within one year of birth, abducting a child, forced marriage, advocating for genocide or participating in organized crime.

The members opposite do not like it when I say those things, it is an inconvenient truth for them, so their heckling gets louder and louder, but the truth cannot be concealed. These heinous, unthinkable acts would have a reduced sentence under Bill C-75.

Conservatives believe in the safety of Canadians being put first. They believe that it should be the number one priority of any government. We will continue to speak up on behalf of victims and we will continue to advocate for them to come first in our justice system. It is very important for me to stand here today and to speak to this piece of legislation because the rights of victims and the rights of communities must come first.

We have a Prime Minister who is much more concerned about pursuing his own agenda than he is about acting in the best interests of Canadians. It is not just with Bill C-75, it is with other pieces of legislation and other decisions being made by the government as well.

Bill C-71, which is the firearms legislation, was rammed through by the government earlier this spring. This was an attack on law-abiding firearms owners. Bill C-71 was rammed through without the government taking concern for the advice of law enforcement agents. It was rammed through without them actually consulting with legislative experts. It was rammed through without the Liberals taking the time to consult with and listen to Canadians.

When those in power turn a deaf ear to the people that they represent, arrogance incapacitates any ability for them to exercise logical thought or common sense. That is exactly what has happened under the current government.

The irony in all of this is that while the Liberals are letting criminals off the hook for committing atrocious crimes such as forced marriage, trafficking, terrorist activity and genocide, they insist on demonizing those who hunt or use their rifles for sport shooting. It is absolutely ludicrous. In what world does this make sense?

From the start, the Liberals did not want to debate Bill C-71. They did not want to consult, because that would mean they would need to listen and then would be held accountable to act on the things that they heard. Instead, the Liberals decided to push Bill C-71, the firearms legislation, through the House. They told Canadians that the bill is for their safety and protection, but it does nothing of the sort. It fails to address gang violence, it fails to address illegal firearm acquisition and use and it fails to address rural crime and violence. Bill C-71 simply goes after those who are already following the law, while rewarding criminals with shorter sentences or allowing them to walk away altogether.

It is very clear that what the current government likes to do more than anything is deceive Canadians. It is less about the safety, well-being and security of our country and more about appearing to be doing something good. If the government took Canadians seriously and really took the position of honour that has been bestowed upon it seriously, then it would genuinely want to strengthen our justice system and our borders. It would genuinely want to invest in front-line responders and make sure that illegal firearms are taken off the street and that people are kept safe in this country, but the current government is not interested in actually governing well. The current government under the current Prime Minister is more interested in its appearance, its image.

The Prime Minister told veterans that they cost too much. Meanwhile, he handed $10 million over to a convicted terrorist, Omar Khadr.

The House resumed from June 17 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to 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.

Motion that debate be not further adjourned

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, what the minister did not say is that they never consulted the victims of crime in this country. On the second to last day of Parliament, Bill C-75 comes to us. It does not show that they are taking the safety and security of Canadians seriously. We have seen this. They are attempting to water down serious offences in this bill, such as impaired driving causing bodily harm. The province of Saskatchewan has the worst record in the Dominion of drunk driving charges. I have talked to many victims, and they are upset with this bill, because they have not had chance to address it. Many of them have lost loved ones. When they look at this flawed bill, it is all about criminal rights and nothing about the victims in this country.

I would like the minister to answer that. What is the government doing for the victims in this bill, because they are upset with this?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

What I am saying applies specifically to this bill. I am talking about this bill only.

As parliamentarians, we have a lot of opportunities to reflect on legislation and take part in debates. As I said, there were 22 hours and 10 minutes of debate. At second reading, there were seven hours and 15 minutes of debate. We heard 24 speeches at second reading, including nine from the NDP. Everyone had plenty of opportunity to contribute to this bill. I can quite comfortably say that we had enough time. We have been studying this bill for more than a year. At some point we have to decide.

As I just explained, as far as human trafficking is concerned, which my colleague brought up, we incorporated Bill C-38 into Bill C-75 because human trafficking is a very serious offence.

Moreover, the system gives the prosecutor the flexibility to determine how to proceed. Also, there is always the option to proceed by way of indictment. The penalties are very serious.

I want to assure my hon. colleague that we are not treating serious offences any less seriously.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are in the last few days of Parliament, and it seems like every day the government is saying it is going to invoke closure and bring forward time allocation to shut down debate.

Contrary to what the minister has just said, the process we go through here is this: Our committees look at these justice bills, and then we debate them here and send them to the Senate. Sometimes the Senate will send a bill back to us with amendments. Indeed, the Senate has sent this bill back with a number of amendments, at least 13 or 14, from what we hear tonight. However, we are not given the ability to debate those amendments. Our constituents expect us to do our due diligence.

We debated the bill prior to this, but the Senate has sent it back, and now the Liberal government is going to invoke closure. This is not just about closure and time allocation; it is about another promise of an omnibus bill. Bill C-75 is a 300-page bill that is an omnibus bill. The government has thrown everything in here, and now we are asked to shut down debate and get ready to vote on it.

The question that came from the Liberal side hit the nail on the head. That member said that one of the things we are concerned about is long delays in the courts. This bill is not just hybridizing many offences, but showing the failure of the Liberals to appoint judges throughout this country so these cases can be heard in the court system. Therefore, the Liberals bring this forward to basically push things through quickly, like a revolving door.

This is how the Liberals drew this up. Originally, offences like leaving Canada to join a terrorist group were part of this bill. It is basically allowing them to water down serious offences, such as advocating genocide, using a date rape drug and human trafficking. Yes, some of those may not be in there now, but that is the Liberal philosophy of criminal justice reforms.

I am sorry, but we are skeptical of the kinds of measures the current government brings forward, and we are very skeptical of the closure the minister is invoking.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, although I am anything but a lawyer, my constituents and I are very concerned about long delays in the legal system. I see some major reforms in Bill C-75.

I would like to know if the minister thinks we held enough consultations. I believe this is a very important bill, and I want to be sure everything has been done properly.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very alarmed that here we go again with the Liberal government, through an omnibus bill, Bill C-75, watering down criminal penalties for serious crimes. What really irks me terribly is that impaired driving causes bodily harm.

Statistics in Canada today state that impaired driving offences are going up. Impaired driving is a leading cause of death in Canada, whether from consuming alcohol or drugs, and here is that government trying to include a softening of the sentences for it through Bill C-75.

I wonder if the government could answer this. What is it really trying to do here? Statistics are going up and penalties are going to be reduced. How is that going to help make Canada safer for people driving on the roads?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in relation to the consideration of the Senate amendments to 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 move:

That debate be not further adjourned.

Motion in relation to Senate amendments

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure to follow the remarks from the hon. member for Victoria and the hon. member for West Nova, both of whom have been outstanding members of the justice committee and will be missed in this place for their wisdom, sincerity, honesty and integrity. I will very much miss both of my colleagues.

I am pleased to rise to talk about the amendments adopted by the Senate at third reading on June 13, 2019.

First and foremost, I would like to thank all members of the other place for their thoughtful consideration of Bill C-75. In particular, I want to thank the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for its diligent and comprehensive examination of the bill.

This bill proposes major reforms to reduce delays by modernizing the criminal justice system and enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of procedures, while ensuring the safety of Canadians and seeking to reduce the overrepresentation of indigenous people in the system.

The provinces and territories, along with many members and many stakeholders in the criminal justice system, are looking forward to the enactment of this legislation.

Bill C-75 introduced reforms in seven key areas: modernizing and streamlining bail; enhancing the existing approach to administration of justice offences, including for youth; restricting the availability of preliminary inquiries to offences with penalties of life imprisonment; reclassifying offences; strengthening judicial case management; improving the jury selection process; and implementing other additional efficiencies.

The other place has proposed amendments to the bill related to bail, reclassification of offences, the victim surcharge and preliminary inquiries.

Although the focus of my remarks will be on the other place's amendments related to the preliminary inquiry provisions of the bill, I would like to preface these by highlighting a few other areas that, cumulatively, will improve efficiencies and reduce delays.

Bill C-75 includes widely supported changes to bail provisions. They seek to enact a principle of restraint for the police and the courts to ensure that the earliest possible release of the accused is favoured over detention, while providing additional guidance to the police on how to impose the appropriate conditions.

The bill would improve the approach used for administration of justice offences, such as breach of bail conditions.

These offences represent a significant volume of Canadian criminal court processing. The creation of a judicial referral hearing would result in fewer charges for these offences being laid, given that the hearing would serve as an alternative for bail breaches and failures to attend court in cases where there has been no physical, emotional or financial harm to a victim.

I would now like to turn to the amendments proposed by the other place to the preliminary inquiry reforms in Bill C-75.

As introduced, the bill would have restricted the availability of preliminary inquiries to adults accused of the 70 offences in the Criminal Code for which they could be liable to life imprisonment. The government's objective has been clear from the beginning on this matter: to reduce the number of preliminary inquiries held in Canada to create efficiencies and limit the impact on those who would have to testify twice. In the jurisdictions that hold the majority of these hearings, the improved efficiencies in the criminal justice process could be significant.

Our committee, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs heard from many stakeholders from the legal community, including the defence bar and Crown attorney associations, such as the Canadian Bar Association and the Barreau du Québec, that opposed such a significant restriction on the availability of preliminary inquiries, arguing that they are vital in providing important evidence to the accused of the case against them.

As a result of these concerns, the committee in the other place moved an amendment that would expand the availability of preliminary inquiries, on a discretionary basis, to all other indictable offences, an additional 393 offences, in two situations. The first would be where one or both parties requested one and a justice was satisfied that appropriate measures were taken to mitigate the impact on victims. The second situation would be where only one party requested a preliminary inquiry, a justice was satisfied that it was in the best interest of the administration of justice that one be held and appropriate measures were taken to mitigate the impact on victims.

As proposed, the amendment would add a step in the criminal justice process to justify holding a preliminary inquiry. It could generate uncertainty for the parties as to whether a preliminary inquiry would be held and would likely result in litigation on the interpretation of the new complex criteria, ultimately leading to additional delays.

Even witnesses who came before our committee who believed that the proposals contained in Bill C-75 were too restrictive agreed that they could add to delays. For example, in her testimony before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, one of our most incredible witnesses, lawyer Sarah Leamon, from British Columbia, stated:

Now, we know that when a person does decide to go ahead with a preliminary inquiry, the matter will take significantly longer to conclude and is likely to use more judicial resources. That is supported by statistics from Statistics Canada, as well as The Canadian Bar Association....

Given that the amendment was driven by concerns, which were also echoed by members across party lines in this chamber, that the availability of preliminary inquiries was being too severely curtailed by Bill C-75, and I must note that there were many members of our committee who wanted to try to find a way to amend the bill to expand the scope of preliminary inquiries, I am very pleased that the Senate proposed something. The government, in response, is offering a constructive alternative approach. This would involve making preliminary inquiries available for offences carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years or more of imprisonment.

Although this would expand the availability of preliminary inquiries to an additional 86 offences, it would be consistent with the objective of Bill C-75 as introduced as well as with the 2017 federal-provincial consensus to restrict them to offences carrying the most serious terms of imprisonment. This approach would be palatable to jurisdictions that would have further restricted their availability to the most serious offences in the Criminal Code, such as murder and high treason. It would also provide certainty as to which offences would be eligible for a preliminary inquiry and would avoid the risk of litigation inherent in the Senate amendment.

This proposal strikes an artful compromise and a good balance, and I strongly support it.

Overall, this important bill responds to the systemic problem of delays in the criminal justice system, while introducing innovative measures for driving a shift in culture, as noted by the Supreme Court in Jordan.

I ask all my colleagues to support this very good bill and the constructive approach of the government and the Minister of Justice, whom I strongly support, to the amendments from the Senate.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate considering the Senate amendments to 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.

Bill C-75 represents the government's legislative response to reduce delays, modernize the criminal justice system and facilitate the administration of justice by the provinces and territories.

The Senate proposed amendments to the bail, reclassification of offences, victim surcharge and preliminary inquiries provisions of the bill.

I would like to focus my remarks tonight on some of the amendments relating to the reclassification of offences, or hybridization as it is sometimes called.

The reclassification amendments are a key part of the legislative reforms identified by federal, provincial and territorial ministers of justice to reduce delays in the criminal justice system. They would also modernize and streamline the scheme for classifying offences in the Criminal Code.

There are two types of offences in the Criminal Code, those that proceed by summary conviction or by indictment. Some offences can be either. Summary conviction offences deal with less serious conduct, for example, causing a disturbance or trespassing at night, for which the current maximum penalty is normally up to six months imprisonment and/or a $5,000 fine. Indictable offences tend to be for more serious actions, for example, aggravated assault, robbery or murder for which maximum penalties range from two years to life imprisonment.

I failed to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with the member for Mount Royal.

A hybrid offence allows the Crown to choose whether to proceed by indictment or summary conviction, recognizing that the severity of the conduct covered by the offence can vary greatly depending on the circumstances, for example, uttering threats, assault, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle.

Bill C-75 would hybridize 118 straight indictable offences that currently would be punishable by maximum penalties of two, five and 10 years imprisonment. It would also amend the Criminal Code to increase the maximum penalty for most criminal offences with a summary conviction penalty to two years less a day. The maximum penalties are being increased for summary conviction offences. The bill would also increase the current limitation period for all summary conviction offences from six to 12 months.

Indictable offences are often heard in Superior Court and generally take longer to process because of their associated procedural requirements, such as jury trials and preliminary inquiries, which can significantly lengthen the time it takes to complete a case. The reason for the availability of more procedural safeguards for indictable offences is that they carry the risk of much lengthier periods of incarceration.

However, there continues to be many straight indictable offences for which, depending on the circumstances, sentences in the summary conviction range are often appropriate and are in fact being imposed.

Cases involving straight indictable offences where the Crown is seeking sentences in the summary conviction range add unnecessary strain to Superior Courts because though they end up with a summary range sentence, they have been eligible for and have used complicated and time consuming processes to get there.

When an offence is hybrid, the prosecutor can elect to have the case heard either by summary conviction or indictment, based on the severity of the case, the circumstances of the offender and the best resources that fit that case. For this reason, provinces and territories have asked for many more straight indictable offences to be hybridized.

More cases being heard in provincial court would leave Superior Courts with more resources to consider more serious cases, thus speeding up the processing times.

Also, other proposed reforms in Bill C-75, such as restricting the availability of preliminary inquiries to only the most serious offences, will offset any additional workload on provincial courts that might result.

These proposals are not about downloading to the provinces and territories, as some have suggested. They are about providing provinces and territories with the additional flexibility they have asked for so Crown attorneys can choose the process that best aligns with the facts and circumstances of each case.

Some have claimed that changing the classification of offences will change how seriously these crimes will be taken by the system. This is simply not true.

The best indicia of the seriousness of an offence is its maximum available penalty. The hybridization amendments would not change any of the maximum penalties on indictment.

It is already a feature of our criminal justice system that prosecutors assess the facts of the case and the circumstances of the offender to determine which type of sentence to seek from the court. They can already ask for fines and low or no jail time for most of the indictable offences that Bill C-75 proposes to hybridize. As I have already explained, they often avail themselves of summary range sentences.

I have full faith in our prosecutors to continue to seek appropriate sentences. At the end of the day, it will be the judge who decides. Nothing in Bill C-75 proposes to lower the sentences that would be imposed under the law as it is now. These reforms will not change the fundamental principles of sentencing outlined in section 718 of the Criminal Code, which requires proportionality.

The Senate made three types of amendments to address concerns about possible unintended consequences of the reclassification proposals. One of these further amended section 802.1, to also allow agent representation as authorized by the law of the province. However, this is problematic because we do not have any information about how this amendment would operate with existing provincial and territorial laws. As a result, I am not comfortable supporting this amendment.

I am satisfied that the amendment this chamber supported last December to address this issue gives the provinces and territories sufficient flexibility to quickly address any consequences of the reclassification scheme on agents.

I am pleased to be able to support the other two amendments that the Senate made to the reclassification provisions. These are technical and would amount to maintaining the status quo for the collection of DNA samples of convicted offenders and of fingerprints of accused persons. Discretionary DNA orders are currently available for Criminal Code offences with maximum penalties of five years or more when the Crown proceeds by indictment.

Police have expressed concerns that fewer DNA samples will be collected once the reclassification amendments of Bill C-75 come into force. Senate amendment 1 will maintain the availability of DNA orders for those five- and 10-year indictable offences that Bill C-75 proposes to hybridize.

A similar amendment was moved when the bill was before the justice committee, however, that proposal had been much broader and would have expanded the current availability of DNA orders. Senate amendments 11, 13 and 14 respond to police concerns that the hybridization in Bill C-75 will result in police being able to collect fewer fingerprints.

These amendments change the Identification of Criminals Act, to clarify that fingerprints can be taken for an accused who has been charged with a hybrid offence, even where the Crown has elected to proceed by summary conviction. As we can see, Bill C-75 includes many significant tools to reduce delays in the criminal justice system and to better equip its stakeholders and participants to meet the Jordan time frame.

I support the majority of the Senate amendments and I urge my colleagues to support the government's proposed approach to ensure that this much needed bill is passed before the summer recess.

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to 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

Bill C-75--Notice of Closure Motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to give notice that, with respect to the consideration of the Senate amendments to 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, at the next sitting of the House a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that the debate be not further adjourned.

If there is a desire to find a better way forward, I look forward to those opportunities, but until then, it is with regret that I provide this notice.

Bill C-48—Notice of time allocation motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-48, An Act respecting the regulation of vessels that transport crude oil or persistent oil to or from ports or marine installations located along British Columbia's north coast.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings of the bill.

Bill C-75—Notice of time allocation motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to 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.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings of the bill.

Criminal Code

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was just making the point that the Criminal Lawyers' Association has made, about why mandatory minimum sentences are important. It is because if a criminal lawyer has the possibility, a zero-sum game, that his or her client will get the minimum sentence that is there with no discretion of the judges to forge a penalty that is appropriate in the circumstances, the lawyer is not going to cut any deals. There will be no plea bargaining. There will be no efficiency. Therefore, the greatest single efficiency gain would have been what the Prime Minister promised us would happen, which is that mandatory minimum sentences, the way the Conservatives did it, would be eliminated. That was the promise that Canadians received over and over again, only to be completely thrown out in this bill.

It is a gigantic reform initiative. To be fair, it is all pertaining to criminal law but is a gigantic effort with this gigantic problem completely ignored. It is not a problem that I alone identify as an obstacle to efficiency gains and to addressing the crisis that Jordan represents, of people walking free from very serious crimes because we cannot get a trial in a reasonable amount of time. For reasons that escape me, the Liberals completely ignored that and did a number of other things, some of which are commendable but do not do what the objective of the bill was to be, which was to address the issue of inefficiency. That is the problem that the Criminal Lawyers' Association pointed out.

The courts have been reduced to simply being, as some people call them, slot machines of justice. They have no discretion at all. If the facts are made out, the penalty is there. It is push a button. Some judges have complained to me privately that they feel like they are simply automatons. That is not what judges historically have done. The Conservatives rendered them in this position that is invidious and, frankly, embarrassing to many judges. What they thought they had the power to do, which was to render an appropriate sentence to fit the crime, was thrown out the window when mandatory minimums were imposed on so many of the sentences in the Criminal Code.

We also have a crisis in Canada with the overrepresentation of indigenous women in particular. To his credit, the Minister of Justice referred to this problem. We all are aware of it. It is another national disgrace. Jonathan Rudin testified to the justice committee. He is a very memorable witness. He is a lawyer with the Aboriginal Legal Services in Toronto. He highlighted the government's inaction with regard to abolishing mandatory minimum sentences and its particular effect on indigenous women. Here is what he said:

[w]e have to look at the fact that there are still mandatory minimum sentences that take away from judges the ability to sentence indigenous women the way [judges] would like [them] to be sentenced. There are still provisions that restrict judges from using conditional sentences, which can keep women out of prison.

The first thing he urged the committee to recommend was to bring into legislation that judges have sentencing discretion, which the Liberals promised to do and did not.

I suspect the problem is much worse now, but in 2015 the proportion of indigenous adults in custody relative to their percentage of the population was eight times higher for indigenous men and a staggering 12 times higher for indigenous women. Any measure that could address this problem head-on has to be looked at seriously. The government's failure to address what the mandate letter from the Prime Minister told us it would do is a serious missed opportunity.

I would like to turn to preliminary inquiries, which the minister also referred to and was the subject of some of the reform proposals that the Senate brought forward. The Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee passed an amendment to Bill C-75 that would bring back the option for preliminary inquiries for hundreds of criminal offences. Since Bill C-75 was first introduced in the House, the NDP has been advocating that preliminary hearings be retained in criminal proceedings. The Senate is attempting to reverse the government's move to eliminate preliminary inquiries for all offences, except for offences carrying a sentence of life imprisonment.

Senator Pierre Dalphond, a former judge, passed an amendment to bring back the option of preliminary inquiries for most indictable offences, as long as the judge ensures that the impact on complainants is mitigated.

The Liberals argue that this will cost court time, but we heard at the justice committee over and over again testimony that, if we got rid of preliminary inquiries, time saving would actually be marginal and the potential for miscarriage of justice would be great.

While the government has accepted many of the Senate amendments, it is using its motion to continue to severely limit the use of preliminary hearings. We have opposed this measure since Bill C-75 was brought to the House, and our stance, I am confident, remains the correct one.

The Liberals at the House justice committee voted to allow preliminary inquiries only when the maximum sentence is life imprisonment. The other place amended this provision to allow far more judicial discretion, increasing the number of offences that could have a preliminary inquiry from 70 to 463. The minister pointed out that they tried to find some middle ground on this issue.

Overwhelmingly, we heard from witnesses at the justice committee that restricting the use of preliminary inquiries will not address court delays sufficiently and will sacrifice or could sacrifice the rights of the accused. For example, Ottawa criminal defence lawyer Michael Spratt said at the committee that preliminary inquiries occupy a very small percentage of court time but “deliver huge savings to the system. Preliminary inquiries deliver these efficiencies in a number of different ways.” They focus issues for trial, reducing trial length; they identify evidentiary or legal problems in a case at an early stage so the parties can ensure that these problems don't arise during the trial; and they can facilitate the resolution of charges.

He was not alone. Time does not allow me to list all the people who agreed with Mr. Spratt, but they include the Canadian Bar Association; the Criminal Lawyers' Association; the Alberta Crown Attorneys' Association, the prosecution side; various defence lawyers, such as Sarah Leamon, a criminal lawyer; Professor Lisa Silver of the University of Calgary, and on and on, yet the government did not want to go there. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why.

There is also a huge possibility that with taking preliminary inquiries away, there could be a risk that people will be wrongfully convicted. That is what Bill Trudell, the chair of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, said. The government says we do not need them because we now have what are called Stinchcombe disclosure provisions, Stinchcombe being a famous case requiring the Crown to provide all the evidence available to the defence witnesses. The government says that, as a result, we do not need preliminary inquiries. That certainly is not what these people have said, and on a risk-benefit analysis they think it is just not right. The possibility of a wrongful conviction seems to be something we should all be worried about.

I know that time is running out quickly, but I said I would comment on some of the positive things in the bill, and I would like to do so.

First, there is the elimination of what are called “zombie” provisions of the Criminal Code, which criminalize things that are no longer illegal. These provisions have been found to be unconstitutional and have no place in the Criminal Code.

The bill would restore the discretion of judges to impose fewer victim fine surcharges or not impose them at all. I commend the government for that step as well.

I said in my question for the Minister of Justice earlier that I commend the government for broadening the definition of intimate partner violence. That is a good step. Creating an alternative process for dealing with breaches of bail is another good step. Codifying the so-called ladder principle, which requires that the least onerous form of release be imposed, is a good thing as well.

I agree with the government, and I confess not everybody does, that abolishing peremptory challenges is a positive step. Also, the routine police evidence provision has been amended for the good.

For the LGBTQ2+ community, the vagrancy and bawdy house provisions that were often used in the past to criminalize gay men have been rightly repealed. I am proud of the role that I played at the justice committee in moving those amendments, and I commend the government for finally repealing these discriminatory provisions.

I wish to be on record as saying that there is much in this bill that is commendable. It is the fact of the missed opportunity that is so disturbing.

I still have concerns about the many hybrid offences created in Bill C-75, because contrary to what the hon. Conservative member for Sarnia—Lambton said earlier, all this does is to push them down to the already overburdened criminal courts at the provincial level. The more hybrid offences, which proceed by way of summary rather than indictment, go to the provincial courts, where 95% of all criminal matters already take place. I have talked to people in my province of British Columbia who are very concerned about the impact of this on the administration of justice in that province. Jordan is perhaps not as much of a problem in the superior courts, but is a bigger problem in the provincial courts. Surely, that was not the intent.

I know that I have little time left, but I want to complete the point I made earlier about Madam Justice Marion Buller, the chief commissioner for the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. She had the opportunity to go to the Senate committee with her report. A number of suggestions were made for reform in the other place and are now in the amendments before this House. I am very happy that that has happened. However, there are still serious problems with some of the legacies of residential schools and the sixties scoop that still need to be addressed.

I believe my time is almost at an end, so let me just say this. I wish we could support this bill. There is much in it that is worthwhile, but the failure to do what the Prime Minister told us they would do, deal with the mandatory minimums, and the inability to address the preliminary inquiries in a more manageable way, are the reasons we must respectfully oppose this bill.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise, albeit at this hour, to discuss Bill C-75 and the Senate amendments that have been brought to this place from there.

I agree with the thrust of the Senate amendments on behalf of the New Democratic Party, which supports the thrust of those amendments, but reluctantly have to say that, as amended, we must oppose this bill for the reasons I will describe.

I agree with the Minister of Justice, who spoke earlier, about some of the positive changes in this initiative. The bail reform provisions are exemplary. The intimate partner violence provisions are also very good. I am pleased that the Senate had the opportunity to deal with some of the recommendations by Judge Marion Buller, who, of course, chaired the inquiry into murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. She had the benefit of testifying before the Senate committee and, in turn, it had the ability to reflect her wisdom. That finds its way into the amendments before us tonight.

This improves the bill quite significantly, as I will describe, but there are some very significant issues that remain. I want to commend our colleagues in the other place for the work they have done to improve this flawed bill. We need to thank them for some of the work they had the opportunity to do.

We too, on the NDP side, have done an enormous amount of research and consultation, with people from the criminal defence bar, academics, prosecutors, former deputy attorneys general and others. We have done our homework on Bill C-75. After all, it is a mammoth initiative, the most significant criminal justice reform bill in a very long time. Regrettably, as a result of those consultations, we concluded that we must continue to oppose the bill, for reasons I will describe in a moment.

To be clear, we are in support of the amendments made by the Senate, yet decry the government's inadequate response to those amendments and ultimately have to therefore oppose the final bill as amended.

To begin with, why was Bill C-75 initiated? The Minister of Justice was clear about that in his remarks earlier. He alluded to the Askov case in the Supreme Court of Canada, and then, of course, the Jordan decision. The court said that there has to be a trial within a timely period, and it set down very specific limits for both indictable and summary conviction cases.

The objective was one of efficiency. It was to try to make our courts more efficient to deal with the enormous and, quite frankly, embarrassing backlog we have with our court cases, and to deal with the consequence of the Jordan case. As we know, often people who are guilty of offences walk free because the courts are not able to give them a trial within a reasonable period. That has to be an embarrassment to all Canadians.

Efficiency was the goal of this bill. However, after the consultation I just described, the debate in the House, and the work I was part of on the justice committee, where we heard a great variety of presentations, we concluded it is simply not an adequate response to the Jordan problem.

As I alluded to earlier, there are some good things in this bill, which I will also refer to later. However, sadly some of the deeply problematic things continue in the bill. I want to talk, by way of giving illustrations, of the general concerns that the criminal justice bar has had with this bill. I will start Ms. Sayeh Hassan, who is a Toronto-based criminal defence lawyer. By way of summary, she said, “While there are parts of Bill C-75 that have the potential for improving the criminal justice system, many other parts will not only be unhelpful when it comes to reducing delay but will also wipe out numerous rights currently afforded to an accused person.”

The big ugly elephant in the room is the fact that the government chose to completely ignore what so many people have talked about, which is the need to get rid of mandatory minimum sentencing. We had a reasonable hope that it would do so. After all, the Prime Minister told the former minister of justice that it was part of her mandate. Nothing happened.

Sean Fine, of The Globe and Mail, wrote:

As far back as October, 2016, the [former attorney general] told the Criminal Lawyers' Association in a speech that she would change the minimum sentencing laws “in the near future.” Days later, she told The Globe that new legislation would be coming soon, “certainly in the early part of next year.”

It never happened.

Our colleagues in the other place made a similar observation. It is the fourth item on their list of formal observations. I think it is worth repeating what they summarized. Under “Mandatory Minimum Sentences”, it says:

In its Delaying Justice is Denying Justice report, the Committee recommended that the Minister of Justice undertake a thorough review of existing mandatory minimum sentences in order to: ensure a reasonable, evidence-based approach to when they are appropriate; and consider whether persons with mental health issues should be considered for alternative sentencing options or treatment when faced with mandatory minimum sentences.

During its study of Bill C-75, some witnesses expressed significant disappointment that it does not include any reforms to the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code. In the Mandate Letter to the Minister of Justice...of 12 November 2015, [the Prime Minister] stated that the Minister...was to “conduct a review of the changes in our criminal justice system and sentencing reforms over the past decade.” In the Minister’s letter to the Chair of the committee, he stated that the Government “is committed to advancing sentencing reform” and that it is “committed to reviewing the mandatory minimum penalties in the Criminal Code with an eye to eliminating many of them and restoring judicial discretion.”

The committee [of the Senate] observes that the Government of Canada has had four years to bring forward amendments to these provisions in the Criminal Code and that, to date, no legislative action has been taken.

I join with my colleagues in the other place in noting that the government's failure to address the often unconstitutional mandatory minimums cannot be understated. It is a serious problem.

This led the Criminal Lawyers' Association to write in its position paper that “[m]andatory minimum sentences frustrate the process of resolving cases by limiting the Crown’s discretion to offer a penalty that will limit the Crown's ability”—

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find that the Liberals are always consulting but never listening, where the Conservatives are consulting and listening to what people are saying. As I posted the information on Bill C-75, I saw huge activity on social media. There were a huge number of petitions and letters and emails from Canadians saying that was not what they wanted. When people have committed serious crimes, they need them to be put in jail and kept there. They want the prison sentence to fit the crime. They do not want murderers and rapists walking away because their case has been before the court for too long. Therefore, I think Canadians recognize there is a problem. This bill does not address the problem. That is the point I was making tonight.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there was quite a bit to that question.

With respect to it being a great time to be a criminal under the Liberals, I am sure many people have seen on Facebook the comparison that says would it not be great if we put seniors in prison because then they would receive the medical care, the food, the shelter and the attention they need. In some cases, we are treating criminals better than we are treating seniors.

This move to focus on less punishment for the criminals and to ignore the victims rights or to take away the funding for victims services is a disservice.

With respect to equality under the law, I absolutely believe in equality under the law and we need to do what we can, but we need to address the root causes of why we have overrepresentation from some groups in prison.

On intimate partner violence, although I want to see intimate partner violence reduced, we see this increasing. Many people coming into the country are coming from places where intimate partner violence is very common and considered part of everyday life. We need to educate those people so we can prevent this from happening. However, we need to recognize that in Bill C-75 there is a total discrepancy between working on intimate partner violence, but allowing forced marriage, especially forced marriage of children.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak. This could quite possibly be the last speech I make in the 42nd Parliament. I certainly have a number of things to say about Bill C-75.

Bill C-75 amends criminal law. It is a justice bill. When we look at bills that fall into this area, it is important to remember what we are trying to achieve with bills in the criminal justice system. The first thing we are trying to do is define for Canadians what unacceptable behaviour is. Once we have set that standard, then we are trying to assign penalties suitable to deter people from committing that crime. In Canadian federal prisons, we do not do a lot of rehabilitation, so really the main part of the criminal justice system is to assign a penalty that both is commensurate with the crime that was committed and also is a deterrent to keep people from committing that crime, and then to prosecute that charge in court with a fair and due process.

I would like to look at Bill C-75 and compare it to those criteria to see how it measures up.

First, I will talk about defining unacceptable behaviour. I am not sure that the Liberals understand what unacceptable behaviour is. I say that because we are talking about a Prime Minister who is the first prime minister to break a law, which he did when he took a private helicopter to billionaire island. The member for Brampton East was involved in allegations of money laundering. We are currently seeing the member for Steveston—Richmond East in several instances of money laundering, as well as being disbarred. There have been multiple ethical lapses and cases of sexual harassment that caused some members to be out of the caucus, but I would argue there are still some members within the caucus. There is a tolerance for things that, in the minds of Canadians, shows that maybe there is not a good moral compass in the Liberal Party to define what unacceptable behaviour is.

With respect to assigning penalties suitable to deter people from committing the crime, one of the most egregious things about the changes in Bill C-75 is that the Liberals have taken a number of crimes that Canadians would consider to be very heinous and reduced them to a summary conviction of two years or a fine. It is important to look at the list of the kinds of crimes we are talking about, so that people can convince themselves whether this is appropriate.

The most heinous crime on the list has to be the forcible confinement of a minor. In the minds of all Canadians, we value our children and we want to protect our children. If somebody kidnapped and forcibly confined a child, I do not think most Canadians would think it is okay to get off with a fine for doing that. That is unacceptable.

Also on the list is forced marriage and forced marriage of children. I am not sure this should be allowed at all in Canada, but I know one thing. If we are talking about forced marriage and marriage for people who are under 16, that is rape. It is clear that it is rape. Therefore, to put that as a summary conviction of less than two years or a fine is unacceptable. We can see in this country that rape is on the increase. One in three women will experience sexual violence in her lifetime. Therefore, it is clear that we do not have the right deterrent to reduce the crime that is happening.

I was the chair of the status of women committee when we studied violence against women and girls in Canada. We had testimony from quite a number of countries, and I was interested to look around and see which countries were doing a better job in the area of rape. There are countries that do not have a big issue with rape. I asked the witnesses why that was, and they said the penalty for the crime was 10 to 15 years in prison, so they have a deterrent for people not to commit that crime. There is also an awareness of the fact that it is illegal. We have a lot of people coming to Canada from places that have a different culture in many cases and have a different tolerance for things like rape. It is important that we educate people who come to this country about those issues. We should be setting punishment for this crime that is commensurate with it, and a fine is not acceptable.

Assault with a weapon is on the list. We sadly saw what happened today at the Raptors parade with people getting shot. This seems to be an event that is on the rise. I think about the Danforth shooting. I think about a number of shootings that have happened. Assault with a weapon should not be less than two years in prison or a fine. That is not acceptable. That is not a deterrent, and I think most Canadians would agree with that.

Originally, there were a number of items on the list that had to do with participating in terrorism activities, or leaving Canada to participate in the activities of terrorist groups. There was some walk-back within Bill C-75 on that issue, but we are still not in the place we need to be on that.

Canadians are concerned about terrorism. A number of events happen but we do not receive any information. I am thinking about the two fellows in Ontario who were caught with explosives and the FBI was investigating. Everyone says there is nothing to see here; all is fine. There is the Danforth shooting, the guy who drove a van and killed multiple people in Toronto. There is the return of ISIS fighters and people not knowing what is happening with them. Are they walking around? How do we know that the public is safe? There is a concern among Canadians that we should take a hard line on terrorism. I am glad to see some walk-back on that, but I want to keep an eye on it.

Another thing on the list is municipal corruption. Corruption in government of any kind is not something that should ever be reduced to a fine. We have seen lots of corruption in the existing Liberal government, lots of scandal. The fact that the Liberals have reduced the severity of the crimes on this list is indicative of the lack of moral compass on the other side.

Maybe “assisting prisoner of war to escape” is not a current issue, but how about “obstructing or violence to or arrest of an officiating clergyman”? This one is particularly egregious to me. I remember when Bill C-51 came from the Liberal government and tried to take what is today considered a crime, to attack or threaten a clergyperson, and remove that altogether. I remember the concern from churches in Sarnia—Lambton and across the country. They wondered why the Liberals wanted to take a protection away from the clergy, especially when cases of that nature had been prosecuted.

As a result of the public outcry and a swing in the polls, the Liberals backed off that, but here it is, showing up again, and this should be a flag to people who are watching tonight. What we see with the Liberals again and again is that they try something and when there is a public outcry, they back off, but as soon as they get another chance to sneak it in, it comes back.

A number of things have been like that. I am thinking of the tax that the Liberals were going to put on dental and health care. They backed off, but I bet it will reappear. It is the same thing with the small business tax on passive assets. As soon as there was an outcry, the Liberals backed off, but this is something to watch for if they get another chance.

Impaired driving causing bodily harm is on the list. This is quite concerning as well. We can think about the amount of work that organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving have done to raise awareness, to try to get stiffer penalties for impaired driving causing bodily harm. We can think of the tragedy of many parents who have lost children or loved ones who have been killed by somebody driving impaired. To reduce this to a conviction of less than two years or a fine is totally unacceptable, especially from a government that legalized marijuana, knowing that Colorado and Washington saw a doubling of traffic deaths due to impaired driving. This is a step in the wrong direction and should be reconsidered.

There is another one in the bill that talks about polygamy, and I am not sure why this one made the list. Polygamy has been illegal in Canada for quite some time and culturally, we would like to preserve that. I am not sure why we would want to lessen the severity of the crime for that.

There is arson for fraudulent purposes. These acts are clearly serious crimes. If I go back to the original premise that says the reason we have a criminal justice system is to assign penalties suitable to deter people from committing a crime, I think we could admit that diluting the penalty in the way Bill C-75 does is not going to help us move forward or deter crime in this country.

I want to read quotes of what people have said about Bill C-75. Ms. Markita Kaulius, the president of Families for Justice, said, “Bill C-75 is a terrible bill for victims and for public safety.” Stephanie DiGiuseppe, a litigation lawyer in Toronto specializing in criminal and constitutional law, said, “Bill C-75 is a massive step backwards for justice reform in Canada.” Christian Leuprecht, a professor at the Royal Military College of Canada, said, “the signal that [Bill C-75 is] sending is that these offences are no longer as serious as they were before.” It has been recognized across the country that this bill is not going to be good for the criminal justice system and it is not going to accomplish what we need to accomplish.

If I were a criminal in Canada, I would be saying it is a great time to be a criminal with the Liberal government in place because it always protects the rights of criminals instead of the rights of victims. There is a move to decrease punishments. We talk about some of the things that Bill C-75 was hoping to accomplish. One was that the court system is overloaded right now. One way of offloading the courts is to get rid of all the people in line by fining them instead of making them go through the court process. One way to prevent the courts from being clogged up is to hire enough judges to adjudicate the cases.

In the four years the Liberal government has been in place, the court is missing about 60 judges, at last count. That never happened under the previous Conservative government. There was always an adequate number of judges to process the cases in the courts. Therefore, reducing sentences and letting everybody off the hook is not the answer. We do not say that since there are too many people in line, we should allow the murderers and rapists go free, but that is essentially what is happening now because there are cases are waiting too long. According to Jordan's principle, after two years, those cases are thrown out of court. During the reign of the Liberals, murderers and rapists have gone free in Canada. Clearly, understaffing the judiciary is part of the problem and part of the solution is replacing them.

When it comes to enforcing punishments, there has been a bit of a lackadaisical attitude. I remember when we first heard that Terri-Lynne McClintic had been sent to a healing lodge that had no security. She had been convicted of brutally murdering a child and was supposed to be imprisoned with a lot of security until 2030. When we raised the issue, those on the other side did not understand why we were raising it because they thought it was no big deal. It took a public outcry for the government to recognize that this was a big mistake and people who commit serious crimes, like murdering a child, need to be behind bars. The punishment needs to fit the crime. Again, there is lack of a moral compass on the other side.

However, there are lots of protections for people in prison. Mental health supports were announced in the budget for folks in prison. I am not saying that criminals do not deserve mental health supports. I am just saying that since mental health supports are very much lacking for the rest of Canadians, why are we putting prisoners first? There is a program to provide free needles and we are moving to providing free illegal drugs to prisoners. I am not sure why the government is in the business of doling out illegal drugs; we do not provide free syringes and drugs to people with diabetes or everyone who has cancer.

I would certainly argue that when it comes to priorities, the government appears to be putting a priority on criminals, instead of victims and the rest of Canadians. I do not think that is the right priority, and the government should re-evaluate it.

The current Minister of Justice talked about the Senate amendments and the ones that should be included. He talked about the victim surcharge in one of the amendments. The victims surcharge was put in place because victims services were expensive. This was a way of recouping some of the costs, people who had done the harm had to do some remediation of the harm.

I am not sure, then, why the government would remove the requirement to have this victims service charge and to leave it to the discretion of judges. First, they have to remember that they can apply a victims surcharge. Then we leave it to their discretion as to whether they will apply it.

My experience has always been that when it is left to the discretion of judges, we see sentences becoming smaller and smaller over time. It is heartbreaking to me. I think about some of the stories I have heard of rape and been involved with them. In Sarnia—Lambton, for example, there was a case recently, where a 13-year-old girl was gang raped by two men who received prison sentences of months. We absolutely cannot have this kind of thing.

I think of Rehtaeh Parsons who was raped by multiple people. As a result of the ensuing shame that was put on her for over a year and a half, she took her life. It was a wrist slap for the people who were involved in that crime.

We do not have the right balance, and Bill C-75 does nothing to address it.

I want to talk about the previous Conservative government and its record on crime. The Conservatives are known, in general, to uphold criminal justice, to take the rights of the victim, rather than the rights of the criminal, and to try to impose stiff penalties for violent and heinous crimes. People will have a choice in the fall election. They will have a choice to move away from protecting the criminals' rights and move into the space of protecting the victims' rights. That will be important.

One of the interesting parts of the Senate amendments was the Senate trying to add different offences. The Senate decided it would add neglect or interference with a dead body to the list of things we might want to give a fine for or a summary conviction. The Senate wanted to make infanticide, killing a baby, a less than two years sentence or a fine. I do not think that is where Canadians are.

Setting traps, obtaining credit from false pretense, stock manipulation, gaming, fraud, falsification of documents, dealing in counterfeit money, on all of these things, the everyday Canadian would say they are crimes and people should go to prison when they do these things. They should not be given a fine or a summary conviction. I do not think it is right.

The government promised to uphold the rights of Canadians and to protect them. This is another example of where the government has not kept its promise to Canadians. It promised a lot of things. The Liberals promised small deficits. They promised to balance the budget by 2019, and here we are in 2019. They promised open and transparent government, but we have seen gag orders and cover-ups. The privacy legislation, which we just talked about, clearly is not hitting the mark.

We were told 2015 would be the last election under first past the post, another broken promise. We were told there would be no omnibus bills, another broken promise. We were told they would restore home mail delivery. The Liberals have broken 75% of their promises. When people are listening to what Liberals are promising this year, they should keep that in mind, that three-quarters of what is going to be said is never going to happen. We have seen that with the pharmacare promise. The Liberals promised that in 1997, 2004 election and again in the last election.

Then there is the wrong approach to guns. Assault with a weapon has been added to the list in Bill C-75 that will get a slap on the wrist. However, we see an increasing number of crimes involving guns. In fact, 95% of the gun crime in Canada is caused by illegal guns or guns used illegally. The government has not come up with a plan to address that. Our leader has come with a comprehensive plan that will address the real problem, which is guns used illegally by gangs, and bring the right penalties to deter bad behaviour. However, the Liberals are not on that page. They are as always taking the side of the criminals on these things, and we see a further move to decriminalize other behaviours.

I know there is a real push on for the Liberals to decriminalize all drugs. We just did a study at the health committee on the meth problem. We visited across the country. When we went to Winnipeg, we saw the problem with methamphetamine addiction. The response of the Liberals was to decriminalize it and give people free methamphetamine. Police officers are saying that these people are committing a lot of crimes, they are breaking into people's houses and there are all kinds of violent acts going on. Therefore, we have to be doing something that balances the protection of Canadians with the care that we have for folks who are addicted. However, that has not been addressed.

On Bill C-75, I received numerous petitions. I know people across the country are paying attention to this. I received a lot of information from the member for Niagara Falls, who was a former justice minister, as well as the member for Milton, who is very educated in these areas.

I heard the current Minister of Justice talk about indigenous people being overrepresented in the criminal justice system, and that is true. We need to get to the root cause of that, but I do not think reducing penalties for serious crime is the way to go about it.

I looked at some of the points that were made on reducing intimate partner violence. It is a great thing to reduce intimate partner violence, but forced marriage is intimate partner violence, especially when it is a child. There is a bit of hypocrisy in the way the bill was brought forward.

I did not hear a lot of conversation from the Minister of Justice on the modernization and simplification of the bail system and I would like to hear more. There is definitely room for improvement, but, again, modernization and simplification cannot mean abdication of responsibility in the criminal justice system.

On allowing a preliminary inquiry, which originally was allowed for serious crimes that carried life imprisonment, and I believe 70 infractions would meet that criteria, the bill would open that up to another 393 that could have access to a preliminary inquiry if one party or the other demanded it. Again, this will take more court resources. If the whole purpose of Bill C-75 is to try to help offload the courts and if the Liberals would let some more serious crimes go with a less than two-year conviction or a fine but then load up the court system again with a bunch of preliminary inquiries for a greater realm of offences, I am not sure that would achieve what they want to achieve.

Overall, when I look back to what we want to do in the criminal justice system, we want to define unacceptable behaviour, and certainly there is a good list, but we also want to assign penalties suitable to deter people from committing the crime. The Liberals missed the mark on that with Bill C-75.

We want to prosecute in court with a fair and due process. I do not think Bill C-75 would do that. I do not think it is fair to the victims to have these very serious crimes punished with a slap on the wrist, which is essentially what a fine or a less than two year summary conviction is. I do not think we will increase the cycle time through the courts, because, again, judges are still missing, which is a key part of it. Now the bill would increase the number of preliminary inquiries. Therefore, I do not believe Bill C-75 will hit the target.

The bill should not go forward. I know the government is rushing it through in the dying days of of the 42nd Parliament, but I will not support Bill C-75 and I know my constituents and those across the country will not support the bill or the government.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the minister on his speech. I agree, on behalf of the NDP, with the thrust of his remarks with respect to the Senate amendments made to Bill C-75, certainly with respect to intimate partner violence and the bail reform provisions and, in particular, the section 802.1 where law students and agents will again be able to represent people fully in summary conviction matters. I think these are all really important matters and I agree with him.

However, surely, if the issue is about the Askov and Jordan delay principles, the elephant in the room would be the fact that the government has failed to follow up on the Prime Minister's commitment to address to the minister, in the mandate letter, the minimum mandatory sentences provisions. I agree with him that we have a crisis in the over-incarceration of indigenous people, eight times as many indigenous men per capita, 12 times as many women.

Jonathan Rudin and others who work with Aboriginal Legal Services, say that there has to be a change in the mandatory minimum provisions if we are going to change that. Why does the government not get that?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that everyone in this House will join me.

The fourth element is on reclassification of offences. Reclassification of offences is another key element of Bill C-75 that will modernize and streamline the Criminal Code and promote a more efficient and economical use of judicial resources.

Hybridizing offences that are punishable by a maximum penalty of two, five and 10 years' imprisonment gives the provinces and territories greater flexibility to match their resources to the cases based on the offender's circumstances and the gravity of the case.

However, this reclassification would not change the fundamental sentencing principles. The classification reforms do not reduce penalties. Serious offences will continue to be treated seriously by the courts.

The other place's amendments 1, 10, 11, 13 and 14 are about the reclassification of offences and touch on areas for which witnesses expressed concerns about amendments potentially having unintended consequences.

Amendment 1 would allow a court to order DNA sampling for offences punishable by five and 10 years' imprisonment. Bill C-75 would hybridize those offences, and DNA orders are already issued for them. This amendment is consistent with the objectives of the bill, and I urge the House to join me in supporting it.

I would also urge the House to join me in supporting amendment 11, which would amend the Identification of Criminals Act to state that a person accused of a hybrid offence can be fingerprinted even if the prosecutor opts to proceed by way of summary conviction.

Amendments 13 and 14 are consequential amendments relating to the coming-into-force date of the specified provision if amendment 12 is agreed to.

The other place's amendment 10 attempts to respond to concerns that a number of stakeholders made regarding the unintended impact of Bill C-75's proposed amendments to increase the maximum penalty for most Criminal Code offences with a summary conviction penalty to two years less a day.

Currently section 802.1 makes clear that agents, including law students, articling students, paralegals and others, cannot appear in summary conviction proceedings where the maximum term of imprisonment is greater than six months, unless the agent is authorized under a program approved by the lieutenant governor in council of the province or the accused is an organization.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights amended section 802.1 to allow provinces and territories to establish criteria in addition to their existing authority to approve programs, authorizing agents to appear in summary conviction proceedings where the maximum penalty was more than six months and to allow agents to attend court in place of the accused to seek an adjournment of the proceeding on all summary conviction matters without prior authorization.

These amendments maintain jurisdictional flexibility in this area of criminal procedure while also recognizing regional diversity and how legal representation is regulated across Canada.

The proposed other place's amendment would add a provision that would also allow agents to appear where they are authorized to do so under the law of a province. We are concerned that there might be unintended results to this amendment. As I stated earlier, this bill is the product of considerable consultation with provinces and territories and there has not been sufficient time to analyze and ascertain what the effect of this amendment would be under existing provincial and territorial laws.

Moreover, provinces and territories already have flexibility to quickly address any consequences of the reclassification scheme on agents through the amendments made to the bill in this place last December. Using the proposed new power to do this through criteria or a program established by the lieutenant governor in council is a much faster process than legislative reform.

For these reasons, we do not support the other place's amendment 10.

The fifth element is about strengthening case management. Bill C-75 will strengthen Criminal Code provisions to improve case management.

The sixth element is about improving the jury selection process. Bill C-75 will also improve the jury selection process by eliminating the potentially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges, making the selection process more transparent, promoting fairness and impartiality and making jury trials more efficient in general.

The seventh key area was implementing other additional efficiencies. One of the most widely supported aspects of the bill is the promotion of additional efficiencies, including through the use of technology where available to facilitate remote appearances.

Bill C-75 also includes reforms proposed in three bills that were previously introduced as separate bills: Bill C-28, victim surcharge; Bill C-38, exploitation and trafficking in persons, and Bill C-39, repeal of provisions ruled unconstitutional.

The other place's amendments 5, 8 and 9 respond to the December 14, 2018, decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Boudreault, which struck down the provisions in the Criminal Code related to the federal victim surcharge, used by provinces and territories to partially fund their victim services.

The other place's amendments re-enact a new victim surcharge regime that requires the imposition of a surcharge in all cases, but provides greater judicial discretion to depart from imposing the surcharge in appropriate cases, in order to address the concerns of the Supreme Court decision.

I believe the victim surcharge amendments will restore the necessary judicial discretion to ensure that the sentence imposed in each case is fit and proportionate. I urge this House to join me in supporting these amendments. These are changes that I know my provincial and territorial colleagues are awaiting.

In conclusion, as we can see, this bill contains a number of crucial measures to reduce delays in the criminal justice system. These measures will help modernize and simplify the system, while at the same time providing additional safeguards for vulnerable victims and restoring the ability to collect the federal victim surcharge.

Last, but not least, these amendments represent an important step towards reversing the historically disproportionate impact of the criminal justice system on indigenous peoples and marginalized peoples.

We must work together to ensure that this bill is passed before we adjourn for the summer.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved:

That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to 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, the House:

agrees with amendments 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12(b), 13 and 14 made by the Senate;

proposes that amendment 3 be amended to read as follows:

“3. Clause 239, pages 90 and 91:

(a) on page 90, replace lines 2 and 3 with the following:

“dictable offence that is punishable by 14 years or more of imprisonment, other than an offence listed in section 469, the justice”;

(b) on page 90, replace lines 18 and 19 with the following:

able by 14 years or more of imprisonment, an offence listed in section 469 that is not punishable by 14 years or more of imprisonment or an”;

(c) on page 90, replace line 44 with the following:

“section 469 that is punishable by 14 years or more of imprisonment,”;

(d) on page 91, replace lines 20 and 21 with the following:

“offence listed in section 469 that is punishable by 14 years or more of imprisonment, the justice shall endorse on the informa-”;

proposes that amendment 4 be amended to read as follows:

“4. Clause 240, pages 92 and 93:

(a) on page 92, replace line 11 with the following:

“14 years or more of imprisonment, other than an offence mentioned”;

(b) on page 92, replace lines 25 to 27 with the following:

“offence that is punishable by 14 years or more of imprisonment, an offence listed in section 469 that is not punishable by 14 years or more of imprisonment or an offence mentioned in section”;

(c) on page 92, replace line 41 with the following:

“section 469 that is punishable by 14 years or more of imprisonment,”;

(d) on page 93, replace line 20 with the following:

“is punishable by 14 years or more of imprisonment, the justice or”;

proposes that, as a consequence of Senate amendments 3 and 4, the following amendment be added:

1. Clause 238, page 89: replace line 33 with the following

“fence that is punishable by 14 years or more of imprisonment is be-”;

proposes that amendment 6 be amended by replacing the words “an intimate partner – and, in particular, a partner” with the words “a person” and by replacing the words “on the basis of sex or is an Aboriginal person” with the words “because of personal circumstances – including because the person is Aboriginal and female”;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 10 made by the Senate because the Bill already provides flexibility to the provinces and territories with respect to agent representation while also recognizing regional diversity in respect of how legal representation is regulated across Canada, and because the amendment could have unintended repercussions for the provinces and territories; and, the Government continues to work with the provinces and territories to support the effective implementation of these reforms.

proposes that amendment 12(a) in the English version be amended by replacing the words “apply in Bill C-45” with the words “apply if Bill C-45”.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be here today to speak to the amendments made by the other chamber to 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.

After being examined and given thoughtful deliberation in the Senate, the bill has returned to the House of Commons so that we can review the 14 amendments that have been made.

I would first like to thank all members and senators, particularly the members of the committees of both chambers, for their work to reduce the delays in the criminal justice system.

In particular, I would like to thank the chair of the justice committee, as well as the member for West Nova, both of whom gave me critical advice at appropriate moments.

I would also like to thank all of the witnesses who took the time to submit briefs and to appear before the committee, since they expressed very useful views about their experience with the criminal justice system, whether from the perspective of a professional, an accused, a victim or a family member.

Many of these witnesses echoed the concerns expressed by the Supreme Court of Canada in the 2016 Jordan decision.

We all know that delays in the criminal justice system are destructive, and particularly so to some of the most vulnerable members of our society: victims of crime and their loved ones. Delays also impact accused from groups that are overrepresented in the criminal justice system. Of course, the cost of inefficiencies is also borne by taxpayers.

I learned this lesson very early when I was fortunate enough to be a clerk to Justice Peter Cory of the Supreme Court of Canada. At that time, the Askov decision was heard, which was the predecessor to Jordan.

Bill C-75 presents an important opportunity to take concrete action to reduce these delays and respond directly to my mandate. It is the product of significant consultation over many years, and it would modernize the criminal justice system in ways that provinces and territories, which are responsible for the administration of the system, have agreed would improve the efficiency and effectiveness of this system.

All of the proposed amendments have been crafted with a view to the impact they would have on the incarceration rates of indigenous persons and persons who are vulnerable to being overrepresented in the criminal justice system in Canada. Bill C-75 seeks equally to improve the safety of our communities by implementing our government's commitments to toughen criminal laws and bail conditions in cases of intimate partner violence, or IPV, with the goal of keeping women and children safe.

As members will no doubt recall from when the bill passed through this place the first time, it is bold and transformative and contains many much-needed improvements to the criminal justice system. Today I will provide a general overview of the key areas of criminal law reform contained in Bill C-75, as well as some details on the amendments proposed by the other place.

First, I want to talk about the modernization and simplification of the bail provisions.

All stakeholders support the bill's proposal to modernize and simplify the interim release provisions. Everyone agrees that these reforms need to be made right away. This critical modernization of the interim release provisions will be the most comprehensive reform in 45 years. It will strengthen the key principles of interim release, which the Supreme Court of Canada has outlined many times, particularly just recently in 2017 in R. v. Antic.

Moreover, these changes are needed to reduce the overrepresentation of indigenous people and individuals from vulnerable populations in the criminal justice system. I look forward to the addition to the Criminal Code of the proposed requirement that particular attention be given to the circumstances of aboriginal accused in interim release decisions.

The other place proposed a slight change to the interim release provisions in the bill in response to the March 2019 Supreme Court ruling in R. v. Myers. The Court stated that the detention review under section 525 of the Criminal Code must be an automatic procedure whether the delay was unreasonable or not. This ruling raised some concerns in Quebec over the court of competent jurisdiction to hear these cases, given the unique way the term “judge” is defined for Quebec for the purposes of these interim release hearings.

Amendment 2 would uphold the current definition of this term for Quebec, but will add that only a judge from the Court of Québec may conduct a detention review, except in the case of a decision on the detention issued by the Superior Court of Quebec.

I urge all hon. members to support amendment 2 from the other place since it gives Quebec greater discretion to guarantee more effective use of judicial resources.

The bill amendments are also instrumental in increasing the safety of all women and girls, including indigenous women and girls. Specifically, they would require a justice to consider whether an accused would be charged with an offence involving IPV against an intimate partner when determining whether to release or detain the accused.

The amendments would also require courts to consider the criminal record of the accused, including prior convictions and the context of the offence. In cases where an accused who had a prior conviction for violence against an intimate partner is facing new charges for IPV, a reverse onus would be imposed on the accused at bail, meaning that the burden would shift to the accused to justify why the accused should not be detained pending trial.

Bill C-75 proposes other amendments in relation to ensuring that convictions for violence against intimate partners are taken seriously at the sentencing stage.

As passed by this place, Bill C-75 would modernize the current aggravating sentencing factor in the Criminal Code to ensure it would concur with our current understanding of IPV and would specify that it would apply to both current and former intimate partners, as well as the more modern conception of intimate partnerships, including dating partnerships. It would also allow for the possibility of seeking a higher maximum penalty in cases involving a repeat IPV offender.

Informed by the testimony of the commissioners of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, the other place's amendments 6 and 7 would strengthen these amendments to ensure that violence against indigenous women and girls would be treated all the more seriously at sentencing. The other place's amendment 6 would create a new sentencing objective in the Criminal Code that would direct a court to give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence for an IPV offence, in particular where the victim is vulnerable on the basis of sex or is an indigenous person.

The other place's amendment 7 would expand Bill C-75's aggravating factor to include IPV committed against a member of the offender's or the victim's family and would create a new sentencing principle that would require a court imposing a sentence for an IPV offence to consider the increased vulnerability of female victims, giving particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal female victims.

I support these amendments, with a minor modification to the other place's amendment 6 to remove the concept of IPV and replace the reference to a person's sex with reference to personal circumstances and to specifically refer to aboriginal women. This would assist in ensuring judges take into account the increased vulnerability of indigenous women as victims for all offences.

It is also timely in that it would address some of the recommendations in the recently released missing and murdered indigenous women and girls report, recommendations 5.17 and 5.18. Moreover, these amendments would address some of the concerns noted by the Supreme Court of Canada in its recent Barton decision, where the court noted that indigenous women faced injustices in all areas of the criminal justice system as well as extremely high rates of violence.

I acknowledge that some may question these two amendments, given that the House did not support Bill S-215 at second reading. Bill S-215's proposed aggravating factors would have applied to only a few offences. This other place's amendment also differs from Bill S-215 in that it would apply to a broader group of victims. It would directly call on the court to consider the vulnerability of female victims, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal female victims. In contrast, Bill S-215 was limited to the fact that the victim was a female person who was Indian, Inuit or Métis.

The second element is enhancing the existing approach to administration of justice offences, including for offences committed by youth. The judicial referral hearing procedure proposed in Bill C-75 is another positive reform aimed at diverting less serious, non-violent cases from the courts so that they may be dealt with more efficiently. This approach will also help reduce the overrepresentation of indigenous people and other marginalized groups in the criminal justice system, who are overrepresented among those accused of administration of justice offences.

This area of reform was recommended in the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs' final report entitled “Delaying Justice is Denying Justice: An Urgent Need to Address Lengthy Court Delays in Canada”, given the significant number of cases involving administration of justice offences in the system and the pressure they cause. It is harder for the accused to break the cycle of crime because of these offences.

The bill gives police officers and prosecutors a new tool that allows them to ask judges to review all bail conditions that apply to the accused. This allows for an assessment of the reasonableness of the conditions and helps promote a culture change encouraging criminal justice professionals to play an active role in reversing the upward trend in the number of charges related to administration of justice offences, when other kinds of offences are declining.

The third point is on restricting the availability of preliminary inquiries to the most serious offences. As introduced, Bill C-75 proposed to restrict the availability of preliminary inquiries to indictable offences punishable by life imprisonment, roughly 70 offences. The other place agreed that these offences should automatically include a preliminary inquiry.

However, it also expanded their availability on a discretionary basis to all other indictable offences with a maximum penalty of less than life imprisonment, which would have been an additional 393 offences. As per the other place's amendment, preliminary inquiries would be available in two circumstances: first, where one or both parties requested one; and, second, a justice was satisfied that certain criteria were met, namely that appropriate measures were taken to mitigate the impacts on victims for both approaches and, where it was on the request of one party, that it was also in the best interest of the administration of justice.

The amendment responded to concerns that preliminary inquiries were not available for more and serious offences. However, the expansion of their availability, combined with the new complex criteria, would lead, in our view, to further delays and unnecessary litigation; for example, to interpret the proper application of the criteria.

Recognizing, however, that the other place's amendment was motivated by continuing concerns by the legal community and others, I proposed to not accept the other place's amendments 3 and 4 as drafted, but to revise the bill's original approach to make preliminary inquiries also available for offences with a maximum penalty of 14 years, for example, sexual assault with a weapon.

Although this would expand the availability of preliminary inquiries for 86 more offences, the proposal is consistent with the 2017 FPT ministers of justice's consensus to restrict them to offences carrying the most serious terms of imprisonment. A 14-year threshold will still provide certainty and will avoid the delays inherent in the other place's amendment.

I hope you will all will join me in supporting this amendment, as it strikes an important balance in what is a long-standing, contentious debate regarding preliminary inquiries.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-458, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing principles – remote emergency medical or police services).

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Red Deer—Mountain View for seconding my bill.

My bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code by providing for changes that evidence that an offence was directed at a person or property that was vulnerable because of the remoteness from emergency or medical or police services be a factor when considering sentencing. Rural Canadians are particularly vulnerable right now. Statistics Canada, police reports, all the information points to the fact that rural Canadians are specifically being targeted by criminals.

If my bill is passed it would ensure that criminals will face longer times in jail for purposely targeting rural areas, contrary to Bill C-75, which would just speed up the revolving door, which is a hot button issue in my riding and for all rural Canadians, many of whom are tired of being repeat victims.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Federal Courts Act

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-331, which was brought forward by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

I will talk about the bill and what it purports to do, and then I want to talk about the state of the nation in terms of the Federal Court system, because this bill proposes to make changes there.

The bill's intent is “[to amend] the Federal Courts Act to provide for the jurisdiction of the Federal Court over civil claims brought by non-Canadians in respect of alleged violations outside Canada of international law or a treaty to which Canada is party.”

The intent of the member who brought forward this private member's business was to address instances where, for example, Canadian companies operating in other jurisdictions are not being good corporate citizens and are violating in some way the human rights of individuals there.

In the member's speech, which I reviewed, he had a number of examples of companies. A lot of them were mining companies, such a Nevsun Resources, which had a gold, zinc and copper mine in Eritrea, where there were allegations of forced labour, slavery and torture of workers. Another case was the one of Hudbay Minerals in Guatemala, where people were shot and killed. The intent of this bill is to allow people who may not be Canadians and who have had things happen to them outside of Canada to come and use the Canadian Federal Court system to pursue civil actions.

The issue I have with that, first of all, is that the Federal Court system, as it is today, under the current Liberal government, is in tatters. The former justice minister did not appoint a sufficient number of judges, so court cases were backed up and there was a huge logjam. As a result of that, many murder cases and rape cases were being tossed out of court because they had been in the queue for more than two years, and according to Jordan's principle, these people, guilty of heinous crimes, have gone free.

The government has continually eroded the execution of justice in Canada with a weakening of the rules. The government introduced legislation such as C-75, which took some very serious crimes, such as the forcible confinement of a minor, and reduced them to summary convictions, which means a penalty of less than two years or a fine. There was a whole list of charges in that bill that took serious crimes and brought them back to something that was minor in nature. I would argue that a fine for the forcible confinement of a minor is like a slap on the wrist for something that I think all Canadians would agree is heinous.

We also saw the situation with Tori Stafford's killer, Terri-Lynne McClintic, who, even though she viciously participated in the murder of a child, was allowed to go to a healing lodge, where there was no security and she was in the presence of parents who had their children with them when they came to work.

I am concerned that we need to strengthen our Federal Court system as it stands today, not weaken it, and the Liberal government has not done that. I am concerned that if we open it up to non-Canadians in other countries, they would come and bring an extra caseload of court cases to a court system that is arguably already under stress and not delivering. There are Canadian crimes that we are not able to adequately prosecute on time. That is a real difficulty.

Within the bill, there are 17 different types of cases that could be brought forward. I will go through a few of these and talk about incidents that have occurred during the 42nd Parliament, to give members an idea of the volume of these cases that could come before the Federal Court.

First on the list is “genocide”, which everyone knows is a very serious crime. If we think about some of the genocides that have happened during this Parliament, the Yazidis come to mind. Yazidi women were brought to Canada after the genocide where those people were exterminated by ISIS terrorists. That is one. There are still outstanding actions to be taken on Rwanda. That is another genocide that could come our way.

Another item on the list is “slavery or slave trading”. Human trafficking of someone under 18 is also on the list. Human trafficking is a huge issue in Canada. In my riding of Sarnia—Lambton, which is a border city, we see a huge amount of human trafficking happening. There is an actual network between Sarnia and Toronto that couriers people, and not just people from out of the country. Young Canadian boys and girls are lured into this and trapped in that lifestyle for years. There is no doubt that it is a heinous crime, but when I think about the number of these cases in Canada today and the fact that we do not have the resources to adequately prosecute our own, I am concerned about opening that up to the rest of the world.

Any “extrajudicial killing or the enforced disappearance of a person” is on the list. Let us think about the Saudi Arabian journalist who was exterminated. Let us think about the two Canadian men who were killed in the Philippines.

Also on the list is “systemic discrimination”. This opens it way up. When I was the chair of the status of women committee, we had visits of people from countries all over the world where women were being systematically discriminated against. They came to see what we were doing here in Canada. Some would argue that we are still seeing systemic discrimination within our own country. LGBTQ is another group that sees a lot of systemic discrimination across the world. If all of those cases came and flooded our courts, we would be very busy indeed.

The human rights violations that we are seeing right now in Hong Kong come to mind. There are 300,000 Canadians living in Hong Kong, and the Chinese government is trying to bring in extradition rules that would allow it to take anyone from Hong Kong and bring him or her to China. I am very concerned that if this bill came into force, there might be a lot of non-Canadians who would want to take advantage of the Canadian court system to pursue some civil charges there as well.

Child soldiers are another item on the list. We know that in every battle we are seeing from ISIS, child soldiers are being raised up. We see that in a bunch of the wars that are happening in Africa and similar places. That would open it up to a huge number of people, as well, who may want to take action and get some civil reward from the Canadian court.

“Rape” is also on the list. Rape is rampant in Canada. The data says that one in three Canadian women will experience sexual violence during her life. When we think about how many cases we have, and how many of those are being kicked out of court, we really do not have the capacity to take others on.

“Forced abortion” and “forced sterilization” are on the list. We heard testimony today at the health committee about forced sterilization and the thousands of women in Canada who are undergoing this. It is horrible, but, once again, there are lots of cases of our own to take care of.

Issues like pollution have been put on the list. Let us think about plastics pollution by non-Canadians. We know that 95% of ocean pollution is happening from eight rivers in Asia and two in Africa. Again, that is a huge volume of complaints that could be brought forward.

“Environmental emergency” has been added. That could be like the climate emergency that the Liberals brought in debate. The debate was never brought back, so it must have been a non-urgent emergency. Climate emergencies and environmental emergencies like that could also make the list.

I know the member was well-intentioned in bringing the bill forward and wanting to address those Canadian corporations, for example, but the bill needs to be narrower in scope, and I do not think we have the capacity in the Federal Court system. I would encourage the government of the day, or, on October 21, the Conservative government, to restore the federal justice system.

Opposition Motion—News Media Industry

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the point is clear that the Leader of the Opposition has been told that Unifor will be his worst nightmare going into the next election.

The point is that this is clearly a very partisan organization. This is an organization that very much is against the Conservative Party of Canada and very much campaigning on behalf of the Liberal government, which means that now this whole exercise just became very political in nature.

I do not think we can argue with that point. It is very clear what has been said and what the motive of this union is. Therefore, $600 million are on the line and where they go will be determined by this partisan group of individuals. It is not only that. The majority of the money is being withheld and is going to only be given to these media outlets post-election. This means there will be an awful lot of motivation given to them, through the withholding of money and the promise of funds after the election, to cover the 2019 election in a very particular way. It does not take a great deal of intelligence to determine what that way is.

Of course media outlets will be encouraged, if not manipulated, to cover the election of 2019 from a Liberal vantage point rather than from a fair one that is non-partisan in nature. Why is that? It is because there are $600 million on the line and they want a piece of the pie.

I have clearly outlined that there is problem with regard to the independence, but it is not just me who says that. There is far more being said by journalists throughout the country.

Andrew Coyne said, “It is quite clear now, if it was not already: this is the most serious threat to the independence of the press in this country in decades.”

Don Martin said, “The optics of journalism associations and unions deciding who picks the recipients of government aid for journalism are getting very queasy.”

Jen Gerson, CBC and Maclean's, said, “If any of these associations or unions”, so the eight individuals who have been selected, “could be trusted to manage this 'independent' panel, they would be denouncing it already.”

Those are quite the statements.

Chris Selley, the National Post, said, “Liberals' media bailout puts foxes in charge of the chickens.”

I and my Conservatives are not the only ones pointing out significant concerns with the decision to give out $600 million of government money to media outlets across the country. Clearly, this is an attack on the independence and the freedom of our press.

In addition to that, it is a matter of protecting democracy and of ensuring media outlets actually cover the story of the day without being pressured by the government to do it one way or the other. As soon as the government offers money to media outlets, all of a sudden the press feels the pressure to cover stories in a way that would perhaps paint the government in a positive light. That is not okay; that is not the Canada we belong to.

We see the lack of independence and the lack of freedom in places like Turkey, Russia and China, where it is dictated how any sort of news will be covered and granted to the people in those countries. In Canada, we very much depend on the government staying out of the way and allowing press to cover a story from whatever angle that media outlet should choose.

The other problem with this is that there is no transparency in the application and review process. This concern has been brought up by the CAJ within the last couple of days. It has pointed out that there needs to be a more transparent process in moving forward with this, that those who apply for this funding should be listed online and that the process for applications for this funding should be made transparent. This should be put online and made available to the Canadian public. After all, the Liberals are taking Canadian taxpayer dollars and using them to help media outlets. That process needs to have greater transparency to it.

In addition to that, there should also be some transparency with regard to not only those who apply, but also who is rejected and why. Why are they rejected? It is fair that many Canadians, many journalists and many of those on this side of the House have a concern that the government will be quite biased in the way that it selects people. I say the government because, make no mistake, that while there are eight individuals on the panel, I have my suspicions that they are nothing more than eight puppets with the current government pulling the strings.

The entire independence and freedom of the press is being called into question with this $600 million bailout. In addition to that, our democracy is being put in jeopardy, as well as just a lack of overall transparency and good governance. It is absolutely terrible.

Furthermore, with regard to credibility, one journalist wrote, “The minute the union starts helping a government divvy up taxpayers’ cash for the benefit of news outlets, there is quite rightly a perception that reporters’ coverage is being bought off.” Whether that is the case or not, there is that perception. He goes on to explain that the credibility of a journalist is of utmost importance, that our journalists work hard to maintain the credibility and trust of the Canadian public. By the government giving $600 million to the free press, it calls into question that credibility. There is a problem there.

This is not the first time the Prime Minister has put his interests above those of Canadians. He does this quite often. In the NAFTA agreement, he said that he would get a good deal for Canada. He said he would not allow ink to go on paper until tariffs were removed. However, he put ink to paper. Meanwhile, we still had tariffs on steel. We still had tariffs on aluminum. We had tariffs on softwood lumber. We allowed the U.S. to take a good chunk of our market with regard to dairy. We allowed it to take a good chunk of our market with regard to auto and implement quotas. At the end of the day again, we saw where he put his image before the needs of the Canadian people.

Further to that was the students summer jobs program. We watched again as the government put itself first. It imposed a requirement on organizations that they would need to sign off on a value statement, that they would need to sign off on a set of beliefs and values in order to receive dollars from taxpayers. If organizations were not willing to sign this value statement, or this attestation, then they could not have any of that money. Again, the government was not acting in the best interests of Canadians. Instead it was acting in the best interests of the Prime Minister and the image he wanted to portray.

The problem with this was that many faith-based organizations could not sign the Prime Minister's value statements. Those organizations do tremendous work. They look after the homeless. They look after those who live in poverty. They help refugees come to Canada and settle here. They run summer camp for kids, many who are underprivileged kids. The Prime Minister actually refused to give them a dollar because they would not sign his value statement. That is wrong.

With the carbon tax, again, the Prime Minister is wanting to put forward this image of himself as someone who cares for the environment. He gets this great idea about putting a tax on pollution. Then all of a sudden people will no longer need to drive their cars to work, put clothes on their back, food on their tables or heat their homes in -30°C. That is not the case at all. That is ridiculous. It lacks any sort of logic.

What have we watched over the last four years? We have watched as emissions in the country have gone up. We have watched as the government is further away from meeting its targets than we have ever been as a country.

The current Prime Minister has the audacity to say he is standing up for Canadians, but he is standing up for no one other than himself. He wants to maintain his image, propagate his ideals and manipulate Canadians along the way, when it is all based on a foundation of deception.

With Bill C-71, the Prime Minister said he wanted to look after the safety and well-being of Canadians, and in order to do that he would go after those who legally acquired their firearms, who were properly vetted to have a firearm and who legally used their firearms, because that would take all criminals and gangs off the street. He thinks he will help make this place a safer country if he shuts down the sports shooters and the hunters. That is the Liberal logic. It is terrible. It is more about image than it is about serving the well-being of this country and the Canadian public.

Meanwhile, the same government put another bill in place, Bill C-75. Do members know what that bill did? It rewarded terrorists. It rewarded those who force marriage. It rewarded those who engage in genocide.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are arguing that if we are all in support of the bill, we should just stop our speeches, stop giving voice to some of the concerns we have, and let it go, even though the government saw fit to introduce it during the first week of this month, which is very much at the end of the 42nd Parliament.

I have seen this pattern before. The Liberal government had a series of justice bills aimed at cleaning up the redundant and inoperable sections of the Criminal Code. It let those sit at first reading, in purgatory, and then eventually rolled them into Bill C-75, which was a gigantic omnibus bill full of problems. If it had just gone through with simple amendments to the Criminal Code, we could have put them through very quickly.

My concern is not so much about support in the House. It is about what is happening in the other place. The Senate does not seem to be a very friendly place for government bills these days. I am worried that we simply do not have enough time for the other place to send it back here if it makes amendments and for the bill to receive royal assent. This is on a very clear Liberal promise that was made in 2015.

Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2019-20

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Chair, the important aspect of Bill C-75 is that it would address delays by not clogging up the system with the administration of justice offences the member for Eglinton—Lawrence mentioned and by invoking the principle of restraint.

This would ensure that we do not overrepresent indigenous people in the criminal justice system and thereby cause increasing delays by clogging it further.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Chair, in the course of my remarks, I also made mention of Bill C-75, which is an important piece of legislation that would help reduce court delays by modifying several aspects of court processes and trial processes.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary might highlight some of the ways in which we would significantly reduce delays through the enshrinement of Bill C-75.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Chair, I would like to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for both his response to my question and his ongoing work, which includes advocacy on Bill C-75.

I would like to ask him a follow-up question. How do we ensure that indigenous people are better reflected in our judiciary, and in particular, on our juries? This is work the parliamentary secretary has given testimony to.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Chair, I thank the member for Eglinton—Lawrence for his work as parliamentary secretary.

The work that is being done starts with Bill C-75, which was mentioned in the comments by the member for Eglinton—Lawrence. Bill C-75 adopts a number of principles, including a principle of restraint, conditions imposed by the police that must be reasonable in the circumstances necessary to ensure the accused's attendance in court and also to ensure that the entire circumstances of the accused are considered before conditions or sentences are meted out under that legislation. This will help address the overrepresentation of the accused, particularly indigenous accused, in our system.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Madam Chair, I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people. I would also like to commend the minister for his hard work and his dedication to the portfolio, which has seen his shepherding of legislation dealing with criminal justice reforms; important justice reforms that will enhance access to justice; his and his team's work on ensuring that we have a very capable and high-calibre bench through the ongoing work of judicial appointments, and finally, the all-important and historic work with reconciliation as it relates to our indigenous peoples.

I am honoured to be here to contribute to this debate, to speak to some of the concrete steps we have taken towards recognizing and realizing the government's vision of reconciliation with indigenous peoples across Canada.

Our government has taken the time to meet with many indigenous leaders across this country. We heard about their priorities, their vision for the future, and the challenges and obstacles they still face in achieving this vision. Hearing these perspectives has served to reinforce our government's commitment to renewing its relationship with indigenous peoples. We have continued with our efforts to address the ongoing negative and adverse impacts of colonialism, discrimination and marginalization that have, for far too long, been part of this country's social fabric.

Contributing to renewed Crown-indigenous relationships based on rights, respect, co-operation and partnership remains a priority for the Government of Canada. This is especially true in relation to Canada's justice system. Over the past few years, the Department of Justice and the Government of Canada have introduced transformative laws and initiatives to help achieve reconciliation.

One such initiative that we are very proud of is the release of the principles respecting the Government of Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples. This document will ensure that the rights and needs of indigenous peoples are considered whenever new policy initiatives or laws are being introduced or considered.

Another key document that the Department of Justice has released is the Attorney General's directive on civil litigation involving indigenous peoples. This document will help guide litigation positions being developed. The Department of Justice also continues to work with other government departments to find alternatives to litigation with indigenous peoples wherever and whenever possible and appropriate.

These are both foundational documents that establish a modern legal framework and clearly identify the core values informing the department's day-to-day work. As the introduction to the principles notes, they are “rooted in section 35, guided by the UN Declaration, and informed by the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's Calls to Action”.

In addition, they reflect a commitment to good faith, the rule of law, democracy, equality, non-discrimination and respect for human rights. Training that focuses on the history and context that underlie the principles has been provided to approximately 25% of the Department of Justice's employees. It also covers practical ways in which these important documents can inform all the legal and policy work the Department of Justice oversees.

The directive is also a testament to the government's desire to transform Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples and uphold the promises of section 35 of the Constitution.

The directive continues to guide the Government of Canada's legal approaches, positions and decisions in civil litigation over ancestral and treaty rights and the Crown's duty towards indigenous peoples.

The Department of Justice also continues its efforts to advance the implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, including the call upon governments to fully adopt and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the framework for reconciliation.

Canada has already stated its unqualified support for the UN declaration. Recently, in this session, the House of Commons restated its support for the passage of Bill C-262, an act to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

If passed, Bill C-262 will bring us even closer to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It will require us to continue the work we have already started on regularly reviewing federal legislation to assess consistency with the standards set out in the declaration. In collaboration with our indigenous partners, we will also have to develop an action plan for the implementation of the declaration and release annual reports on our progress.

The Department of Justice continues to advance a number of additional and more specific measures that will contribute to reconciliation over the long term. A key priority for the department is Bill C-75, which is now in the other place. The bill proposes various measures meant to help to address court delays. It will also play a role in one of the most serious issues facing our criminal justice system: the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples in the justice system itself and in particular in our jails.

Bill C-75 tackles bail reform and also addresses administration of justice offences, such as breaching bail. These offences can unfortunately function as an entry point into the criminal justice system and significantly contribute to the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system.

The Department of Justice also continues to support and expand the use of restorative justice, which we know is a priority for many of our indigenous partners. It is also committed to supporting innovative approaches to the administration of justice in Canada. This means focusing not just on renewing the government's relationship with indigenous peoples, but building a partnership where indigenous perspectives, laws and legal traditions find voice in an indigenous justice system in harmonization with the justice system regimes and processes across Canada.

For this reason, our government has encouraged indigenous communities to share their views and perspectives on indigenous laws and legal traditions. We are actively working to promote more dialogue with indigenous peoples that will guide our collective efforts to recognize and implement indigenous justice systems in Canada. Not only does this work occur in the Department of Justice, but across many ministries so as to give effect to reconciliation.

The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada is holding a symposium on the indigenous justice system today and tomorrow. This is an valuable opportunity to talk to indigenous partners, academics, students of indigenous law and public servants from across Canada about revitalizing indigenous law and national and international perspectives on interactions between indigenous and non-indigenous justice systems.

The government also recognizes the importance of revitalizing indigenous legal systems. We know that indigenous law institutes, in partnership with indigenous communities, can play crucial roles in understanding, developing and implementing indigenous laws.

Not only are we working on transforming and modernizing our laws and programs, but we also have a transparent, inclusive and accountable judicial appointment process.

This new process underlines our government's commitment to reshaping the bench to better reflect Canada as it is today and to make the courts more accessible. I mentioned this important work at the outset of my remarks.

Ultimately the goal of all of the measures and initiatives I have just mentioned is to transform both how the Department of Justice engages with indigenous peoples and how indigenous people experience the justice system. We believe that the efforts made by this government to improve its relationship with indigenous peoples has led to some very significant progress and improvements to the lives of indigenous peoples over the last few years. However, much more work remains to be done.

Working in tandem with indigenous communities, we believe we can continue to ensure the implementation of the necessary work and the shifts in mindset required to advance our shared goal of achieving true reconciliation. Our government is committed to promoting, protecting and implementing the rights of indigenous peoples.

We hope that the efforts and accomplishments of the Department of Justice will continue to reflect our government's shared commitment to achieving reconciliation and earnestly carrying out the work required to accomplish such an important goal.

Not only do I encourage the government to continue this work, but I certainly encourage my colleagues across the aisle to support this transformative and historical work when it comes to reconciliation.

I have a number of questions for the minister.

First, what are some of the ways the government is working to reduce the over-incarceration of our indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. member for her important question. As I have stated, we are committed to ensuring that Canada's criminal justice system meets the highest standards of equity and fairness.

The Boudreault decision on December 14 found, as the member has pointed out, that the victim fine surcharge violated section 12 of the charter because it could result in a grossly disproportionate punishment, especially for vulnerable and marginalized offenders. Indeed, the provinces and territories that use this fund to fund victim services have not used it since December 2014, or their courts have not used it.

We realize this has an important role. We thought Bill C-75 went a long way to following with that, but after consulting with provinces and territories, the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime, and stakeholders, we have decided to propose amendments to Bill C-75, presently in front of the Senate, that will grant judges additional discretion to determine when the surcharge should be applied. This aligns it with the Boudreault decision, while continuing to ensure that offenders are properly held accountable to victims and to society as a whole.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, since this place studied Bill C-75, on December 14, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision on the victim surcharge found in section 737 of the Criminal Code. The court held that the mandatory victim surcharge is contrary to section 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because it could result in grossly disproportionate punishment for vulnerable or marginalized offenders.

The mandatory surcharge is a fixed amount that every offender must pay at the time of sentencing. It is 30% for any fine imposed or $100 per summary conviction offence or $200 per indictable offence.

I am aware that Bill C-75 proposed changes to this regime in order to provide some judicial discretion related to the imposition of the victim surcharge. Does the minister feel that these changes properly respond to the Supreme Court of Canada's guidance? Will the government be proposing any amendments to this bill to reflect this new Supreme Court of Canada decision?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. member for her speech, her question and her work on the justice committee.

The answer is fourfold.

The first measure is law reform, and the hon. member has spoken at length about the changes brought forward in Bill C-75, which we feel will increase the efficiency of our justice system and reduce delays.

The second is funding for various programs. The indigenous court worker program is one example. By working with certain over-represented groups, we will be able to address delays in the justice system.

The third is collaboration with provincial and territorial governments to address delays, and the last one has to do with judicial appointments. As I mentioned in my speech, we have made over 300 appointments of a very high quality since taking office, and that is helping to reduce delays in the system.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, I will be providing 10 minutes of remarks followed by some questions.

I want to begin my remarks today by thanking all members on the Standing Committee of Justice and Human Rights from all sides of the House. Together, over these past few years, we have worked on issues related to access to justice, medical assistance in dying, mental health supports for jurors, strengthening impaired driving laws, addressing the issue of human trafficking in Canada and so much more. Ultimately, we have worked hard to ensure that the communities we represent safer.

There have been many pieces of legislation that have passed through our committee, and today I would like to focus 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.

One of the challenges I have heard about from my community and from Canadians across Canada is the issue of delays in accessing the justice system. I have also heard from constituents about the accessibility of the justice system, issues surrounding victims rights and the challenges faced by victims of intimate partner violence. The purpose of Bill C-75 is to address these very issues of our communities from coast to coast to coast.

This legislation is a key milestone in the government's ongoing efforts to transform the criminal justice system, keeping the government's overall goals at the forefront, which are to keep communities safe, protect victims and to hold offenders to account.

Canada's justice system faces numerous major and multi-faceted challenges. While the volume and severity of crimes have decreased over the years, criminal court cases are becoming more complex and trials are taking longer to complete. Delays in the criminal justice system impact the accused and his or her charter right to be tried within a reasonable time. They also impact victims and all those affected by crime in our communities.

The criminal justice system is a shared responsibility between federal, provincial and territorial governments.

The federal government is responsible for the enactment of criminal law and procedure, criminal prosecutions of all federal offences, certain offences in the Criminal Code and prosecution of all offences in the territories, as well as the appointment of judges for superior courts.

Provincial and territorial governments on the other hand are responsible for the administration of justice, including the prosecution of criminal offences in the provinces, the administration of police, Crown and court personnel and the appointment of provincial court judges.

At their meetings held in April and September 2017, federal-provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice met to discuss actions taken and ways to strategically address delays in the criminal justice system. Discussions included identifying innovative and best practices as well as legislative reforms to resolve criminal cases in a just and timely manner. All agreed on the need for targeted and bold criminal law reform in the following key priority areas: bail, administration of justice offences, preliminary inquiries, reclassification of offences and judicial case management.

Ministers agreed on the importance of a collaborative approach with all players in the criminal justice system, and Bill C-75 is a true reflection of that collaborative approach with key criminal justice system partners.

Some reforms included in Bill C-75 would address issues that were identified by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in its June 2017 report, entitled “Delaying Justice is Denying Justice”. It included 50 recommendations, with a number of them relating to criminal law reform. The bill would address a number of these recommendations, namely on preliminary inquiries, case management, bail, administration of justice offences and the use of technology, including to facilitate remote appearances.

In addition, the reforms respond to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Jordan in 2016, which established strict timelines beyond which delays would be presumptively unreasonable and result in cases being stayed. In this decision, the Supreme Court also stressed the need for efforts by all those involved in the criminal justice system to reduce delays and increase efficiencies. Bill C-75 would address that.

One of the issues highlighted through our committee work is the overrepresentation of indigenous people in jail. The 2016-17 statistics indicate that 28% to 30% of custody admissions are indigenous. The numbers are even higher for youth at 50%, and women at 42%. Bill C-75 would help reduce the overrepresentation of Indigenous peoples and vulnerable populations in the criminal justice system.

Indigenous people and vulnerable populations tend to be disproportionately impacted by onerous and unnecessary bail conditions. They are also more likely to be charged with breaching minor conditions, and more likely to be caught in the revolving door of the criminal justice system.

The bill would help address these problems by enacting a principle of restraint in the bail regime to ensure that when there are no concerns about the accused coming to court or posing a risk to public safety, police officers and justices would release detained accused at the earliest reasonable opportunity; by requiring that conditions imposed by police be reasonable in the circumstances and necessary to ensure the accused's attendance in court or the safety and security of the victims or witnesses; and by providing that circumstances of the accused, in particular indigenous accused and accused persons from vulnerable populations, be considered at bail and in determining how to address a breach of conditions.

Bill C-75 also includes measures that would positively impact victims of crime. These include the bail reforms, which would also better protect victims of intimate partner violence by creating a reverse onus at bail, and would expand the list of conditions that can be imposed by police, including conditions to protect victims.

The preliminary inquiry reforms, which would restrict the availability of preliminary inquiries to offences with penalties of life imprisonment, would prevent some victims from having to testify twice.

The proposed administration of justice offence changes would only apply in cases in which there has been no harm caused to a victim, whether physical, emotional or through property damage.

The bill would also provide reassurance to victims of intimate partner violence by imposing a reverse onus at bail for accused persons charged with an intimate partner violence offence if they have a prior conviction for violence against an intimate partner; by requiring courts to consider whether an accused is charged with an intimate partner violence offence when determining whether to release or detain the accused; by clarifying that strangulation, choking and suffocation are elevated forms of assault; by defining “intimate partner” for all Criminal Code purposes and clarifying that it includes current or former spouse, common-law partner and dating partner; by clarifying 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 or common-law partners and dating partners; and by allowing for the possibility of seeking a higher maximum penalty in cases involving a repeat intimate partner violence offender.

Lastly, the proposed reforms with respect to bail, administration of justice offences and the reclassification of offences support an approach that is expected to minimize the differential impact on marginalized populations in the criminal justice system, including indigenous peoples, through modernizing and streamlining processes, providing flexibility and creating appropriate tools for managing factors such as vulnerability, mental health and addiction.

It is important to note that these proposed Criminal Code amendments cannot address all social issues that impact those in contact with the criminal justice system. As such, operational changes in the courts or in the administration of justice at the provincial and territorial level may better address such issues. As well, training for criminal justice system actors, such as police, the Crown and judges, would support the bill's goal of making the criminal justice system more fair and accessible to all Canadians.

As mentioned earlier, opportunities to address delays also fall under provincial jurisdiction, as provinces have responsibility over the administration of justice. It is unfortunate that the Ontario provincial government has recently announced its decision to cut funding for the Ontario Provincial Police by $45 million. These cuts will impact the administration of justice.

The people of Ontario, and indeed all Canadians, have the commitment of the federal government that we will continue to work closely with the provinces and territories to identify further measures to reduce delays and improve the criminal justice system.

That said, I do have some questions for the minister, if allowed.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Chair, we are proud of Canada's diversity and inclusion. Our government believes that all Canadians should be safe to be themselves. In that regard, the major accomplishment was passing legislation that adds gender identity and expression as prohibited grounds for discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act, as well as adding gender identity and expression to the list of distinguishing characteristics of an identifiable group, so that they are protected by the hate speech provisions of the Criminal Code.

My colleague has mentioned section 159, the bawdy house and vagrancy provisions, in Bill C-75, which are also very important. We are proud to recognize these historic challenges that have been faced by the LGBTQ2 community, and we are committed to making their lives better. Indeed, equality is what we are committed to, so that people can live their lives and flourish as they wish to.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Chair, I would like to say in English what I said in French, which is that the directive the minister is talking about is important, and we have heard from witnesses that it is important because it is a step in the right direction. It says that the government needs to follow the science, that prosecutors need to follow the science, and that when somebody is undetectable, they are untransmittable and should not be charged or prosecuted for non-disclosure of HIV status.

Equally important is the fact that because it is federal jurisdiction, the directive applies to the territories. British Columbia and Ontario have since issued a similar directive to their Crowns. However, I think it is important that we work at the federal, provincial and territorial level to include and encourage other jurisdictions to issue similar policies and directives.

Also, it would be important for us to look into the justice department. We have section 159, and we have the vagrancy and bawdy house provisions in Bill C-75, and I am looking forward to seeing it come back from the Senate. Could the minister share with the House and the committee of the whole other accomplishments that the department has achieved to make the lives of LGBTQ2 Canadians better?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Chair, I will take your comments to heart and continue in the same vein the committee of the whole has proceeded to this point.

I will be providing 10 minutes of remarks, followed by some questions.

I am very proud today to take the floor to share with Canadians some of our government's accomplishments in recognizing, promoting and protecting the equality rights of LGBTQ2 communities.

From the beginning of our government's mandate, we have demonstrated our commitment to diversity and inclusion in the hope that all Canadians can participate fully in Canadian society and be recognized as deserving of the same respect, deference and consideration. This commitment equally extends to members of the LGBTQ2 community.

Canadians expect their government to respect their human rights and to promote these rights. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs once stated in this very chamber, LGBTQ2 rights are human rights, and human rights have no borders. It is a commitment our government takes very seriously abroad and here at home.

ln budget 2017, the Government of Canada set aside $3.6 million over three years for the creation of the LGBTQ2 secretariat within the Privy Council Office. The secretariat works with LGBTQ2 stakeholders across the country. This important work keeps our government informed about the challenging situations affecting LGBTQ2 Canadians and the potential solutions.

The secretariat also supports the integration of LGBTQ2 considerations in the day-to-day work of the federal government across all ministries. These efforts really help the government ensure that federal policies, programs and laws related to gender expression, gender identity and sexual orientation are all within the same spirit and the same view to equality, inclusion and diversity.

ln November 2016, I was honoured to be appointed the Prime Minister's special adviser on LGBTQ2 issues. My role is to advise the Prime Minister on how to develop and coordinate the Government of Canada's LGBTQ2 policies and laws. This includes informing cabinet, parliamentarians and committees and engaging with LGBTQ2 organizations from across the country and around the world to promote equality, and listening to LGBTQ2 people and communities and identifying solutions to improve their lives.

In addition to the excellent work of the LGBTQ2 secretariat, all ministries of our government have a responsibility to improve the lives of LGBTQ2 Canadians, and that includes the Department of Justice.

Early in our government's mandate, we also introduced and passed Bill C-16, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code. This bill conferred greater protection on members of LGBTQ2 communities who experience discrimination and even violence because of their gender identity or expression. Bill C-16 added gender identity and expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination set out in the Canadian Human Rights Act. This law promotes the principle that all individuals should have an equal opportunity to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have, without being hindered by discriminatory practices.

Bill C-16 has also expanded hate crime offences in the Criminal Code to protect groups that are targeted because of their gender identity or gender expression.

Unfortunately, in Canada, transgender people are at high risk of verbal or physical violence and sexual harassment. Given this high degree of violence or threatened violence, it is only fair that our criminal law specifically denounce violence committed against a person as a result of the person's gender identity or expression.

The Prime Minister's apology to LGBTQ2 communities was another significant milestone in recognizing LGBTQ2 communities and protecting them as equal members of Canadian society. On November 28, 2017, the Prime Minister delivered a formal apology in this very House to individuals harmed by federal legislation, policies and practices that led to the oppression of and discrimination against two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in Canada.

The Prime Minister apologized specifically for the shameful LGBT purge, the historical unjust treatment of LGBTQ2 federal public servants, including those in the Canadian Armed Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. This discriminatory treatment resulted in the loss of livelihoods, dignity and even lives.

There was a time in this country when people could be charged, prosecuted and criminally convicted simply because of their sexual orientation. To address this grave injustice, this government introduced Bill C-66. Now records of convictions involving consensual sexual activity between same-sex partners of legal age can be destroyed.

We are hopeful that this change will provide some relief to the many LGBTQ2 Canadians for whom the pain, trauma and fear have been all too real for all too long a time. Such discrimination has no place in Canada today. With Bill C-66, we took responsibility for recognizing and rectifying this historic injustice.

Since the government is taking measures to rectify historic discrimination based on unfair laws and policies, it is taking steps to remove from the Criminal Code an anachronistic offence that was used to target consensual sexual activities between gay men.

Under section 159 of the Criminal Code, unmarried persons can consent to engage in anal intercourse at age 18. The age of consent for any other form of non-exploitative sexual activity is 16 years old. Section 159 makes an exception for consensual anal intercourse between married spouses if they are of the opposite sex, but not if they are of the same sex. This is discriminatory policy, and several appellate courts have found that this provision violates the equality rights guaranteed by section 15 of the charter. Repealing section 159, as Bill C-75 proposes to do, will prevent the laying of charges against people who engage in non-exploitative, consensual anal intercourse.

The Attorney General of Canada recently issued a directive on the prosecution of HIV non-disclosure cases for federal prosecutors, which applies in our territories.

Presently, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is undertaking a study that deals with the issue of HIV criminalization. The committee has heard from numerous witnesses about the negative impacts, not just on people's lives but on the public health system, of criminalizing HIV non-disclosure. I look forward to the continued work of the justice committee and to its report, and I look forward to the government's responding in a robust way to this very serious issue.

Returning to the directive, I note it is based on current scientific evidence regarding the sexual transmission of HIV and applicable criminal laws, as clarified by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Mabior case. The directive recognizes that the non-disclosure of HIV is, first and foremost, a public health issue. It is also important to note that public health authorities have many tools at their disposal to ensure that people do not engage in reckless behaviour. Those tools would not require that such a provision be in the Criminal Code.

The Attorney General of Canada also issued a directive on the prosecution of HIV non-disclosure cases for federal prosecutors, which applies in our territories. It is important that we work with the provinces. Right now, Ontario and British Columbia have policies and directives, but there are several territories in Canada that do not have such a directive. The directive is based on current scientific evidence regarding sexual transmission of HIV and the applicable criminal law.

Today I have touched on only a few of the many actions our government has taken to advance the full recognition, protection and participation of our LGBTQ2 communities. Our government will continue to demonstrate its commitment to promoting an inclusive society that works for all Canadians.

Before I get to questions, it is important to note that when we open up committee to civil society organizations and hear witnesses from coast to coast to coast, we let people who are not within 15 minutes or even two hours of Ottawa know that this government is their government. We let them know that the House and our parliamentary committees are designed to understand the issues that matter to them. It is important that we continue to open our committees to a diversity of voices, such as indigenous voices, the voices of depressed and marginalized people, and the voices of the LGBTQ2 community.

The health committee is right now wrapping up a study that was unanimously accepted by all members, about the health indicators of LGBTQ2 people. Our health indicators for this group are only slightly above those for indigenous people.

We have a lot of work to do in this chamber. We have a lot of work to do in advancing legislation and a lot of work to do to make lives better for all Canadians.

Now I have a few questions for the minister.

Could the minister share with us why it is important for us to continue our work on the prosecutorial policy directive as it pertains to the prosecution of HIV disclosure?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Chair, with respect to the LGBTQ2 issue, the minister raised important aspects of Bill C-16. I wonder if he could comment on Bill C-75, which I also understand would take an anomaly in the Criminal Code, which is that consensual sexual relations of same-sex couples who are adults are not criminalized, but currently consensual sexual relations between youth ages 16 and 17 are criminalized. How would Bill C-75 address that point?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Chair, I think it is important that several things were outlined in the minister's speech. I would like to start with the question of victims.

From the work I have been doing as parliamentary secretary and the work that the committee has been doing on bills such as Bill C-84, where there was an important amendment to implement an offender registry for bestiality crimes, and Bill C-75, in relation to victims of intimate partner violence, I know that addressing the needs of victims is at the core of what we are doing as a government.

The minister mentioned in his remarks that under budget 2019 there is funding for the Department of Justice's victims fund, which is targeted at giving victims and survivors of crime the respect and dignity they deserve.

I wonder if the minister could elaborate on the types of projects these funds will support in budget 2019 to help us achieve our commitments toward addressing victims.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Chair, I will provide 10 minutes of remarks and then I will welcome questions from my parliamentary secretary, the outstanding member for Parkdale—High Park.

I would first like to recognize the Algonquin nation, on whose traditional territory we are gathering this evening.

I will briefly describe how the funding allocated in the main estimates 2019-20 will support our work at the Department of Justice.

I would like to remind the committee that the department strives to promote and maintain a fair, transparent and accessible justice system. The department also helps guide the modernization of the justice system. What is more, it provides the federal government with legal services and support.

The Department of Justice has a total budgetary authority of $744.52 million through 2019-20 main estimates, which is an increase of $46.77 million from the previous fiscal year. This additional funding is for major priorities, including but not limited to innovating and modernizing how regulations are drafted and implemented, enhancing the integrity of Canada’s borders and asylum system, providing Canadians with better access to public legal aid education and information, and supporting renewed legal relationships with indigenous peoples.

Much of this year's authority will support the administration of justice and the Canadian legal framework by directing funding to the provinces and territories, with whom we share the responsibility in this important area.

The funding will also help maintain and support our bilingual and bijural national legal framework. It will also support the department’s ability to transform and modernize the justice system, while protecting and promoting the rights enshrined in the Constitution and the charter.

I would like to outline some of the key funding we have received and the initiatives that it will help support.

First, we are currently conducting a comprehensive review of the criminal justice system in order to determine how effective it is in protecting Canadians. The review, which involved extensive public consultations, will also help ensure that our laws hold offenders accountable, that they are fair and equitable, that they respect the charter and that they show compassion and support for victims.

This ongoing review has already helped inform the initiatives and reforms we have introduced.

For one thing, the review contributed to Bill C-75. With this bill, our government is fulfilling its promise to move forward with substantive criminal justice reforms that will have a real and lasting impact on court delays. It will help increase efficiencies and reduce delays for all those involved in the criminal justice system while respecting their rights and protecting public safety. This important legislation is now before the other place, and I look forward to seeing it passed during this Parliament.

We are deeply committed to reconciliation and to transforming our relationship with indigenous peoples.

The directive on civil litigation involving indigenous peoples was released in January 2019. It supports our commitment to reconciliation and rights recognition by providing advice on the approaches, positions and decisions taken in the context of civil litigation involving indigenous peoples and related issues.

I would also add that we recognize the importance of revitalizing indigenous legal systems and the important role that indigenous law institutes can play in understanding, developing and implementing indigenous laws.

To this end, budget 2019 proposes $10 million over five years, starting in 2019-20, in support of indigenous law initiatives across Canada through the justice partnership and innovation program, JPIP, to improve equality for indigenous peoples in Canada's legal system. This builds on the $9.5 million per year we already provide for the delivery of indigenous courtwork services through the indigenous courtwork program. With their knowledge of indigenous culture, language and traditions, court workers provide direct support before, during and after court proceedings.

We are also continuing our efforts to fill judicial vacancies and increase diversity in the Canadian judiciary. The appointment process for superior court justices that we introduced is more transparent, inclusive and responsible.

We have made over 300 judicial appointments since November 2015. These exceptional jurists reflect the diversity that gives Canada its strength. More than half of those judges are women, and 30% are functionally bilingual. The appointments reflect an increased representation of visible minorities, indigenous peoples, people from the LGBTQ2S community, and people who identify as living with a disability.

While on the subject of diversity, it is important to highlight our continued support for protecting the rights and freedoms of the LGBTQ2S community. One example is our Bill C-16, which received royal assent in June 2017. It amended the Canadian Human Rights Act to add two prohibited grounds of discrimination: gender identity and gender expression. It also amended the Criminal Code by adding gender identity or expression to the list of identifiable groups that are protected from hate propaganda. Finally, it made clear that hatred on the basis of gender identity or expression should be considered an aggravating factor in sentencing for a criminal offence.

We are also very proud of Bill C-78, which is currently before the other place. The legislation seeks to modernize federal family law and put the needs of the child first.

The last time our family laws have undergone significant amendments was 20 years ago. They fail to address a number of difficult issues, including relocation and family violence. I hope the reform will pass quickly.

Completing this legislation is our expansion of unified family courts. In budget 2018, our government funded the creation of 39 new judicial positions beginning April 1, 2019. Twelve of these new appointments were recently made to Ontario's Unified Family Court.

We are also maintaining and strengthening access to justice in both official languages.

Budget 2019 would give the Department of Justice $21.6 million over five years, starting in 2020-21, to support the legislative changes in Bill C-78 that seek to increase access to family justice in either official language.

This funding builds on our efforts in budget 2018, which provided an additional $10 million over five years and $2 million per year ongoing for Justice Canada's access to justice in both official languages support fund.

Another top priority for our government is ensuring that victims receive the support they need.

In 2019-20, the victims fund at the Department of Justice will provide $28.72 million in grants and contributions to support research and innovative pilot projects, as well as front-line services for victims and survivors of crime across Canada.

The Department of Justice is also committed to helping immigrants and refugees. Budget 2017 included funding for immigration and refugee legal aid on an ongoing basis: $62.9 million was identified over a five-year period, with an additional $11.5 million per year thereafter. This funding helps prevent delays in immigration and refugee processes and, most importantly, helps ensure access to justice for economically disadvantaged immigrants and refugees.

Budget 2019 builds on previous investments and commits an additional $52 million over three years, primarily for immigration and refugee legal aid, but also to support the delivery of legal services.

I want to thank the committee for giving me an opportunity to speak to them today. The work of the Department of Justice is complex, and my brief comments offer merely a glimpse of the excellent work done by department employees.

Bill C-84—Time Allocation Motion

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member has brought up Bill C-75. We feel it is an outstanding piece of legislation that goes a long way toward improving the efficiency, fairness and speed, frankly, of our criminal justice system.

The unifying theme of Bill C-75 is, in fact, to make the criminal justice system more fair, more efficient and better working, particularly in light of rulings by the Supreme Court of Canada, such as Jordan, which force us to take those matters seriously.

The elements brought up in Bill C-84 do not have that same goal in mind, if I may, and therefore it is appropriate that Bill C-84 be part of a separate piece of legislation. It just did not fit in Bill C-75.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, part of the minister's argument today has been that we need to get this legislation to the Senate to speed things up. I can understand that. We only have so much time.

That being said, by the same token, Bill C-75 has gone to the other place and it is a much larger bill. Would the member not agree that this particular bill, Bill C-84, should have been wrapped up in Bill C-75, gone to the justice committee and had full exposure to all of the different parts in that omnibus piece of legislation, so it could have maybe left a stand-alone bill for us to have a full discussion on the deferred prosecution agreements, an issue which was in Bill C-74, division 20?

That piece of legislation did not get a full hearing at finance committee. Only one witness from the justice department came to speak to it. I still get calls on a regular basis from people in both the academic and the legal communities who feel that the Liberal government's approach to that piece of omnibus legislation maligned Parliament and denied the proper hearing of major changes to the Criminal Code.

Would the member not agree that this place must be respected? Would he agree that that kind of sleight of hand by the government needs to change?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I share the substantive concern that the hon. leader of the Green Party is raising. I can speak to the bills that I am, as minister, shepherding through the House. Certainly, on Bill C-84, the process has worked in the sense that a number of very good amendments were made at committee stage and there was robust debate.

Both Bill C-75 and Bill C-78 have had a number of interesting discussions in the House. They have gone to the other place. We are thinking about amendments on them based on our work in this House and on what the Senate is doing.

The process is working. I think we are approaching it in good faith. The fact of the matter is that sometimes we run out of time, and we feel we have done that in this particular case.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate that the Minister of Justice has not been the Minister of Justice throughout this Parliament, so he is taking on some legislation he had no role in crafting. However, he is the representative of the government today, and he needs to stand and answer and be accountable to the people and their representatives.

Why such a different approach? On this piece of legislation, we have a stand-alone piece of legislation that has gone through committee process and whatnot, and through debate, yet shamefully, in Bill C-74, an omnibus piece of legislation, the Liberals pushed through a provision for deferred prosecution agreements. They did not have a single witness from the academic community or bar association come for a thorough discussion about that particular regime, which is unlike any that has been used in the Criminal Code before. Why did they do that while giving a stand-alone bill to this, when they could easily have taken that DPA section from division 20 of Bill C-74 and put it in Bill C-75, another piece of omnibus legislation? Why is there such a mismatch in how they present to this place and with where their priorities are?

Criminal Code

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-417 and also to state that I am in full support of the bill.

As we know, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has studied this proposed legislation and has reported it back with three amendments. In my view, the amendments to Bill C-417 that were made by the justice committee have improved the drafting of this legislation and will ensure that it will better achieve its stated objective. I encourage all hon. members to support these amendments as soon as possible so that it can go to the other place and be tabled in second reading.

Along with other members of this House, I applaud the small but important change proposed in Bill C-417, which would facilitate better access to mental health support for jurors. As a person who has dealt with mental health issues, I totally understand the need for jurors to be able to have access to professional services so that they can share their story and gain the support that they need.

It became clear through the justice committee's study on counselling and other mental health supports for jurors, which culminated in its May 22, 2018, report, called “Improving Support for Jurors in Canada”, that section 649 of the Criminal Code has been an impediment to jurors seeking support following their service. I appreciate that this bill addresses the serious issue of mental health as it relates to individuals who participate in the criminal justice system.

Our consideration of this bill has been informed by the justice committee's report, which documents the evidence and perspectives of witnesses regarding the impact of the criminal justice system on jurors. As my colleague across the aisle mentioned, a number of former jurors who served on difficult and disturbing criminal jury trials provided testimony before the committee that has highlighted the importance of ensuring that jurors are not left without any means to address the stresses and trauma they may experience as a result of their important civic duty.

In addition, the justice committee heard from a variety of experts, including criminal justice professionals, academics, government representatives of juror support programs, and mental health and lawyers' associations. These experts expressed a common view that the stresses associated with jury service can be prevented or reduced by better preparing jurors, improving the conditions under which they carry out their duty and offering psychological support.

The 11 recommendations made in the report touch upon these issues, including recommendation 4, which calls for an amendment to section 649 of the Criminal Code. Bill C-417 addresses this recommendation, which if implemented will contribute to better psychological support for jurors.

I believe that jurors would continue to feel confident that discussions taking place among them and in the jury room would continue to remain private so that they would be able to continue to engage in full and frank discussions despite the change in the law, yet be able to receive the services they needed once they felt those services were necessary.

As said, we in the government support the objectives of the bill, and that is why our government seeks certain targeted amendments. Those amendments have been identified.

There are three specific amendments. The first one specifically deals with ensuring the health care professional is licensed, as my colleague across the aisle mentioned. The second amendment is a minor amendment making sure that the English and French versions are in sync. The third amendment is basically looking for 90 days after the bill receives royal assent to ensure that all the necessary preparation is carried out for its effective implementation.

I believe that this bill, with the amendments adopted at the committee, strikes the appropriate balance between protecting the privacy interests of jurors and ensuring that jurors can access effective mental health treatment following their service, should they need it.

As I said at the outset, I support Bill C-417 and the amendments adopted by the justice committee, which will ensure it better achieves its objectives. I also believe that this bill aligns with other government initiatives, such as Bill C-75, to improve the juror regime in Canada. I will be voting in favour of this bill.

I thank my colleague for his advocacy for mental health and the great work he is doing. As I have said, I will be voting in favour at third reading of this bill.

As I am the last speaker from this side before the House rises for the next two weeks, I would like to wish all my colleagues and all Canadians a happy Easter.

Criminal Records Act

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and yes, I would ask my hon. colleague to be patient. I will get to my point forthwith.

The priorities of Canadians are not the priorities of this Liberal Prime Minister and his government, and this could not be more clear than when two former cabinet ministers were removed from their party. They were banished last week, and there was a breakdown in trust. Sadly, the fault lies clearly with the Prime Minister and his cronies, while the penalties continue to be placed on the members who were removed.

The Prime Minister has offered one falsehood after another trying to it explain away. Quite bluntly, it has been painfully obvious to the rest of the country that he put politics ahead of the best interests of Canadians.

The Liberals have tabled their bill for taxpayer-funded records suspensions. There it is; I am back on the issue. How does this align with the needs of Canadians? In general, how does it fit with public safety? The many issues facing our country in protecting our communities and ensuring a strong, fair justice system go well beyond the Prime Minister trying to interfere with the independence of the former attorney general or the director of public prosecutions.

We know where Canada is struggling with public safety. According to Statistics Canada information, Canada has a gang problem in our cities. We have a justice problem, with backlogged courts and court appointments for judges. We have a rural crime problem. We have a sentencing and recidivism problem, with revolving doors in the justice and jail system. We have evidence-lab challenges and RCMP police-resourcing challenges. Stats Canada has shown that gang-related shootings are primarily responsible for recent increases in violent crime in this country, and to date, the only Liberal response has been unfulfilled promises.

Instead of action, the Liberals' legislative changes, like Bill C-71, for example, went after licensed firearms owners instead of criminals. As the Department of Public Safety noted in its own consultation document, the vast majority of licensed firearms owners are not involved in crime. In fact, statistics provided to the public safety committee suggest that it is under 1%. The Liberals' legislative response to gang violence and illegal weapons has been to crack down on less than 1% of the problem and to ignore the 99%.

What would help? I know a number of items that could help improve public safety and reduce violent crime. First is spending the money the government promised for policing and to go after organized crime. Second is to put more resources into public prosecutions, courts and evidence labs. These have all been shown to be under-resourced, especially with the recent court decision to limit trial length. Third is to stop softening sentences for violent criminals, as proposed in Bill C-75. Serious crime needs serious punishment for reform to work, and all these ideas have evidence to show that they are needed and would have an impact.

What will not have an impact is a taxpayer-funded pot pardon. No one would be safer because of this policy. A very small number of Canadians would benefit from it. The truth, from my experience, is that most individuals likely to seek record suspensions may have a number of other convictions as well. While they may receive a single free record suspension, their other charges may not be so free. Possession might be only one of the many charges on a person's record.

Where would Bill C-93 leave this House and Canada on the constant effort to combat crime in an ever-changing and evolving world? After three and a half years of Liberal mismanagement, we have a strained legal system that sees more and more criminals going free, rather than facing charges, or pleading to significantly less-serious charges.

Prisoners will now have access to needles whenever and wherever they want in prisons. As our correctional officers have told us and have pointed out more than once, even in Europe, which the Liberals claim to be copying, the needles are never in the general population; they are in the hands of medical staff. Rather than dealing with the cause of crime, most often addiction, the Liberal plan is to continue the addiction.

Under the current Liberal government, we have seen a horrific record of protecting communities from returning ISIS fighters. When we asked the committee how many outstanding monitoring warrants were placed on the 60 ISIS terrorists who have returned, the number was zero.

While I have no doubt that teams at CSIS and the RCMP are working to keep tabs on these individuals, and are doing a great job, limited by the legislation from the government, the red tape and oversight rules proposed under Bill C-59 would no doubt make it harder to watch known radical extremists who have participated in horrific, hate-based crimes. To me and many Canadians, a desire to join ISIS is itself an admission that someone supports violence.

The Prime Minister is happy to talk about being opposed to radicals and extremists, but none of his actions suggest that he is serious about combatting the sources of radicalization or the threat of domestic terrorism. Words matter, but actions have impacts.

We have seen a radical and damaging string of policies that have increased drugs in our communities and have not helped make anyone safer. Whether it was the poorly thought-out and rushed legislation on marijuana, which ignored reasonable requests from police and medical professionals, or the unnecessary risk of drug-impaired driving, to my knowledge, we still do not have a reliable roadside mechanism to test for drug impairment or to increase supervised injection sites.

Nothing so explains the potential harm of the Liberal approach to crime as the issue of rural crime, which we are dealing with in rural Canada. My riding has a small city and an expansive rural region. Across Alberta, Saskatchewan and other parts of our country, we have heard from Canadians about the rampant, escalating crime in rural communities committed, for the most part, by urban criminals victimizing rural Canadians where police response is minimal, delayed, or in some cases, nonexistent.

Canadians have told us heartbreaking stories of violent encounters, financial hardship and trauma from repeated thefts and victimization. Canadians have spoken of fear, alienation and abandonment. That is not Canada. That is not my Canada, but it has become an unfortunate reality in the Prime Minister's Canada.

With Bill C-93, the government is proposing a no-fee, no-waiting-period record suspension without any enquiries or reviews of personal history or conduct. The reason we have a Parole Board, both the administration and the regional organization, appointed to conduct hearings is to exercise discretion in the review of individual cases. Parole hearings can uncover vital information about convictions, such as a plea deal with lesser charges despite the person having been involved in serious and violent crimes.

While there are likely to be a very limited number of cases like this, such cases may be separated from simple possession issues. Moreover, some plea deals may have been arranged with lesser charges but with specific instructions, such as an agreement to have no record suspension, as appropriate to the person's personal history.

This means that these pardons would be granted as a matter of process, and the board would take up no inquiry of the person and would have little or no opportunity to exercise discretion. This means that even in cases where it was patently obvious that the person continued a criminal lifestyle but did not have a conviction entered against him or her, a pardon would be granted.

The police in this country have raised some concerns about Bill C-93. They suggest that our officers need to feel confident that individuals who are a threat to public safety and the public order are going to be popping up on CPIC, even if they have been convicted of simple possession.

Here is a scenario as an example. There are many individuals who have been charged with more than one serious criminal drug offence, but once they have gone to court and worked out a plea deal for simple possession for a multitude of possession charges, these charges are then reduced for multiple reasons, such as to ease a court backlog, to save witnesses from testifying or to secure testimony for the conviction of a bigger criminal player, etc. The plea to a simple possession charge would be used by the Crown with the understanding, as I said previously, that the conviction would still be a permanent part of that individual's record, ensuring that any future investigation of a similar nature could be appropriately linked and applied to that person's own personal history.

This does not serve the best interests of officer safety or community safety. It does not promote the rehabilitation of those entrenched in the criminal element, the ones who threaten to be repeat offenders.

I appreciate the fact that we cannot hold unproven facts against individuals. That would be unfair. However, we cannot ignore the circumstances that would lead to the arrest, charging and conviction of individuals using the available laws and the discretion of the day, which is key. The Crown and the courts would not have accepted the lesser pleas knowing the proposal today. This itself would affect the administration of justice.

There are two very different scenarios at play here: one person who is stopped and charged for carrying a dime bag of marijuana versus a person who is caught up in a drug ring and pleads to a simple possession charge. They are two very different people, but the proposed changes would treat them the same way. One is not a danger to police or the community, and the other continues to pose a risk. That is what should be screened. There should not just be blanket pardons.

While the Liberals are happy to talk about there being discretion in our justice system, they have removed the discretion of the public service at the Parole Board as well as the discretion of the Parole Board itself. It is important to keep in context the arrest charges and plea deals, especially since many plea deals would never have considered the possibility of a future government legalizing drugs and imposing record suspensions without any review or context.

The House should consider that no individuals would benefit from this act who would be excluded otherwise, and I can see no way to make that happen without an appropriate review.

I hope that members of the committee are not prevented from making minor and common-sense amendments to the legislation that would ensure public safety. Already we have seen too many pieces of legislation from the Liberals that ignore common sense and public safety in favour of policy and division.

To be clear, I know, and I believe members know, that these are not the public safety priorities of Canadians. This bill would not help victims recover from the trauma of violent crime. It would not prevent criminals from victimizing rural Canadians. It would not stop gang violence or deter youth from joining gangs. It would not address illegal firearms in our country. It would not address the many concerns and challenges faced by prosecutors and police across the country.

I see Bill C-93 as a continuation of the Liberals' plan: more minor gestures without the requisite actions to combat addiction, crime and poverty to improve public safety. It is a plan that would provide a benefit to a select and small group of Canadians at taxpayers' expense, a plan that would double down on legalizing marijuana while ignoring real, serious and important threats to Canada's public safety. These are not the priorities of Canadians. This bill does not address the issues, and from what I have heard from police and prosecutors across the country, it does not address their concerns.

I can only assume that Liberal MPs will once again be called on to vote in blind faith with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety, because today more and more Canadians are seeing clearly that the priorities of the Liberals are not the priorities of Canadians.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain at the outset that the NDP will oppose this legislation. Over the next 20 minutes that I have available, I hope to explain why record suspension is not the way to go, and record expungement, which I will describe, is the way to go. Record expungement for simple possession is the basis of my private member's bill, Bill C-415, which will be up for second reading debate in the chamber on Thursday.

I have risen on previous occasions in this place to call Bill C-93 a half-baked measure, and I am still of that opinion. Let me explain: It is too little and it is too late.

It is too little, because record suspension is just that, putting a criminal record aside where it could potentially be used again against the individual. It ignores the historical injustice, the disproportionate impact of cannabis possession offences on marginalized Canadians, on blacks and particularly on indigenous people.

It is too late, because it is almost six months since October when we had the historic legalization of possession of cannabis. Here we are, almost at the end of this parliamentary session, starting second reading debate on the bill. It has to go before committee. It has to go to the Senate. It has to go before Senate committees. I am anxious that this will not be law in Canada, as it will die on the Order Paper until the next Parliament addresses that.

It is especially disappointing because the Liberals have had years to do this. Their excuse was to wait until possession was legal on October 17, 2018. Now we are almost six months later, in the dying days of this Parliament, and suddenly talking about it.

I hope that cynicism is not warranted. I hope there is goodwill on the part of the government to fix the bill and move it forward expeditiously. However, I have my doubts.

My private member's bill, which is the counter to this piece of legislation, would require an application process for expungement. In an ideal world, my bill would have had automatic expungement, which is the case in Delaware and California, where officials sweep the records, find out whether a person has a record, for simple possession in effect, and if so, the record is deemed never to have existed. It is gone. It is zapped from the system.

This legislation would require an application. My bill does too, but that is because, as the House well knows, it is a private member's bill, and due to a technicality called the royal recommendation, I could not ask the government to expend money. I was not able to do what has been done south of the border with automatic expungement. That would apply universally and automatically and benefit, disproportionately, indigenous and racialized Canadians.

Let us just stand back from this. We have an activity which is perfectly legal now, but for which hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps that high, have a record for past consumption of cannabis, possession of cannabis, when it was illegal, and now they cannot get on with their lives.

Why does that matter? It matters because blacks cannot rent apartments because they have a criminal record and are on the bottom of the list in a tight housing market. As I will explain later, there are way more people in Halifax who were charged with a cannabis offence and have a record for cannabis than the non-black population.

Believe it or not, it is most glaring in Regina, Saskatchewan. This is government data; this is not me. This is from records disclosed under access to information. An indigenous person in Regina is nine times more likely to have a record for cannabis possession than a non-indigenous person. A black individual is five times more likely in Halifax and three times more likely in Toronto to have the same. An indigenous person in Vancouver is seven times more likely to have a cannabis record. This matters. We would call this law, adverse effects discrimination. We would call this constructive discrimination.

That is why it is so galling that the government wants to bring in a half-baked measure in Bill C-93, rather than doing what is done in California. In San Francisco, there is an automatic intelligence system that simply sweeps the records to make them disappear for those who have a possession of cannabis offence on their record.

Let us contrast this with what the government wants to do today. To its credit, it wants to bring in a bill that says people no longer have to pay $631 for having a criminal record suspended, which is what Mr. Harper introduced, and they no longer have to wait for five years. I congratulate the government for that minor step in the right direction.

In the U.S., a person's record is automatically expunged in the states I have mentioned. These records are deemed not to exist. This matters because it allows people who are asked by a landlord whether they have a criminal record for anything to tell that landlord they do not. When asked by an employer if they have a criminal record, people who have only a cannabis possession charge from several years ago in their background can say they do not, because under expungement, it is deemed not to exist.

The government tells us not to worry and that we do not understand, because there is a human rights statute federally and in all the provinces that says people cannot face discrimination on the grounds that they have a criminal record for which a pardon has been granted. Tell that to an inner city landlord in downtown Halifax or to an inner city employer or small business operator in downtown Vancouver.

It is ludicrous. Why would the government not do the right thing, getting this all done at the same time and done properly, rather than bringing in this half-baked measure? It is too little, too late, which I am sad to say is my theme.

I am not the only one with this opinion. I am pleased to say that the Liberal member of Parliament for Beaches—East York acknowledges the limitations of the bill. He said:

Only full amnesty recognizes the disproportionate impact of cannabis prohibition on people of colour and the fact that cannabis should never have been criminalized in the first place.

Our government’s solution is better than nothing, but it’s not enough to be better than nothing when we have an opportunity to make historic injustices right.

I am quoting a Liberal member, not someone who has an axe to grind, if you will, on this issue. This is a Liberal who realizes we can do so much better.

One of the arguments the Liberals have used to explain why we cannot have expungement is that many people would be affected and it would cost so much money and take so much time. However, that is not true anymore, because we have new data suggesting that only some 10,000 people would be positively affected by the bill. That is not a very large number. Why can we not expunge their records rather than simply giving them this record suspension, after which records move from one filing cabinet to another and can come back and bite people later in a subsequent event if the state deems that they have committed another crime?

What about crimes such as failure to appear? These are called administration of justice offences. They are not like the actual offence of cannabis possession. They occur when people do not pay a fine or do not show up in court. In these situations the criminal justice system is continually on a person's back, even though the root of it all was a cannabis possession charge.

I have been advised that indigenous women are sometimes affected down the road in this way when they have custody issues with their children. This occurs not because of the cannabis offence but because of the other matters on their record that have resulted from that. It is ludicrous.

The government says our most important relationship is with indigenous people. Here it could make a tiny but critically important change in the lives of so many. Why would it let this opportunity pass to expunge the records of people so they could say they have no criminal record, allowing them to get their foot on the social ladder in order to get employment, housing and the like? I do not understand the government's reluctance in this context.

Professor Kent Roach is one of Canada's leading criminal law specialists. Recently, in the Criminal Law Quarterly, he wrote, “The government's approach to cannabis convictions in the wake of legalization is even more problematic than the expungement act,” which is another bill I will come to.

He continued, “It has announced plans to allow the National Parole Board to grant pardons under the Criminal Records Act. This again requires case-by-case applications. This places challenges on the most disadvantaged people who have been convicted of cannabis possession.”

He goes on, “By not relying on expungement, the government's approach leaves applicants vulnerable to records of convictions and arrest being retained by the RCMP and other federal departments and to questions from prospective employers and landlords about whether they ever had a criminal conviction. It falls behind states such as California and Delaware in terms of reform.”

He then goes on and says about my bill that it “...takes a better approach by proposing to expunge cannabis convictions including the destruction of records of convictions.”

I am not here to score political points. I am not even running again in the next election. I am fully convinced that automatic expungement is the way to go. It is what people deserve. I implore the government to amend this bill and do the right thing by so many people who are affected, whose lives are on hold until we get this right.

Record suspension simply removes criminal records from the main database, CPIC, the Canadian Police Information Centre, and puts the data somewhere else, where it can be used prejudicially later and potentially shared with other departments, thereby having a negative effect.

Expungement means those records disappear for all purposes and for all time. A record suspension or pardon indicates the government is forgiving or excusing individuals for criminal behaviour, and that is all; expungement acknowledges it was wrong to criminalize it in the first place.

At this time, let me give the House the other government excuse for not doing the right thing.

It brought in, to its credit, Bill C-66, which was called the Expungement of Historically Unjust Convictions Act. That bill dealt with same-sex sexual activity, which is no longer criminalized but was in the past. The government said it was going to deem those offences to no longer be on a person's record—gone.

I have two things to say about that.

Number one is that since October, from the last statistics, do members know how many people have even bothered to apply, of the 9,000 eligible? It was seven. That hardly gives confidence that this application process is going to make a difference.

Number two is that the government says, “Oh, member for Victoria, do you know what we will do? We will say that this is to be reserved for things that are constitutionally over the line, such as same-sex sexual activity.”

There is no principled reason for that smokescreen. I have talked to criminal law specialists and constitutional specialists across the country who say that this argument is not valid. Second, even if it were valid, which it is not, what about the constructive discrimination I just talked about, the adverse effects discrimination, whereby the policy and application affect blacks and indigenous people dramatically more than others? What about that?

Not doing the right thing for cannabis expungement as for same-sex sexual activity, which the government is prepared to expunge, makes no sense at all. It is another Liberal smokescreen.

I am not here to score political points; I am just trying to persuade the Liberals to do the right thing. Why would they not do it? That is what is so complicated for me to understand.

The NDP has been calling for this measure for years. I will not go through the whole background of it, but there are deficiencies in addition in the bill that is before us today. The Parole Board does not have the resources to do the job, so there are going to be even further backlogs for other applications from people seeking pardons. There is a whole industry, sadly, out there to help people get rid of their criminal records. If members go on the Internet, they will see everybody who wants to help if they give them a few hundred bucks.

The forms are complicated. Members might not think they are, but for a poor person with little education who is living in the inner city, this measure would impose another burden, and I do not understand why, when our friends south of the border figured it out much more readily.

There are also eligibility gaps in Bill C-93. Only those people convicted of simple possession are eligible, meaning anyone with prior record suspensions of crimes related to the simple possession charges will not be able to use this process. I gave the example of failure to appear or not paying the fine or the like. If there is another offence on the record, then they are facing an inability to apply.

Someone pointed out that if a person has a summary conviction offence and then four years down has another cannabis offence, there may be a total wait of nine years to apply under this bill. I do not believe that was intended, but it is a function of the drafting of the bill, according to experts I have consulted. That is problematic.

The Liberals have had six months since they brought in legalization to do this. This bill is maybe four and a half or five pages in English, so how on earth did it take that long? The elephant laboured and brought forth a mouse.

Bill C-75, which was 302 pages, was before the justice committee, and it rammed that one through. This bill is five pages in English and maybe nine pages in total with English and French. It took the Liberals that long to produce this tiny bill, this weak bill. Presumably they can just check it off on the list that another promise was kept, except if the bill dies on the Order Paper, as most people are anticipating.

This is a real problem. This is an opportunity for the government. My hope is that if the private member's bill that I have before Parliament for debate on Thursday goes to the public safety committee at the same time as this bill, perhaps there will be a way in which some of the provisions that I have suggested for expungement could be brought into the bill that is before us and we could get it right for the victims as they are.

It is not just me saying this. The Prime Minister has been quoted as follows: “...there is a disproportionate representation of young people, from minorities and racialized communities, who are saddled with criminal convictions for simple possession as a significant further challenge to success in the job market....” He seems to get it.

The statistics that the government has produced under access to information confirm what I am saying. I am not making up those shocking statistics about overrepresentation of blacks and, particularly, indigenous people. The Prime Minister gets the consequences, so why would the Liberals not do it right? I do not understand.

Professor Doob, the famous criminology professor at the University of Toronto, stated:

There is no justification for forcing those who were convicted to live with a criminal record for behaviour that will soon not be criminal. A procedure for dealing with the problem has been devised by the current government. They should ensure that relevant drug records are expunged for the thousands of Canadians who have them.

Senator Pate, who has been very powerful on this issue in the other place, has made similar arguments, and I hope that those points are taken into account by the Liberals opposite.

I have been working with a very talented lawyer in Toronto, Annamaria Enenajor, who is the director of Campaign for Cannabis Amnesty. She is a prominent lawyer in Toronto and clerked for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. She is volunteering for this important cause and she states:

...the government...leaves the impression that restrictions exist on the government's ability to issue expungements for the offense of simple cannabis possession that are beyond its control. This is false. There is nothing in Canadian law that prohibits our government from issuing expungements for offenses that, in their application, unjustly targeted racialized and indigenous communities. It simply chooses not to. This is a policy decision.

That is the nub of the argument. Let us do it right.

There may be some good arguments in theory. I talked about the theoretical ability to apply the human rights legislation when people have been given pardons and so on, but it does not work in the real world. We have an absolute dearth of money for legal aid, and legal aid rarely covers human rights complaints if one has been discriminated against because of one's record. Theoretically, I guess, the Liberals could hang their hat on that, but they sure have not visited many inner cities if they think that is a viable argument in practice. Many small businesses and landlords draft their own applications and may not be aware of human rights legislation.

We have a historic opportunity in the dying days of this Parliament to do it right. Let us expunge criminal records for small quantity cannabis possession and help those thousands of Canadians who need a head start and a chance to get their foot on the rung in the social ladder. Let us do the right thing for those people as soon as we can.

Justice and Human Rights

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am painfully aware of the fact that we are debating a subamendment, but I thank the member for Wellington—Halton Hills for his desire to clarify the record. If he needs to rise on another point of order, I am sure he will feel free to do so.

The point is that the member for Timmins—James Bay stood in the House just moments ago and asked a question of the member who just rose. That question was whether what he sought to do would jeopardize the independence of the director of public prosecutions. Therefore, let us unpack that.

The notion of the director of public prosecutions, if memory serves, was created around 2004 or 2006 specifically to address the need to ensure there was a depoliticization and an arm's-length nature of important matters and decisions that were taken with respect to prosecutions in the country. That is an important feature. It is hallmarked in the rule of law and the constitutional precepts that the member opposite has raised on numerous occasions in this very House.

By bringing that individual before the committee, the member for Timmins—James Bay raises an important point of whether that might be, unwittingly or de facto, politicizing the very exercise and decision-making power of that very individual. I put that to the House for the purposes of returning to this debate.

What is important to outline is that when we talk about the independence of the director of public prosecutions, a critically important role, it is a role that has been created for many reasons and a role that we need to jealously protect and safeguard.

I find it a bit ironic as well, as a prefatory comment to the comments I will be making, that the official opposition is seeking to direct the committees with respect to their work. We know from the record that when the official opposition was in power, which has been alluded to on numerous occasions by the government House leader, it reduced the resources provided to committees and took parliamentary secretaries like myself and inserted them completely within the committee structure and in so doing, ensured they served almost as de facto whips on committees.

What we did, conversely, was campaign on a different role for parliamentary secretaries and a different role for committees. We fulfilled that campaign commitment by providing better resources to committees and by ensuring that parliamentary secretaries like myself and 34 of my colleagues would not have a vote, for example, at committee. Those are important features that enhance the very committee process that the members opposite say we are somehow impugning.

Perhaps most egregious, and Canadians need to be reminded of this, is that on a day when the official opposition seeks to somehow take the side of the committee process, that is the same party that, when in power, circulated a memo to all committee chairs about how to deliberately obstruct committee processes to better manage the committees to do the Conservative Party's bidding. Those are facts and those facts are important so people understand how perhaps ironic and incredulous I find the position currently being taken by the members opposite.

Let us now look at the work the committees have been doing thus far. Official opposition members who sit on the justice committee, on pretty much every occasion I have seen when a justice bill is being debated in the House, have said it has worked in an amazingly harmonious and consensual manner. They have gone to great lengths to point out on many occasions the work of the member for Mount Royal, as chair, who has always sought to produce consensus-based, multi-party reports and have a consensus-based model and approach toward the committee deliberations, which is very important to note. It happened again earlier today, for Canadians watching or consulting Hansard.

Earlier today, we were debating Bill C-84 and the member for St. Albert—Edmonton talked about the member for Mount Royal, his studious chairmanship of that committee and his efforts to build consensus on numerous occasions. At the same time, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton reflected on the fact that he proposed an amendment to Bill C-84. What we did, like any logical government that is taking a non-partisan approach to committees should do and one that is empowering committees to do their work should do, we accepted that amendment, as we have done on other occasions on other bills, such as Bill C-75, the Criminal Code review amendment.

Again, those are prefatory comments about how committee structures operate and committees work. It is very important for people to understand that the justice committee stands out as an example of the great work committees can do on a multi-party basis. It stands out as an example where committees are fulfilling that kind of role.

In this context, what have we heard from the justice committee? We had people questioning their desire to engage in a discussion about the issues. We had people perhaps being surprised that the justice committee was very willing to hear from people.

The justice committee heard from the former attorney general, the current Attorney General of Canada and the deputy attorney general. It heard from the former principal secretary to the Prime Minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council. I will pause there to particularly acknowledge his 37 or 38 years of non-partisan service to the people of Canada and the Government of Canada and recognize that body of work.

It also heard from important experts and legal academics. That is something that I will confess tickles my fancy, as a lawyer who came here after 15 years of practice in human rights and constitutional law. It heard from people talking about the constitutional precepts that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills is regularly invoking here. The member for, I believe Victoria, from the New Democratic Party, who is the vice-chair of the justice committee, has also referred to it on numerous occasions. They have invoked concepts about what we call the Shawcross doctrine, which has been invoked so many times that people are starting to develop a familiarity about it. They have been talking about the importance of the role of the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, and the fused notion that we have here in Canada, both federally and at every provincial level.

They have also talked, by comparison, about how things operate in Britain. For example, in Britain, there is a divorced role. Each entity is fulfilled by different individuals, which helps to address or alleviate some of the concerns that have been expressed here. That is an important issue. It came up today once again in question period.

These issues are being discussed and entered into the public debate, which is a very good thing. It is a hallmark of the committees and Parliament doing their work, which is an important precept. The Canadians who are watching right now should understand that these issues have all been advanced because the committee has been allowed to do its work.

What has the committee learned or what has come out of the committee process? Let us go there for a moment.

A motion was raised today by the member opposite, when we were meant to be debating Bill C-92, child welfare legislation, which would take indigenous kids out of the child welfare system and keep them in and among indigenous families and communities. Instead, they wanted to raise the issue of committee structure and to compel the reappearance of Ms. Roussel at the committee. However, in understanding our position on that, the members opposite need to understand what has already been heard at committee. What I am hearing and learning from reviewing the materials and watching the proceedings is this.

We heard testimony that the former attorney general stated that the Prime Minister told her this was her decision to take. We heard her state on the record that it is appropriate to discuss job impacts. We heard her say that nothing occurred that was unlawful. In response to a question by the leader of the Green Party, she said that nothing that occurred was criminal. We heard her say that she was never directed. We heard her state that the state of our institutions, the rule of law and the independence of the legal process, are intact.

I want to go to a couple of quotes that arose during the context of the proceedings to illustrate this point. The former attorney general herself stated this at the very committee that the members opposite are impugning. She said, “I do not want members of this committee or Canadians to think that the integrity of our institutions has somehow evaporated. The integrity of our justice system, the integrity of the director of public prosecutions and prosecutors, is intact.”

This position on this issue of the rule of law, which is an important point, has been raised by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills on numerous occasions in the context of this debate. It was also raised in the context of Mr. Wernick's testimony, when he said, “I think Canadians should feel assured that they work in a democracy under the rule of law.”

In the same exchange with the member for Willowdale, Mr. Wernick went on to state, “I think Canadians need to be assured that their police and investigators, with the powers of the state, operate independently, and that the prosecution service, the state charging people with offences, is completely independent. There is a legislative and statutory shield around that, which demonstrably is working...”

That echoes exactly what we heard from the member for Timmins—James Bay. It also echoes what we heard from communications that have been put out by the director of public prosecutions. That office has gone to pains and at length to reassure Canadians that it has not been influenced in this case, nor has it been influenced in any other case with respect to how it conducts prosecutions. That is a critically important point to raise in the context of contemplations by the members opposite about recalling Madame Roussel before the committee.

In the end, what we heard at that committee was that the former attorney general made the decision not to proceed. The law was followed every step of the way. What we have also heard, and what we know, is that the rule of law has remained intact. Those are critical points to be underscored at this juncture.

I want to return to what was raised by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton this afternoon when he first raised the motion about the issue of appropriate versus inappropriate discussion points with respect to the remediation agreement regime. I want to read this into the record so that it is crystal clear for Canadians. The remediation agreement regime exists in the Criminal Code. It is entrenched in the Criminal Code of Canada, based on amendments that were made last year.

The remediation agreement regime was studied at length in Canada-wide consultations. Following that study, it was proposed in legislation. That legislation was then studied by the finance committee and the justice committee of the House of Commons as well as a Senate committee. That remediation regime was then enacted into law and fully gazetted in an open and transparent manner to the public.

As has been stated on different occasions in the context of debates that we have been having over the past five or six weeks, the remediation agreement regime exists in five member countries of the G7. Those include the United States, Britain, France, Japan and now Canada. What we are doing by invoking a remediation agreement regime is harmonizing Canadian law with the laws of many other western democratic nations, particularly many other western democratic nations with whom we have trading relationships, which is an important point.

What is misunderstood here is this notion of what the remediation agreement concept invokes, or more specifically what it involves. There have been active discussions about whether the Prime Minister invoking the necessity and propriety of discussing jobs and job impacts was in fact appropriate. The position of Her Majesty's official opposition, articulated even earlier this afternoon, is that somehow that was inappropriate.

I want to read this into the record so that is absolutely crystal clear. This is how one would conduct this matter if we were debating it in a much more rigorous way in a court of law. One would look to the statute for guidance.

Section 715.31 of the Criminal Code of Canada says:

The purpose of this Part is to establish a remediation agreement regime that is applicable to organizations alleged to have committed an offence and that has the following objectives:

It then lists six objectives:

(a) to denounce an organization’s wrongdoing and the harm that the wrongdoing has caused to victims or to the community;

(b) to hold the organization accountable for its wrongdoing through effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties;

That is an important point, because much has been made by members opposite about there being no accountability if a remediation agreement even enters the discussion points.

Paragraph 715.31(c) of the Criminal Code states:

to contribute to respect for the law by imposing an obligation on the organization to put in place corrective measures and promote a compliance culture;

That objective is clearly redressing the circumstances or the harm or the organizational capacity that allowed such a problem to occur. The fourth objective is as follows:

(d) to encourage voluntary disclosure of the wrongdoing;

That is to ensure that corporate actors or other actors come forward on a voluntary basis. The fifth point for the remediation agreement regime is this:

(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community;

Again, that is addressing the victims. We have repeatedly heard invocations about the harms that has occurred in the context of SNC-Lavalin or other corporate actors in the context of remediation agreement regimes. What the statute itself talks about is ensuring that there are reparations for harm done to victims. That is important.

However, the last point is the most important point. It addresses precisely what has been raised by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton in his comments, which is why government members or the Prime Minister are even talking about jobs. Well, here is why, and, again, I am reading the Criminal Code of Canada, subsection 715.31(f), which says that the purpose of a remediation agreement regime is as follows:

to reduce the negative consequences of the wrongdoing for persons—employees, customers, pensioners and others—who did not engage in the wrongdoing, while holding responsible those individuals who did engage in that wrongdoing.

I will simplify that for the viewers. A remediation agreement is meant to ensure that the people who make decisions at a corporation are held accountable because they committed the wrongdoing, but those who are on the front lines, such as people who work on the assembly lines, answer the phone, stock the water cooler, are not held responsible, nor are people who no longer work at the company because they are pensioners. That is the point of a remediation agreement, which is why it has taken hold in now five member countries of the G7. It is why it has been adopted into law in Canada. It is important. The fundamental priority of any government is to keep its citizens safe and to promote their economic stability and security. That is a critical component.

These are important aspects, and I raise them today because it shows that concepts such as these need to be understood better. We can already understand them better by looking at the committee track record thus far. It has been a robust one. It has heard from a number of witnesses. That committee work is continuing as it should, in a manner that has been forthright and transparent.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I were rising today to support Bill C-83. We have a problem in our corrections system with the use of what was originally called solitary confinement, which then became administrative segregation and is now being rebranded as structured integration units. We are trying to deal with a real problem in the corrections system, but instead, the bill is trying to rebrand the problem out of existence.

I do not think there is any way the courts will be fooled by the bill. The B.C. Supreme Court and the Ontario Superior Court have clearly found that the practice of solitary confinement is unconstitutional. The bill would actually make that practice more common than it is now, and it would have fewer protections for inmates than there are now. I will return to this question of rights later.

I want to talk about the bill from two other perspectives, which I think are equally important: the perspective of corrections workers and the perspective of victims.

In the last Parliament, I was privileged to serve as the NDP public safety critic. I was given that task based on my 20 years of teaching criminal justice at Camosun College, which is essentially a police and corrections worker training program.

The majority of the students who came into that program wanted to be police officers, as they still do. Once they are in the program, they find out that there are a lot of other jobs within the corrections, policing and criminal justice world. Many of them end up going into corrections.

I always talk to the students who are about to go into corrections about the challenges of that job. It is not as glamourous as policing. There are not many shows on TV glamourizing corrections officers. However, it is an equally challenging job.

One of the first challenges workers have to learn to deal with is being locked in during the day. For some, that is psychologically too difficult to handle. That goes along with the second challenge of that job: Corrections workers do not get any choice in who they deal with. In fact, they have to deal the most anti-social and most difficult people to deal with in our society.

Our corrections system often makes corrections workers' jobs harder. We have long wait-lists for treatment programs within our system. We also have long waits for rehabilitation programs. While people are serving their time, it is not just that they are not getting the rehabilitation they need for when they come out. It is not just that they are not getting the addiction treatment they need. They are not getting anything. They are just serving time.

Many will say that this is the kind of punishment people need. However, they tend to forget the fact that far more than 90% of the people in our corrections system will come back into society. If we are worried about the perspective of victims, we have to do a good job on rehabilitation and addiction treatment so that we do not create more victims when people come out of our corrections system.

In response to a question I posed earlier, the minister claimed that I was living in a time warp. He said the Liberals have solved all these problems and have earmarked new money for addiction and mental health treatment within prisons. He said that on the one hand, while on the other hand, he is making cuts in the corrections system.

We have a system, which is already strained from years of cuts by the Conservatives, being held in a steady state of inadequacy by the Liberal budget. It is great for the Liberals to say that they have earmarked these new programs, but if they do not have the staff and facilities to deliver those programs and the things they need to make those programs work, it does not do much good to say they are going to do it, when they cannot do it.

One of the other critical problems in our corrections system is the corrections system for women. It is even more challenging than the corrections system for men in that it is by nature, given the number of offenders, a much smaller system. There are fewer resources and fewer alternatives available for offenders within the women's system.

I think the women's corrections system also suffers from what many would call “essentialism”. That is the idea that women are somehow different from men, and therefore, with their caring and nurturing nature, do not belong in prison. There is a prejudice against women offenders that they must somehow be the worst people, even worse than male offenders, because we expect it from men but we do not expect it from women. That kind of essentialism has really stood in the way of providing the kinds of programs we need to help women offenders, who largely deal with mental health and addiction problems.

While women have served traditionally, or experientially I would say, less often in solitary confinement and shorter periods in solitary confinement, it is the same phenomenon for women as for men. It means that all kinds of mental illnesses, rather than being treated, end up being exacerbated, because while an inmate is in segregation he or she does not have access to those mental health programs. The same thing is true of addiction problems. If an inmate is in administrative segregation, he or she does not have access to those programs.

In the women's system of corrections those programs are already very limited, are hard to access, are hard to schedule and if women spend time in and out of administrative segregation, they do not get the treatment and rehabilitation that they deserve before they return to society.

Sometimes politicians make correctional workers' jobs harder and they do this by making offenders harder to manage. One of the things we hear constantly from the Conservatives is a call for consecutive sentences. They say the crimes are so horrible that if there is more than one victim we ought to have consecutive rather than concurrent sentences. We have to make sure that the worst of the worst do not get out. That is the Conservative line.

When we do that, however, we make sure we have people in the system who have no interest in being rehabilitated, they have no interest in being treated for their addictions, and they have no interest in civil behaviour, if I may put it that way, within the prison. If inmates are never going to get out, then they might as well be the baddest people they can be while they are in that situation. Calling for consecutive sentences just makes correctional workers' jobs that much harder and encourages all of the worst behaviours by offenders.

Related to that was the elimination of what we had in the system before, which was called the faint hope clause. This, for the worst offenders, allowed people to apply for early parole after serving 15 years.

The argument often becomes entitlement. Why would these people be entitled to ask for early parole? But it is the same kind of thing I was just talking about earlier. If people have a faint hope, which is why it is called faint hope, that they may eventually be released, then there is still an incentive to behave civilly while within the system. There is an incentive to get addiction treatment and there is an incentive to do rehabilitation work.

If we take away that faint hope, which we did in the last Parliament as an initiative of the Conservatives, an initiative that was supported by the Liberals, then we end up with people in prisons who are extremely difficult to manage and, therefore, very dangerous for correctional workers to deal with.

The people who are trying to use the faint hope clause are not the most attractive people in our society. The issue of eliminating the faint hope clause from the Criminal Code came up in the case of Clifford Olson in 1997. He was the serial killer of 11 young men and women. It is important to point out that when he applied for his early release, it took only 15 minutes to quash the process. Those people who are in fact the worst of the worst will never get out of prison.

There were about 1,000 applications under the existing faint hope clause. Of those 1,000 applications, 1.3% received parole, and of those 1.3%, there were virtually no returns to prison, no recidivism.

The faint hope clause worked very well in preserving discipline inside the corrections system and in making the environment safer for correctional workers but unfortunately only the NDP and the Bloc opposed eliminating the faint hope clause.

A third way in which politicians make things worse, which I mentioned in an earlier question to my Conservative colleague, is the creation of mandatory minimums. Under the Harper government we had a whole raft of mandatory minimum sentences brought in with the idea that we have to make sure that each and every person who is found guilty is punished. I would argue that we have to make sure that each and every person who is found guilty is rehabilitated. That is what public safety is all about.

The Liberals promised in their election campaign they would repeal these mandatory minimums, yet when they eventually got around after two and a half years to bringing in Bill C-75, it did not repeal mandatory minimum sentences.

We are still stuck with lots of offenders, be they aboriginal people or quite often women, or quite often those with addiction and mental health problems, who do not belong in the corrections system. They belong in the mental health treatment system. They belong in the addictions treatment system. They need supports to get their lives in order. However, under mandatory minimums, the Conservatives took away the tools that the courts had to get those people into the programs that they needed to keep all the rest of us safe.

When we combine all of these things with the lack of resources in the corrections system, which the Conservatives made a hallmark of their government and which has been continued by the Liberals, then all we are doing here is making the work of corrections officers more difficult and dangerous, and we are making the effort to make sure people are rehabilitated successfully less likely.

I want to talk about two cases, one federal and one provincial, to put a human face on the specific problem of solitary confinement.

The first of those is the sad case of Ashley Smith. Ashley Smith, from the Maritimes, was jailed at the age of 15 for throwing crabapples at a postal worker. She was given a 90-day sentence, but while she was in custody for that 90-day sentence, repeated behavioural problems resulted in her sentence being extended and extended until eventually she served four years, 17 transfers from one institution to another, because she was so difficult to manage, forced medication and long periods in solitary confinement.

What happened with Ashley Smith is a tragedy, because she died by suicide after repeated incidents of self-harm while she was in custody. It is unfortunately a sad example of the outcomes when we place people in, whatever we want to call it, solitary confinement, administrative segregation or structured integration units. It does not matter what the label is. It has enormously negative impacts on those in particular who have a mental illness.

The second case is a provincial case in Ontario, the case of Adam Capay, a mentally ill indigenous man who was kept in isolation for more than four years, without access to mental health services, and under conditions that the courts found amounted to inhumane treatment. The effects on Mr. Capay were permanent memory loss and an exacerbation of his pre-existing psychiatric disorders.

While he was in an institution, unfortunately, Mr. Capay did not get the treatment he needed, and he ended up stabbing another offender, resulting in the death of that offender. What this did, of course, was to create new victims, not only the person who lost his life while in custody but the family of that person.

The result here was a ruling by provincial court Judge John Fregeau that Mr. Capay was incapable of standing trial for that murder within the corrections system because of the way he had been treated and the excessive periods of time he had spent in solitary confinement. The prosecutors did not appeal this decision. It resulted in Mr. Capay's release, to the great distress of the family of the murder victim.

What is the real cause here? The real cause, the fundamental cause, and I am not even going to say it is solitary confinement, is the lack of resources to deal with mental health and addictions problems within our corrections system.

Let me come back to the bill very specifically. The Liberals say they are setting up a new system here to deal with the difficult offenders. They have given it that new title. Senator Kim Pate, who spent many years heading up the Elizabeth Fry Society and has received the Order of Canada for her work on women in corrections, said:

With respect to segregation, Bill C-83, is not only merely a re-branding of the same damaging practice as “Structured Intervention Units”, the new bill...also virtually eliminates existing, already inadequate limitations on its use.

Strangely, what the Liberals have done in the bill, in attempting to get rid of administrative segregation, is that they have cast a broader net. They are setting up a system that will actually bring more people into the isolation and segregation system within the corrections system. The Liberals have actually removed some of the safeguards that existed on the length of time someone could end up spending in what should be called solitary confinement. There is actually no limit in the bill on how long someone could end up in solitary confinement.

Our correctional investigator, Ivan Zinger, an independent officer of Parliament, has criticized the bill, saying people will end up in much more restrictive routines under the new system than most of them would have under the old system. The bill would make things worse.

Josh Patterson, from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, pointed out that the bill would allow the same practices that the courts had criticized as inhumane treatment in the new bill as existed under the old administrative segregation. Therefore, we have merely relabelled the existing practices in the bill.

The final piece I want to talk about is the question of oversight. In earlier debate, the minister said I was living in a time warp. Sometimes I wish that were true. However, he was talking about oversight and said that I had missed the amendments he made on oversight. What is really true is the minister missed the point of the witnesses on oversight. Stretching all the way back to the inquiry into events at the prison for women in Kingston, Louise Arbour recommended judicial oversight of the use of solitary confinement. That is truly independent. That is truly an outside review of what happens.

Also, as Josh Patterson pointed out, not only is there no judicial oversight, there is no recourse for those who are subjected to solitary confinement to have legal representation to challenge the conditions under which they are being held.

Therefore, what the government has done in its amendments is to create not independent review but an advisory committee to the minister. That is not independent oversight and that is one of the reasons the NDP continues to oppose the bill.

I want to come back to the B.C. court decision, which pointed to two key reasons why the existing regime was unconstitutional. Those are the lack of access to counsel for what amounts to additional punishment measures being applied when someone is placed into solitary confinement and the possibility of indefinite extra punishment by being in solitary confinement. The bill deals with neither of those two key unconstitutional provisions of solitary confinement.

Therefore, where are we likely to find ourselves down the road? We are going to find ourselves back in court, with the new bill being challenged on the same grounds as the old regime of solitary confinement.

As I said at the beginning, I would like to be standing here to support a bill that would create a system for managing those most difficult offenders, those with mental health and addiction problems, in a way that would respect their constitutional rights and in a way that would guarantee treatment of their addictions and rehabilitation so when they would come out, they could be contributing members of society. Unfortunately, Bill C-83 is not that bill.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Durham brought up a very valuable point. It will frame how my 10 minutes will move forward on the topic of Bill C-83.

I am glad to see that our hon. colleague across the way, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, is not at Rideau Hall right now, being shuffled away. It is nice he is here with us, as the Prime Minister tries to shuffle himself out of a crisis of confidence.

That is where we are. A great emergency debate took place last night, with valuable comments from all sides.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-83, and I reiterate that the government has used time allocation to once again force closure to limit debate. Why is that? As we have seen time and again, if the government does not like what it is hearing or does not like the message, it is going to force closure on debate. The Liberals do not want to hear anymore.

It was on day 10 of the 2015 election that the member for Papineau told Canadians that he was going to do things differently, let debate reign and not resort to parliamentary tricks such as closure and time allocation. He said that under his government, Canadians would see the most open and transparent government in the history of our country and sunny ways.

What have we seen over the last three years? We have not necessarily seen a lot of sunshine, but have heard a lot of questions. Canadians have a lot of questions, and rightfully so. Today, we are in the middle of a crisis of confidence.

We should always arm our front-line officers, those who we trust to protect us and who serve our country and our community. We should be giving them to tools so they can fulfill their missions, come home safe and sound and remain healthy.

Bill C-83 is another attempt at being soft on crime, making things easier for those who commit the worst crimes in our society. The Liberals want Canadians to believe that these criminals are okay and that somehow solitary confinement or segregation is cruel and unusual punishment. One day these criminals get out of prison and will walk among us.

Let us consider Paul Bernardo, Robert Pickton, Clifford Olson, Eric McArthur, Travis Winsor and Canada's youngest serial killer, Cody Legebokoff. These are the types of offenders who are in solitary confinement and they are there not only for the protection of officers and other inmates, but for their own protection as well.

The minister talked about consultation, saying that the Liberals had consulted with the union of correctional officers and with Canadians from coast to coast to coast. The testimony we heard is considerably different from what they have said.

They purport there is support for the bill. There is support for elements in the bill, such as body scanners. However, the union of correctional officers has some serious concerns with it. In fact, the president remarked that there would be a bloodbath behind bars with the implementation of Bill C-83. He said that prisons did not have the resources now for the two hours inmates in solitary confinement were allowed to be out each day, let alone for four hours per day.

It has been said that solitary confinement is used as an administrative tool for both the safety of the officers as well as other inmates. However, 23% of offenders who are in solitary confinement are serving life sentences; 23% of offenders are serving a sentence between two years and three years less a day; and 681 offenders are serving a sentence with a “dangerous offender” designation. Dangerous offenders very likely never get out of these institutions, because they have committed some of the worst crimes.

The Liberals want people to believe the opposition is sowing the seeds of fear, but the government is soft on crime. We have seen it with Bill C-75. Convictions for serious crimes could now be punishable with just a fine. Bill C-83's intent is to bring the prison population down from 12,000.

Prominent witnesses have had serious issues with Bill C-83. They have said it is flawed. As our hon. colleague for Durham remarked, how can Canadians have confidence in any legislation moving forward?

I will go back to the testimony we heard earlier this week from the former attorney general. It was three hours and 40 minutes of powerful testimony. The Liberals are going to spin it each and every way they can. They are going to say nothing untoward happened. The former attorney general has serious concerns. She spoke truth to power in what happened. She was shuffled. She was demoted, fired. Over the course of the following weeks, the Liberals have done everything to tarnish her character, cast doubt in her testimony. This is what they do, and it is shocking.

I challenge Canadians to take a moment to listen to that testimony, three hours and 40 minutes of it. It will give them a glimpse into our country's highest office and the extent to which it is willing to go to subvert justice. It will shock them. It will strike fear into Canadians. Make no bones about it, the world is listening.

Today is not just about Bill C-83. Today is about the crisis of confidence we have in the Prime Minister, his office and indeed his entire front bench. Those in the gallery and those who are watching should pay attention and listen. If they do one thing today, I urge them to find that testimony and listen to it. Hear in her own words how the pressure was sustained. Despite saying no multiple times, there was sustained pressure for her to subvert justice. After all, the Prime Minister was going to get his way one way or the other. That is shameful.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for this informative debate. It is too bad our friends across the way, and I say “friends” loosely, have once again limited this debate. As I said earlier today in this debate, it has to be 60 times that the government has forced closure on debate on legislation.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. This legislation has been proposed to eliminate the administrative segregation in correctional facilities and to replace these facilities with new structured intervention units, which I will refer to as SIUs during my speech.

The bill also introduces body scanners for inmates, sets parameters for access to health care, and formalizes exceptions for indigenous offenders, female offenders and offenders with diagnosed mental health issues, among a few other things. It also expands on transfers and allows for the commissioner to assign a security classification to each penitentiary or any area in a penitentiary.

I have risen to speak to this legislation a number of times and expressed the Conservatives' concerns. Our number one concern is consultation. No matter how many times our friends across the way say they have consulted thoroughly from coast to coast to coast on this, we know through witness testimony that witness after witness expressed serious concerns with this piece of legislation. Some of the comments were that it is flawed to the core.

We always have concerns when we talk about the safety and security of those we entrust and empower to protect Canadians. Imagine that a correctional service guard reports to work and does not have all the tools required to do the job. We need to make sure first responders, and indeed correctional officers are first responders, are provided the tools and resources they need to do their job effectively and securely, but also to return home and remain healthy at all times.

The Union of Canadian Correctional Officers has repeatedly voiced its concerns with this. As a matter of fact, the head of the national prison guards union predicts a bloodbath behind bars as the federal government moves to end solitary confinement in Canadian prisons. In a newspaper interview, the union president went on to explain that segregated inmates are supervised at a 2:1 guard-to-prisoner ratio when they are not in their units. He said, “No thought has been given to what measures we need to take to make sure no one gets hurt.” When he says “no one gets hurt”, he means the correctional officers who are tasked with making sure that Canadians remain safe and secure and that inmates remain safe and secure among the inmate population. He wants to make sure they have the tools to do their jobs.

The president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers last year wrote a letter to the minister and said that over the last year, over 140 violent attacks on correctional officers had taken place. Let us imagine being a security guard or correctional officer in charge of over 40 inmates. We heard the flowery language from our friends across the way when they said everybody deserves a chance. Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olson are the kinds of people housed in solitary confinement.

With this piece of legislation, Bill C-83, not only does the union have some serious concerns that it is not being listened to, but we also know that this program has not been fully costed out. As a matter of fact, Correctional Service Canada managers have been asked to review spending and find some efficiencies. Regardless of whether the Liberals say there is $448 million going to this program over six years, the managers have been asked to find some efficiencies.

Every day, these officers go to work and their lives are put in jeopardy. They are there to protect Canadians. They are there to make sure that the worst of the worst stay behind bars. Whether it is Bill C-75 or Bill C-83, what we see with the government is that it is getting softer and softer on crime. Bill C-83 also looks at reclassification of certain crimes, to bring the prison population down from 12,000 to even less.

On that point, I want to bring up a case I brought up earlier today to the minister, and that is the case of Cody Legebokoff. He is Canada's youngest serial killer. In Cariboo—Prince George, he is responsible for killing four young women. He killed Loren Leslie, age 15, Natasha Montgomery, Jill Stuchenko and Cynthia Maas. To this day, the Montgomerys are still trying to find out through the court system if Cody Legebokoff knows where the remains of their daughter are.

He has refused to take any responsibility for this crime. He was sentenced at the end of 2014, yet we found out over the last month that he was transferred from maximum to medium security in early 2019, with very little notice. As a matter of fact, two of the four families did not receive any notification.

In sentencing him, Justice Parrett said, “The injuries caused in each case were massive and disfiguring, the object of each attack appearing to be aimed at not simply killing the victims but degrading and destroying them.” Justice Parrett further said, “He lacks any shred of empathy or remorse,” and, “He should never be allowed to walk among us again.”

Now we know that Legebokoff has been transferred to a prison here in Ontario from British Columbia, and even Correctional Service Canada's website, where it talks about transfers or the safety and security reclassification of inmates, says that assigning security classifications is “not an exact science”.

We should be arming our front-line workers with every tool so that they can make the best decisions, and so they can remain safe and secure at all times. That means physically as well as mentally. How is it that we are now giving more rights to our criminals than to victims and their families, or to those we trust and empower to protect us?

It is quite concerning when time after time we see our friends across the way stand up, put their hands on their hearts and say, “Trust us.” They say they have the best intentions to do well and are looking after Canadians, yet we see this type of misstep.

Bill C-83 is yet another failed piece of legislation. The victims' families and the victims of crime deserve better, and so do our first responders and our correctional officers. All they are asking for is to be heard, yet the Liberal members continue to turn a blind eye and cover their ears when those concerns are being voiced.

Report Stage

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.

I understand that Bill C-83 is designed to make a number of significant changes to our correctional system. It seeks to eliminate administrative segregation in correctional facilities, replace these facilities with new structured intervention units, or SIUs, and introduce body scanners for inmates, among other changes.

There have been a lot of problems with the correctional system and Bill C-75 could make it worse. The policies under Bill C-75 include serious offenders receiving sentences of a maximum two years less a day. People who have committed serious crimes to persons and property will be in provincial jails, downloaded. We now will have a system where there will be less chance to deal with serious offenders in provincial institutions. It has become a revolving door, where some know they will be in and out very quickly and will not be provided the help they may need in a prison system.

I know the legislation has prompted some strong responses from stakeholders. I am happy to convey some of those serious concerns.

The CSC ombudsman, Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, civil liberties and indigenous groups have all commented on the lack of consultation. Unions and employees have not been consulted. Nor have indigenous groups.

The president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, whose members will be directly impacted by the legislation, even said, “The bill was as much a surprise to us as it was to anybody.” It does not sound right that it was a surprise to those who would be affected the most. It is something like the Parks Canada budget that had a $60 million pathway in it and Parks Canada knew nothing about it.

The correctional investigator of Canada told the public safety committee:

All the consultations seem to have been done internally. To my knowledge, there have been no consultations with external stakeholders. I think that's why you end up with something that is perhaps not fully thought out.

For a government that supposedly loves to consult, it sure seems to have left a lot of people dissatisfied with this process.

Of particular note are concerns we have heard from correctional officers. These are the people who wear the uniforms. These are the people who protect us and inmates. The introduction of SIUs may pose a risk to both prison guards and inmates. The legislation goes further than what was raised in either Superior Court decisions. It completely bans administrative segregation and introduces the structured intervention unit model.

We need to take a lot of care in how we deal with youth offenders or those with mental illnesses or mental disease for which segregation may not be an option. We need to be very careful in how we use segregated models with those people.

This has the potential to make prisons much more dangerous for guards and inmates. Guards will lose an important disciplinary tool. In fact, the president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers told the public safety committee, “by eliminating segregation and replacing it with structured intervention units, CSC will further struggle to achieve its mandate of exercising safe, secure and humane control over its inmate populations.” That is a very troubling statement. In other words, was the consultation there to find another solution? I do not think so.

Guards will be placed in greater danger as they attempt to control extremely dangerous offenders without the ability to fully separate them from other inmates. Who is going to want to be a guard if things continue this way? It is already an intensely stressful, challenging occupation. We cannot keep placing these people under greater strain. Dangerous inmates will be forced together in units with each other. Is that the right way to go?

I understand that this change is well intentioned. Canada has a fundamentally sound and humane correctional system, especially compared to many other jurisdictions around the world. We do not want a draconian system, but we do need to balance the mental health of prisoners with the safety and protection of guards, workers and fellow inmates.

The bill would fail to do some of those things. It ignores the reality on the ground in many prisons. As the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles noted, some inmates request to be in administrative segregation for their own safety. They do not want to rub shoulders with other dangerous offenders.

Legislation intended to improve our correctional system should not compromise safety and security. The government needs to go back and fix the bill. It should not force the bill through over the objections of virtually all interested stakeholders and put lives at risk in doing so, especially the lives of those who wear the uniform.

I am also surprised to find that the legislation does nothing to ensure that high-risk offenders are not transferred to low-security facilities.

It was just last year that Canadians from coast to coast expressed outrage over Terri-Lynne McClintic's transfer to a healing lodge. Only after massive public pressure did the government finally move to address the injustice and send her back behind bars. The Prime Minister personally attacked his critics and accused Canadians of politicizing this issue. Thankfully, Canadians were able to pressure him enough to act so that decision was changed.

However, a prime minister should never have to be shamed into doing the right thing. There was an opportunity in this legislation to take real action to prevent similar situations in the future, but no action was taken on this topic.

One clear positive aspect that would result from the legislation is the introduction of body scanners. If this system is applied properly, it should be helpful in intercepting drugs before they make their way into prisons. It is important that the scans apply to all individuals entering the prison. Drugs simply should not be flowing into correctional facilities and creating even more dangerous conditions there.

However, I am unclear why the Liberals' haphazard plan to supply inmates with syringes would still being implemented if we have scanners. Our objective should be to prevent drug abuse in prisons, not facilitate it. Furthermore, legitimate concerns have been raised over the weaponization of the syringes. It should be obvious that the worst offenders will try to use syringes as weapons. This presents yet another threat to guards who are already operating in a dangerous environment. The body scanners should receive the highest priority, and the needle exchange program should be scrapped.

In summary, this flawed legislation is not right. It does not prioritize the safety of correctional service officers. It compromises the safety of inmates. Almost all of the witnesses the public safety committee heard were critical of the bill. The consultation process was obviously not complete.

Instead of scrapping the legislation in light of witness testimony, the Liberals are pressing forward with it. I join my colleagues in opposing the bill.

Opposition Motion—Transparency and Accountability

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Madam Speaker, I am rising to speak to the opposition motion that has been brought forward by the member for Timmins—James Bay.

Before I make some comments on the substance of the opposition motion the House is currently seized with, I would like to take a few moments to thank two individuals. First and foremost is the member for Vancouver Granville. When she was Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, I served as her parliamentary secretary and I would be remiss if I did not express my gratitude for her work and her contributions to that portfolio. Certainly, it speaks for itself in terms of how we advanced the overall causes toward justice, and her leadership on the indigenous file reaches beyond her time in government here.

I would also like to take a moment to express gratitude for the work of Gerald Butts. I have come to know his family. I am keenly aware of the sacrifices that both he and his family had to make in order to put country before personal time. Obviously, it goes without saying that his loss will be felt by our team. However, we will remain focused on the work he has been committed to in the public interest for many years.

Turning to the opposition motion, as I read it, it calls for two things. First, it calls on the government to waive solicitor-client privilege for the former attorney general with respect to allegations of interference as it relates to an ongoing SNC-Lavalin prosecution. Second, it urges the government to call for a public inquiry in order to provide Canadians with transparency and accountability by the Liberals as promised in the 2015 election.

Going back to those campaign promises, we have indeed made significant strides when it comes to making government more open. I highlight a number of examples, including the introduction of Bill C-58, as well as Bill C-76, which would in fact undo some of the harm caused by the last Conservative government so that we can ensure that every voter has the right and can fully appreciate the right to vote. Bill C-50 would shed more light on political fundraising activities.

As it relates to the justice system, I am very proud of the work our government has done when it comes to ensuring that our judicial appointments process is open, transparent and merit-based. We have also introduced legislation that would improve access to justice. Here, I am referring to Bill C-75, which I know is continuing to be studied by the other place. We look forward to receiving its report back so that we can ensure our justice system is serving all Canadians.

These are all concrete measures that have raised the bar when it comes to open government and having a government that is transparent and accountable to all Canadians. We have supported each and every one of these measures with full and fair debate in the House and in the other place. What did the opposition members do when they had a chance to support those measures? They voted against those measures. That is indeed regrettable, because their voting record, in standing in opposition to those measures, actually speaks much larger volumes about how they feel about open government, as opposed to some of what I have heard from the other side of the aisle today.

The allegations that have been levied against the government are indeed serious. No one on this side of the House takes them lightly. However, as in the case of any allegation, we have to begin by looking at the sources. Who are the sources? Are they reliable? Have they been independently verified? Have they been substantiated?

Here is the truth of the matter. At present, the sources of these allegations are unknown. They are anonymous. They are not corroborated. They are not verified. They are not substantiated. This should be of great concern to not only the members of this chamber who are currently debating the motion. This should be of grave concern to all Canadians. Why is that? It is because in the place of facts, evidence and circumstances that would underlie and underpin these allegations, we have the opposition embarking upon a campaign of conjecture, speculation and a rush to judgment. While indeed I will concede that this does make for good political theatre, it does not advance the pursuit of truth.

The Prime Minister has been clear that at no point did either he or his staff direct the former attorney general or the current Attorney General on the matter of SNC-Lavalin. He has been abundantly clear that at no point did either he or his staff wrongly influence the former or present Attorney General when it comes to the SNC-Lavalin matter.

I understand from the opposition that in answer to those statements made by the Prime Minister they would hear from the former attorney general, the member for Vancouver Granville. It is not for me to speak for the member for Vancouver Granville. It is not for the opposition to speak on her behalf, as I have heard some of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle purport to do over the last number of days.

I understand from media reports that the member for Vancouver Granville has sought legal advice. I imagine she is certainly taking that legal advice into consideration. Coincidentally I would note that the legal advice itself is privileged and I will come back to the importance of that principle in a moment. I want to underscore that it is a decision of her making as to if and when she will make a further comment about this matter in public.

In regard to the merits of the motion, the Prime Minister has indicated today, as has his Attorney General, that he has sought and is in the course of seeking legal advice on the matter of solicitor-client privilege as it applies to the motion. Let me say a few words about the importance of solicitor-client privilege.

This is not only a legal principle recognized in the common law. It is not only a legal principle that has been enshrined in various statutes. It is a principle that has been elevated to constitutional status by the Supreme Court of Canada. It is permanent. It survives the relationship between the parties and it is, as the Supreme Court of Canada has held, fundamental to the proper functioning of our government and to our democracy. In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that without solicitor-client privilege, the administration of justice, and by extension our democracy, would be compromised. We cannot take for granted what is at stake when we put into play the questions of when solicitor-client privilege applies.

The Prime Minister and the government, as some of my colleagues will have served in the last administration will recall, some of whom indeed were in cabinet themselves, no doubt understand first-hand the importance of this principle as it relates to the day-to-day functioning of our government. It is required in order to ensure that there is an atmosphere, an environment in which the government can seek legal advice on how best to undertake policy and legislative initiatives so that they are consistent with the charter.

Without that environment, without that space, in order to have a free, fair and flowing exchange of ideas, different perspectives and different voices, there would be an undermining of the proper functioning of government. We place this privilege at the very pinnacle of our justice system and it does not just apply to government. It applies to all Canadians. If at any point in time Canadians have either retained a lawyer and have come into play with the justice system, they will understand the importance of having a confidential relationship with their lawyer so that their lawyer can best serve their interests. Canadians would understand that they would not want their lawyers to flippantly waive that privilege. We need to be sure that we put this issue into its proper context in the debate of the opposition motion that is on the floor today.

It is true that in law there are some limited exceptions to this privilege and I understand that members of the opposition are calling with great fervour for the waiver of privilege in this case as it relates to their allegations and the former attorney general of Canada. To my mind, in order to waive this privilege, we need something more compelling, more confirmed and more corroborated than the anonymous sources that have appeared in a number of media reports.

I look to my colleagues in the opposition, and in particular to those who have been called to the bar who have a deep understanding of and I would hope a profound respect for this principle, to substantiate their claim beyond the hyperbole, the exaggeration and the stretched statements that I have listened very carefully to throughout the course of this debate. I am still waiting.

The second part of the opposition motion urges the government to initiate a judicial inquiry, something that my Conservative colleagues have had some experience with themselves. In some cases, there were obvious social causes for which the public requested, of the last Conservative government, the compelling need for an inquiry and the Conservative government refused. One such case was the call for an inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women. The last Conservative government consistently, in the face of an ongoing systemic tragedy in our justice system, refused to undertake one. I will let members opposite defend that decision, and I will stand here and explain my reasons the call for a judicial inquiry is, at best, premature.

Currently, there are a number of processes unfolding in Parliament and within the law by statutory parliamentary officers to provide a degree of accountability and transparency in response to the allegations that have been put forward by the opposition.

The first comes from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which is meeting at this very moment, if I am not mistaken, to determine which witnesses it will hear from. Once more, the opposition has rushed to judgment. It has made this a partisan matter without waiting to see the full list of witnesses who will be called by that committee.

Respectfully, I would suggest that my colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle let that process unfold and place faith in the independence of that committee, in which members on this side of the House place great faith, and in its members' capacity to bring their own ideas, their own thinking and their own principles. I suggest they see where that committee takes this, rather than claiming that on the one hand the committee should do its business, and on the other hand, it is essentially fraught with partisanship. It is either one or the other. Either members of the House will come to that committee with an open mind, an appreciation of independence and an understanding of the importance of this work, or they will not.

Certainly for my colleagues who work on that committee, I have faith in their independence and integrity. I speak on behalf of all members on this side of the House when I say that we all look forward to their ongoing work at committee.

We have also heard from the opposition that we need to have a judicial inquiry because the Ethics Commissioner does not have the sufficient ability or capacity, the statutory mandate, to look into the allegations that are the subject of the opposition motion. In particular, my colleagues in the NDP have expressed their concerns and frustrations regarding the Ethics Commissioner's lack of capacity to do his job.

The first observation to make is that it was the NDP members themselves who decided, of their own volition, which parliamentary official to bring this allegation to.

We are not saying, one way or the other, whether this was the right choice. That was a matter for the NDP to determine. However, listening to the NDP members today in question period, it was somewhat ironic to hear them say on the one hand that they filed a complaint with the Ethics Commissioner and then on the other hand, virtually at the same time, that the Ethics Commissioner did not have the ability to look into the very allegations that they were bringing forward. It is inconsistent and incompatible with basic logic that they would have submitted those allegations to the Ethics Commissioner in the first place if they believed that the Ethics Commissioner was unable to look into them.

We have said that we believe in the work of the Ethics Commissioner. This is a parliamentary officer. This is an officer who is independent from government. This is an officer who is not part of the partisan exercise and debate that is the sine qua non of this place. This is a parliamentary officer who has the statutory mandate to examine the circumstances and the allegations put forward by the opposition.

As we have said repeatedly, we place faith in the office and the people who serve in that office, and we will co-operate at every step of the way, as we have in the past.

There are many other fora and venues for the opposition to make their case. It is not for the government to set those steps or to provide that road map for them. The opposition will determine what it wants to do. However, in the meantime, in addition to all of the remarks that I have made about the subject of this motion, I hope Canadians view this matter as not just simply turning a blind eye. There will be transparency. There will be accountability. I am confident in what the Prime Minister says in saying that there has been no direction and no wrongful influence as it relates to the former attorney general or the present Attorney General, because I know that this is a government that has great respect when it comes to the independence of our judiciary, when it comes to the independence of the legal profession and when it comes to the independence of the administration of justice. I believe firmly that our work speaks to those values.

At the end of the day, what matters more than the theatre and the drama—which can make for good reading on a weekend or at night if there is nothing else to do—is the work, the work of the government, the work to ensure that every Canadian has the opportunity to achieve his or her full potential. It is the work to serve the most vulnerable, which was a campaign promise, a belief on which the government was elected, and work that we do each and every day, together, united in solidarity. It is bigger than any one of us. It is bigger than all of us. It is the very reason we are here: to serve the public, to serve the public interest.

For all those reasons, I am going to encourage my opposition colleagues to reconsider this motion and to put our focus and our energies back on the people who sent us here—Canadians.

Justice

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary mentioned Bill C-75, and I would agree with part of it. However, many of those offences have been downgraded, almost 60 of them, and when the suggestion is not to take property crimes seriously, that statement of hers will ring loudly for a long time in my riding and create anger. If someone has been a victim of property crime, that is a tragic piece.

When she speaks of Bill C-75, which is a slap on the wrist for many offences on property, people become very angry. This is a challenge. Rural crime is still a challenge and it needs to be resolved.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Bow River's intervention today, but I would like to remind him there are significant crimes happening across this country that really are more serious than property crimes. There are crimes against people happening every day, as well as crimes against women.

Originally, this question came out of the case of Tanya Campbell-Losier, which took place in Brooks, Alberta. These people continue to endure the pain of this woman's loss. While I think we are making some huge headway on this, it is very important not to forget the people who were involved in these kinds of crimes across the country.

I know people are there for the people of Brooks, Alberta, and I know they want to make sure they know they are comforted and supported, but there really is not any comfort to be found in jurisdictional issues and processes and procedures of criminal law. However, in the context of the discussion in Parliament, it is important to be clear. That is part of our role here.

The offender in that particular case is a provincial offender who was incarcerated in an Alberta provincial prison. When he pleaded guilty to manslaughter and received his sentence last spring, it was pursuant to the exact same Criminal Code provisions that were in place under the Harper government. Nothing had changed. When he was granted day parole in the fall, it was pursuant to the exact same criteria in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that were in place under the Harper government. There had been no changes.

Again, that is obviously cold comfort to Tanya's loved ones. They do not want us pointing partisan fingers. They want us to make the system better.

There is a legitimate question to come to this government: What is this government doing to protect women from intimate partner violence and to hold perpetrators accountable for their crimes? Here is the answer. We have introduced Bill C-75, which would strengthen the way the criminal justice system deals with intimate partner violence by allowing for longer sentences, reversing the onus at bail hearings for repeat offenders and broadening the definition to include not just spouses but dating partners and former partners.

We have invested over $200 million to prevent gender-based violence and to support survivors and to deal with the scourge of violence against women. We are providing safe options to women in abusive relationships by devoting a third of the $40-billion national housing strategy to projects for women, girls and their families fleeing violence. This also helps maintain 7,000 shelter spaces.

Of course none of that brings Tanya back, but it will help more women from suffering her fate. Once again, my deepest condolences to her family and friends, and the community of Brooks, Alberta, whom I am sure continue to miss her very much.

Bill C-78—Time Allocation Motion

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting, just entering into the conversation now, that the hon. minister stands up and talks about how there has been ample time to consult our constituents.

With that, I would like to bring up a constituent, somebody for whom I have been tirelessly advocating. She is Shelley Beyak, whose children, Liam and Mia Tarabichi, were kidnapped by their father, Shelley's ex-husband. The Prime Minister refuses to intervene in this case.

How does the hon. minister, who is new on this file, rationalize the comments today about speeding up a piece of legislation when he and his Prime Minister are failing to act to bring home Liam and Mia Tarabichi, a situation this bill actually touches on? As well, another piece of legislation, Bill C-75, actually lessens the charge for abduction of children under 14 and would again fall to this situation.

How does the minister rationalize his actions on this file while levying time allocation on this important piece of legislation?

Justice

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I have received the correspondence from my hon. colleague across the way and I will take great care in reviewing that correspondence. The letter is speaking with respect to a bill that we introduced, Bill C-75, which seeks to reform the Criminal Code and improve efficiencies and effectiveness.

We are making changes to bail reform. We are looking at administration of justice offences to address delays, with the underlying emphasis on public safety, ensuring we respect victims and ensuring we have an efficient and effective criminal justice system. I look forward to having further conversations with the hon. member.

Criminal Code

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am here to speak tonight to Bill C-51. For those who are not aware, this bill is intended to clean up clauses in the law that are no longer useful or applicable and to strengthen some of the language.

First, Bill C-51 is another omnibus bill. The Prime Minister said that the Liberals would not have omnibus bills, but we continue to see them in the House day after day. I may have gotten used to the fact that the Prime Minister always breaks his promise. However, I want people to be aware of this so they understand, as we approach next year's election, that the Prime Minister does not keep his promises and if he makes new promises, Canadians can expect that behaviour to continue. The promises really are not worth the paper on which they are written. Therefore, I object to this being an omnibus bill.

Usually when we think of justice bills, we think about what the government is trying to achieve in the country with respect to justice. Normally, we try to define what behaviour would be considered criminal, sentences that would be appropriate and commensurate with the crimes and that they are enforced in a timely way. However, I have to question what the justice minister is thinking with these pieces of legislation and actions that have been taken.

The government is in the fourth year of its mandate and what priority has the justice minister been giving time to? First, she has not put enough judges in place to keep murderers and rapists from going free because time has passed and the Jordan principle applies. That should have been a priority for the government, but clearly was not.

We heard earlier in the debate about how the government was pursuing veterans and indigenous people in court. That is obviously a priority for it, but one would think that other things would make the list. The Liberals prioritized the legalization of marijuana and the legalization of assisted suicide. Then it introduced Bill C-75, which took a number of serious crimes and reduced them to summary convictions of two years or a fine, things like forcible confinement of a minor, forced child marriage, belonging to a criminal organization, bribing an official and a lot of things like that. Those were the priorities of the government.

Then there is Bill C-83 regarding solitary confinement and impacts on 340 Canadians.

I am not sure what the priority of the government is when we consider the crime that has hit the streets. There is the increase in unlawful guns and gangs and huge issues with drug trafficking. I was just in Winnipeg and saw the meth addiction problem occupying the police and law enforcement there. I would have thought there would be other priorities.

If I think specifically about some of the measures in Bill C-51, the most egregious one to me is that the government tried to remove section 176, which protects religious officials and puts punishments in place for disrupting religious ceremonies.

Eighty-three churches in Sarnia—Lambton wrote letters and submitted petitions. There was an immediate outcry. It was nice that the government was eventually shamed into changing its mind and kept that section the way it was. However, why is there no moral compass with the government? We have had to shame it into doing the right thing many times, and this was one of them.

Terri-Lynne McClintic was moved to a healing lodge. I remember hearing the Minister of Public Safety talk day after day about how there was nothing he could do. I looked at section 6(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. It says that the minister has full authority over his department. Eventually, of course, we shamed the government into the right thing. We heard today there may be a similar opportunity with Michael Rafferty, the other killer of Tori Stafford.

There is the Chris Garnier situation. He brutally murdered a police officer. He has PTSD and is getting veterans benefits when he was never a veteran. Again, we had to shame the government into taking action.

Then there was Statistics Canada. The government had a plan to allow it to take the personal financial transactional information of people's bank accounts and credit cards without their consent. Again, there was a total out-of-touch-with-Canadians response from the government, asking why it was a problem. Eventually, ruling by the polls, Canadians again shamed the government into changing its mind on that one.

Finally, there was the Canada summer jobs situation, which was very egregious to me. In my riding, numerous organizations were not able to access funding because of this values test that the government had put in place. The hospice, which delivers palliative care, was not even able to apply. It is under the Catholic diocese of Canada, which objected to the attestation. It has taken a very long time, but again, the government has been shamed into saying that the people are right and that maybe it will change it up for next year. Why does the government always have to be shamed into these things instead of having a moral compass to know what is right and what is not?

Bill C-51 would clean up a lot of things that were obviously a big priority for the government, like comic books causing crime. We know there have been huge issues about that in Canada. It would remove offences such as challenging someone to a dual. It would clean up the section on people fraudulently using witchcraft and sorcery. It would clean up a number of things. I do not object to it; I just do not see it as a priority when people are dying because of serious crimes.

Then there is the issue of sexual assault. The government spends a lot of word count talking about the fact that it cares about this. However, does it really care about sexual assault and strengthening the language on consent when it does not appoint enough judges to keep rapists from going free?

I was the chair of the status of women and we studied violence against women and girls. We know that one out of every thousand sexual assault cases actually goes to court and gets a conviction. If we want to talk about the sentences applied, they are measured in months and not years, when the victims struggle on forever.

Although there has been an attempt to make it clear what consent really means, there has been discussion in the debate today that it is still not clear. If people are interested to see what consent really means, there is a little video clip that can be googled. It is called Tea Consent. It is a very good way of demonstrating what consent is. I encourage everyone to take a look at that.

When it comes to the justice system and the priorities of the government, I cannot believe it has not addressed the more serious things facing our nation. We can think about what the justice minister ought to do, such as putting enough judges in place so we can have timely processing of events, and prioritize. If we do not have enough judges for the number of cases occurring, it is an indication of too much crime. However, it is also an opportunity to put the priority on processing murderers and rapists ahead of people being charged with petty crimes of less importance.

When it comes to looking at some of the actions the government should be taking going forward, it should be focusing on the issue of illegal gun activity happening right now. Ninety-five per cent of homicides is happening with unlawful guns or guns that are used unlawfully. There is a huge opportunity to do something about that. This should be a priority for the justice minister.

Our leader has put together a very cohesive plan that would reduce gun and gang violence. It is a great, well-thought out plan. I wish the Liberal government had some plan to try to do something to reduce crime in the country and to ensure that the people who commit crimes are actually held to account. I do not see that in Bill C-51. I have to wonder why it took so long to bring the bill forward.

As I said, the government is in the fourth year of its mandate and Bill C-39 would have made a lot of these fixes. It was introduced in March of 2017. Here we are at the end of 2018 and still none of this has gone through.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I have been here since 2004. It is interesting to realize that for 10 years the House will not be located here. It reminds me of how honoured I am to be here.

I do want to ask the member about this whole soft on crime agenda of the Liberals. He mentioned section 176. In my community, people perceive that as an attack on religious freedom.

He also talked about the Canada summer jobs program.

Bill C-75 would actually change indictable offences into summary convictions.

My colleague asked if we on this side have consulted experts. It seems members on the other side do not want to consult with Canadians.

The entire agenda of the Liberals moving forward is soft on crime policies, especially policies that would change something that was an indictable offence into a summary conviction. What kind of message does that send to Canadians?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to stand in this place, especially as we approach the time when it will be closed and the last week we will be here.

It is an august place, a place where many interesting debates have happened since it reopened after the fire. As for the one before the fire, we are coming up the 100th anniversary of Prime Minister Laurier, who was a leader of note. He established Alberta and Saskatchewan as provinces, and passed away the following year. Not only did he establish Alberta and Saskatchewan, he was in favour of free trade agreements. In 1911, he lost an election on a free trade agreement. We may see that happen again in 2019.

Also I remember well the debates on the flag issue, which was a focus for the country in the sixties. The debates between Diefenbaker and Pearson are legendary in this place. The flag issue is one that had a lot of Canadians focused on this place and on the debates, which resulted in the maple flag we have today.

I also remember when we had a loyal opposition party leading a charge to leave the country. A lot of people were a little confused about the debates that went on in this place when the leader of the loyal opposition wanted to split up the country.

Many debates have happened in this place, with many people who are orators, intelligent people expressing their opinions and representing Canadians. At this time, I am one of 338 who has the honour and privilege to stand in this place, but not for much longer as this building will close this week and we will move to another place. Again, it is a privilege to look around and see the magnificent edifice and beautiful place in which we get to work.

Today I rise to speak to C-51, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another act. Since it was introduced the first time, and again as it has come back from the Senate, there have been learned people standing and speaking to this. It is an omnibus bill. It is very complicated and one some people in the House are able to understand, comprehend and speak very clearly about. Others speak of its broad issues, but not as intelligently as some of the members in the House who have legal backgrounds.

However, it should not be a surprise there are issues when we get a bill this big, although many people would agree with some of the things in it.

I will be sharing my time, Mr. Speaker, with my colleague from Niagara West.

We agree with some things in this omnibus bill. It contains some worthy provisions. Clarifying the law in relation to sexual consent is very important. Repealing unconstitutional provisions in the Criminal Code is a positive aspect. I was also very happy the government backed down, as we have heard many times, on the removal of section 176 of the code. I heard a lot about this one from my constituents. Many faith groups, including those in my riding of Bow River, were deeply concerned about that section.

The section provides protection to those practising their religion. We have freedom of religion in Canada. One of thing I may not agree with everybody on is religion, but I would fight to the death for those people to be able to express their religious beliefs. Religious communities need to be able to worship without fear of interference and disruption. This is truer now than ever. Hate crimes against religious groups are on the rise in Canada. A section of the code that gives these groups clear, unambiguous confidence in their right to worship as they please is far from redundant.

When we were talking about the inoperative sections of the Criminal Code and Bill C-51, it was the unfortunate decision by the government to initially include section 176 of the Criminal Code among the sections it deemed to be obsolete. Section 176 is hardly redundant, hardly obsolete and certainly not unconstitutional. Indeed, section 176 is the only section in the Criminal Code that protects clergy from having their services disrupted, something which is very serious and goes to the heart of religious freedom.

The government turned a blind eye when it introduced this, and the Conservatives called them out on it. As a result, tens of thousands of Canadians spoke out, telling the government that it was wrong.

My learned colleague on the other side previously mentioned that a committee was able to resolve this. It was one of the outstanding features of the committee that it unanimously came to that. However, it is my belief that there was such push-back in religious communities that the people sitting on that committee realized the mistake in that initial document and changed it.

Municipal governments must react much sooner when they may have made a mistake. If in coffee shops they hear about something, they pass it the next day, and at the next meeting, they can fix it. This is a much longer process, but at the committee level, members heard from religious people of faith in our country that this was not the appropriate thing to do.

I will move on. Clause 14 of Bill C-51 proposed to repeal section 176 of the Criminal Code, which makes it a crime to unlawfully obstruct a religious official. Conservatives were the first to identify this clause. As a result of the public backlash, the Liberals on the justice committee amended Bill C-51 to remove it.

However, only months later, the Liberals hybridized section 176 in Bill C-75. Currently, it is a solely indictable offence, which is reserved for the most serious offences. However, by hybridizing section 176, it could be prosecuted as a summary conviction offence, which is reserved for less serious offences. That means that offenders could just get a fine, and I think that would downgrade the importance of religious freedom. For people who practice it and leaders of religion, this would be downgraded to a less serious offence. That is not right.

While the specific changes would not have a significant impact on the maximum sentence, unlike some of the other offences the government is hybridizing, it would send a message. I would submit that it would send exactly the wrong message. It would send the message that disrupting a religious service and infringing on the freedom of religion of Canadians, which is not just any freedom but a fundamental freedom in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is not that serious. That is just wrong. It is why the Conservatives opposed it and stood up to fight Bill C-75.

Then there were amendments that came back from the Senate. The Senate put forward amendments because there was concern that this would add confusion in cases where a person was not unconscious but was, for example, highly intoxicated. Unfortunately, while the Senate amendments may have been well intentioned, they would simply cause more problems and solve a problem that really does not exist. We would support voting against these amendments, because we believe that they do not clarify; they just make things more confusing.

Conservatives fully support all changes in the bill to clarify and strengthen sexual assault provisions in the Criminal Code. These changes would help support victims of horrific sexual assault crimes. Conservatives also support repealing or amending sections of the code that have been ruled unconstitutional by the courts.

It is important to keep the code clean and up to date for efficient and effective justice for victims and their families. Bill C-51 would merely clarify that consent can never occur when an individual is unconscious. That is consistent with the J.A. decision.

Bill C-51 would not, as the Senate amendment argues, potentially create a bright line for consent on the basis of consciousness. In that regard, proposed paragraph 273.1(2)(b) provides that “no consent is obtained...for any reason other than [unconsciousness].” This language clearly acknowledges that there are many possible reasons a person may be incapable of consent, despite being conscious.

The Senate amendment would likely lead to additional complexity and confusion over what evidence was relevant to determine consent. Instead of adding certainty to the law, it would lead to further litigation involving these factors. For those reasons, we oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that point, the government proceeded with hybridizing offences under section 176 in Bill C-75. Although members of the standing committee chose to make that change with respect to Bill C-51, we saw new government legislation in the form of Bill C-75 that again showed a lack of appreciation for this important section.

It would have been great if the same standing committee had shown the alleged independence that the member speaks of by fixing it the second time around as well. Unfortunately, sometimes, even on relatively independent committees, the PMO's hammer comes down and we do not see that change.

It is frustrating to see repeated attempts by the government in its legislation to weaken section 176. Yes, there was an amendment the first time around on this bill, but there was not an amendment the second time around.

In so many different areas, the government tries to do something, there is a public backlash, it waits a while and then we see it do something similar. Talking about the impact on faith communities, the Canada summer jobs issue has been in the news recently. I do not think Canadians are going to be fooled by the fact that the government is trying to make what looks like a change in an election year. Many faith communities have seen what the government's intentions are with respect to their freedoms and liberties. To change the tone of the discussion in an election year is not the best indication of what it has in mind or what it would likely do if it were re-elected.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to participate in the debate on Bill C-51 and, in particular, the Senate amendments.

My intention in my remarks today is to focus on two issues that arise out of this bill. One is the question of advance consent in general, at a philosophical and practical level, and whether we think that a person ought to be able to consent in advance to something happening in the future and some of the issues related to that in this bill. The other is I want to talk about section 176 and the way in which the government approaches our response to potential acts of hate and violence and disruption that are perpetrated against faith communities in Canada.

The issue of advance consent is very much one that has been discussed back and forth and from different perspectives. I note that with respect to the idea of someone consenting in advance to sexual activity, this is a subject on which the Supreme Court of Canada and the Ontario Court of Appeal, at certain points in time, disagreed. There was a court decision in R. v. J.A. in which the person accused of sexual assault argued in the context of that particular case that sexual assault had not taken place because the complainant had consented to being rendered unconscious, allegedly, and consented, allegedly, to engaging in sexual activity. The Ontario Court of Appeal actually agreed with the arguments of the accused in this case, and said the “only state of mind ever experienced by the person is that of consent”.

I think the Ontario Court of Appeal got it wrong. Many people would say that it is not only wrong but deeply offensive to suggest that a sexual act could be performed without a person's explicit consent in the moment, on the basis of alleged prior consent in advance.

In my view, the Supreme Court got it right when it said:

It is not possible for an unconscious person to satisfy this requirement, even if she expresses her consent in advance. Any sexual activity with an individual who is incapable of consciously evaluating whether she is consenting is therefore not consensual within the meaning of the Criminal Code.

Bill C-51 puts that legal court decision into the Criminal Code by noting that there is never consent when a person is unconscious. Proposed paragraph 273.1(2)(a.1) states:

For the purpose of subsection (1), no consent is obtained if

(a.1) the complainant is unconscious;

The decision of the Supreme Court in this case is the right decision. It is one that I agree with and it is one that is reflected in the law.

It is noteworthy at the same time that the Ontario Court of Appeal thought differently and indeed advanced arguments for the idea that a person could provide so-called advance consent in this case. It reflects the fact that in different contexts around different debates, people have made arguments about the supposed legitimacy of advance consent. We see in another case the use of that argument, and I will get to that in a few moments.

The cases against so-called advance consent as something we should allow or accept are myriad. One of the obvious arguments against it is that one's past self, in one's wishes and inclinations, might disagree substantively from one's future self. One might think that at such and such a point in the future under certain circumstances one will want this or feel this or accept this. However, in reality, when one experiences those things, one feels totally differently in the context of that new situation. The idea of a past self irrevocably dictating the conditions and events that are going to occur with a future self is unjust to the future self and it violates the autonomy of the individual at that point in time in the future. Our past selves differ from our future selves, and perceptions about how we will experience certain events in the past might differ from how we actually experience them in the moment when they are taking place.

It is on this basis of recognizing the importance of autonomy, not in the sense of a past self-binding and future self-binding but autonomy in the sense of individuals making determinations about themselves in the moment and being able to ensure that they are comfortable with and accepting of everything that is happening while that thing is happening, that the court, the House, and this legislation recognize the fundamental wrongness of advance consent in the context of sexual activity.

I develop this point in spite of the perhaps pre-existing agreement in the House because it has some relevance to our discussion of other issues with respect to consent. In particular, some members would like to see us allow advance consent in the case of euthanasia or assisted suicide. It is important for members to reflect on the argument for and against allowing advance consent in the one case when we consider the possible application of that same principle in a different case.

Questions were asked in the House, for example, about the case of Ms. Audrey Parker, a tragic situation for her, and other cases, where the idea of advance consent was brought up. Some have argued, especially some of my friends in the NDP, that people should be able to provide consent in advance that their life be taken if their condition advances to a certain point and if certain conditions are met.

I find that prospect very troubling, that a present self could irrevocably bind a future self, especially that the person could establish parameters under which that future self would be bound even in a case where that future self might, in the moment in terms of practical expression, not want that to happen.

The particular context in euthanasia of providing advance consent is, of course, that people have to imagine how they would experience certain conditions, certain development of a disease, and how they would feel about it, how they would respond and what they would want in the moment. The idea and the argument that some advocates have made is that the person should be able to issue an advance directive, so that even if they in that moment do not have the capacity to make a decision, their past self would decide for them in the present.

This can create a situation, though, where one might ask what happens if a person with somewhat lost capacity, but nonetheless with a condition set out by their past self, then says he does not want his life taken. His past self had established this living will, this advance directive of sorts, that would then theoretically involve the state and medical professionals taking his life in a case where he did not want that to happen in the moment based on something his past self said.

This is not a purely hypothetical case. There is currently a case before the Dutch courts in which a patient was held down by family members while a physician injected her with lethal medication. The doctor was acting based on an interpretation of an advance directive and of past statements made by the patient.

We do have cases where there is an application of the idea of advance consent to euthanasia, and we have a very scary situation, frankly, where a person's life is taken when he or she is saying in the moment, “No, I don't want this to happen”, but someone else is interpreting something the individual said in the past as overruling the individual's expression in the moment.

The present self who is facing this kind of violence, I would argue, is maybe at a point of lower capacity than the person previously had, but I still think it is a very scary situation or proposition.

I would encourage members to reflect on the question of advance consent and to take a consistent position on it. I would suggest that members set a similar standard for consent in these cases. It does not seem, to me, to make sense to have a lower bar for the consent required to die than consent required for sexual activity, to abhor advance consent in the case of sexual activity, and yet to support it in the case of death and dying. We do not know exactly where the debate on advance consent in the context of death and dying is going to go. I know there is an expert panel the government has put forward that we expect to hear a report back from relatively soon. I know there are members of the government caucus who have said that they are supportive of the idea of advance consent.

However, if we think about the case that I spoke about in particular and how we would feel if a past version of ourselves had said we wanted something, which all of a sudden, in the moment, in a situation, we really do not want to have happen, and yet we are told that we had said we had wanted this in the past, so our past self can dictate to our present self. I would see that as really going against a pretty basic principle of autonomy that I know is important to many members.

I leave that for the consideration of the House. It is very relevant to our discussion of Bill C-51, in terms of the way in which the bill codifies the point that in the context of sexual consent, one cannot consent in advance, that a person who is unconscious can never consent, regardless of what they said beforehand. Again, to underline this, I very much agree with that particular change to Bill C-51. I want to encourage members to think about what that means for some of the other conversations that are happening.

This bill deals with Senate amendments. There is a proposed Senate amendment that provides some specific language around that section. I know that some of my colleagues are favourably disposed towards the intent of the senator who brought this forward, but are concerned about some of the unintended legal implications of it, namely, that if certain things are spelled out explicitly, there might also be things that are not spelled out in the section. The sense, and I think it is a good sense, is that the existing language in that particular section of Bill C-51 does the trick in hitting the particular point on the mark. That is what I wanted to say about the issue of advance consent.

I would like to make a few comments about section 176 of the Criminal Code and the back and forth we have seen in our discussions on that section and on some of the other actions the government has taken in this regard.

Section 176 deals with the disruption of a religious service and vandalism against church property, and so forth. Our caucus has done a great deal of work with civil society to bring attention to the importance and value of this section, and to oppose initial efforts by the government to remove this section.

The government argued that section 176 could be removed, because it was redundant. Clearly the offences that are covered by section 176 are things that other charges could apply to, but that does not mean that the offence, in terms of putting a particular emphasis on it and ensuring fulsome prosecution in these cases, is redundant. By analogy, our Criminal Code speaks specifically of hate crimes, and I have never heard anyone argue that hate crimes legislation is redundant because the violence associated with hate crimes, namely, vandalism, but more particularly assault and those sorts of things, are already illegal.

I have never heard anyone ask why we need hate crime provisions because those things are already illegal. I think all of us accept that the message sent by having a particular category of prosecution associated with hate crimes is appropriate, because hate crimes are not just aimed at doing violence to a particular individual but also at making an entire community feel threatened and unsafe in living their lives as they do, including the practice of their faith and the public actions they take that are associated with their identity, and so forth.

Hate crimes legislation is about ensuring that groups of people are not targeted on the basis of their identity. That is why we treat a hate crime as something distinct from an act of assault on its own. If members accept that principle with respect to hate crimes and hate crimes in prosecution, it would seem to me that the same principle goes to section 176. Someone who actively disrupts a church service or commits acts of vandalism or violence against religious clergy are not just trying to enact specific violence against an individual or place. It is not merely an act of trespassing or vandalism, rather an action that carries with it a real chill for the ability of people of faith to live freely and confidently without worry of that kind of violence. That is why section 176 is not redundant. It is critically important.

Another argument the government used was to say that the language in section 176 is outdated because it refers to a clergyman and is not, in its textual implications, inclusive of all faiths and genders. However, in reality, the section was clearly being applied in a way that was fully inclusive. It really was an odd argument to make that we should take the section out completely because it was not, in its language, inclusive when all that was really required was to change the language. Even changing the language did not change the actual practical effects of the law.

In the end, in response to a really strong reaction and groundswell from different communities working collaboratively with our party, the proposed deletion of section 176 by Bill C-51 was abandoned. We were pleased to see that.

At the same time, we then saw the government, in Bill C-75, proposing to hybridize offences under section 176, effectively reducing the sentence for these offences. In the previous discussion in the House on this issue, my friend from Winnipeg North offered a defence of the idea of hybridized offences. I do not think anyone has argued there should not be any cases where the level of available discretion would not cover a spectrum associated with hybridized offences.

However, I think a lot of those who advocated significantly for section 176 to be preserved, and were initially pleased by the government's stepping back from their decision, kind of saw in the hybridization of this particular offence yet another indication that the government does not really understand the importance of this and does not accept the value of having strong, clear language with appropriate associated sentences in the Criminal Code to protect the practice of faith in this country.

It is ironic because the government talks a good game a lot of the time when it comes to fighting hate. When it comes to motions or statements around these kinds of issues, the government always seems to be ready.

We had considerable debate in the House on Motion No. 103 on the question of “Islamophobia”. All of us in the House should read that it is important for us to take a strong stand against, in this case, anti-Muslim violence or hatred, and that it is important for us to take a strong stand against those who express bigotry against any community. However, we wanted the government to provide a definition of what it meant by “Islamophobia”, and it refused to do that. Unfortunately, the House was not able to come together in a way that might have been desirable to send a clear unified statement on that issue.

Despite the specific language of Motion No. 103 speaking of the need to “quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear”, the government's actions with respect to section 176, an actual section of the Criminal Code that provides real legal protection for those practising their faith, show that in so many cases, it is only interested in the statement and not the substance.

For faith communities and leaders across the board who wonder what substantive protections exist, they should look to and expect the government to underline the importance of section 176, not to be weakening its application as we are seeing.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He is right. It does send a strange message. On the one hand, they want to clarify a situation, but on the other, they make it impossible to clarify.

I have always advocated for victims of crime. What bothers me the most about Bill C-51 is that it mentions the Charter of Rights and Freedoms a lot but does not mention the Victims Bill of Rights at all, even though it is supposed to help victims. Plus, the Victims Bill of Rights takes precedence over the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Unlike their attackers, victims of crime get life sentences. In many cases, there is no minimum sentence for perpetrators. A judge may hand down a maximum sentence knowing full well that the offender will never serve it in its entirety. Many offenders get out of jail after serving a third of their sentence, and that is what makes victims of crime nervous. Sexual assault and rape are life sentences for victims. We have no idea what those women and young boys go through. Yes, boys can be victims too.

For those people, and as far as I am concerned, Bill C-51 does not go far enough. I would have liked an explanation as to why Bill C-75 was scrapped when it should have been kept. I would also like someone to mention the bill introduced by our former leader, Rona Ambrose, that addressed this problem.

Bill C-51 is a good bill, but there is still more work to be done.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right that there are a number of aspects of Bill C-51 that are welcome in clarifying, in some cases, the law around sexual assault.

I think everyone in this House would agree that sexual assault is an extremely serious offence. The lives of those who are victims of sexual assault are forever changed. It is why I have to say I am very disturbed that, on the one hand, there are some positive aspects to Bill C-51 but, on the other hand, the government would turn around in Bill C-75 and hybridize the offence of administering a date-rape drug. The government is actually reclassifying that offence from what is now a solely indictable offence, the most serious type of offence in the Criminal Code, to an offence that could be prosecutable by way of summary conviction.

I was wondering if my hon. colleague could comment on what kind of a message it sends to water down sentencing for administering a date-rape drug. I would submit it sends exactly the wrong message.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will agree with my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton. It is a real head-scratcher.

He recalled a few hours ago that when Bill C-32 was introduced, the government made much fanfare. There was a huge press conference in the foyer of the House of Commons. A number of stakeholders were behind the minister. It made headlines across the country. That bill still remains in purgatory.

It was then rolled into Bill C-39, and we had hope that this was moment we would be moving forward with the much-needed amendments to the Criminal. However, again, that bill remains in purgatory at first reading.

Finally, Bill C-39 was rolled into Bill C-75. The House of Commons has only just passed that bill and sent it to the Senate.

Here we are more than three years into the government's mandate and we have only just sent that package of Criminal Code reforms to the Senate. Who knows how long it will take in the other place, given how massive that bill is, how many debates will be needed in the Senate and how many stakeholders will appear before the legal and constitutional affairs committee.

For a government that came to power with such a huge and ambitious mandate to reform our criminal justice system, the evidence of its legislative progress has been very lacking. I would agree with my colleague that the government's management of time in the House could certainly use a few lessons.

Consideration of Senate Amendments

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

Madam Speaker, with respect, I will have to disagree with my colleague. Yes, I agree there are some very substantive provisions in Bill C-75 and Bill C-51 which we do support. The problem is that in Bill C-75, the government rolled in those changes with other more contentious issues and therefore has forced the legislation down to a snail's pace where it now has been sent to the Senate.

Three years into the Liberal government's mandate, when we look at its accomplishments at cleaning up the Criminal Code, so far nothing has been done. The zombie provisions of the Criminal Code are still on the books. The Criminal Code is reprinted every single year. The 2016 edition, 2017 edition and 2018 edition all contain those mistakes. If I am going to look at the government's performance based on its amendments to the Criminal Code, I am sorry but it is a failing grade.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to be participating in today's debate on Bill C-51. I find it unfortunate, however, that the government has again had to resort to time allocation on a justice bill. The bill passed the House of Commons. I was certainly one of the members who voted in favour of it. However, I find myself in the awkward position of actually agreeing with what the Senate has done to the bill, because it very much mirrors the attempt I made at the justice committee last year to codify the nature of consent and provide a bit more definition in the Criminal Code.

Before I get to the Senate amendments more specifically, I want to talk more generally about the government's record on justice bills. While I do have a great deal of respect for the Minister of Justice and I very much agreed at the start of the government's mandate with what she was attempting to do, the pace of legislative change from the Minister of Justice has been anything but satisfactory. We started off with Bill C-14. It received a lot of attention and debate in Canada, as it should have, but we have to remember that the only reason the government moved ahead with Bill C-14 and we passed it in 2016 was that the government was operating under a Supreme Court imposed deadline. There was really no choice in the matter. Furthermore, when Bill C-14 was passed, we very nearly had a standoff with the Senate because of the provision in the bill about reasonable death occurring in a predetermined amount of time. We knew that that particular section would be challenged in the court system.

The other substantive piece of legislation the government has passed is Bill C-46, which was designed to move in conjunction with Bill C-45. Of course, Bill C-46 was problematic because the government has now removed the need for reasonable suspicion for police officers to administer a Breathalyzer test. They can basically do it whenever a person is legally stopped, whether it be for a broken tail light or for not stopping completely at a stop sign. If an officer has a Breathalyzer test on their person, they can demand a breath sample right then and there, without the need for reasonable suspicion. I have seen mandatory alcohol screening operate in other countries, notably Australia.

In my attempt to amend that bill, I stated that if we were going to apply such a draconian measure, it should be applied equally, because if we start giving police officers the ability to decide when or where to test someone, we know from the statistics, notably from the City of Toronto, that people of a certain skin colour are more apt to be stopped by the police than others. If such a provision were to be implemented, it should be applied equally at all times.

Moving on, there is Bill C-28, which deals with the victim surcharge, but is still languishing in purgatory at first reading.

The government then moved forward with a number of cleanups of the Criminal Code, the so-called zombie or inoperative provisions and the many redundant sections of the Criminal Code. That is the thing about the Criminal Code: It is littered with out-of-date provisions that are inoperable because of Supreme Court or appellate court rulings, but they are still faithfully reprinted every single year because Parliament has not done its work to clean up the Criminal Code. As my college the member for St. Albert—Edmonton has noted, it has led to some very bad consequences, notably in the Travis Vader case, where the judge used an inoperative section of the Criminal Code to convict someone. That conviction was then overturned. So these section do have very real consequences.

My contention has always been with section 159, which was brought forward in Bill C-32. Bill C-32 was then swallowed up by Bill C-39. Then Bill C-39 was swallowed up by Bill C-75, which has only just passed the House and now has to clear the Senate. We have no idea how much longer that is going to take. The House is about to rise for the Christmas break. We will be back functioning at the end of January, but Bill C-75 is a gigantic omnibus bill and full of provisions that make it a very contentious bill.

My argument has always been that for such an ambitious legislative agenda, especially if we are going to clean up the Criminal Code as Bill C-51 proposes to do, I contend that the Minister of Justice, had she had a good strategy in dealing with the parliamentary timetable and calendar and how this place actually works, would have bundled up the non-contentious issues in Bill C-39 and Bill C-32, which was morphed into Bill C-75, together with the non-contentious issues of Bill C-51 and made it a stand-alone bill, and we could have done that work.

These are issues that we cannot really argue against because it is a moot point; the Supreme Court has already ruled, so keeping them in the Criminal Code just leads to further confusion. Here we are, three years into the government's mandate, and the Criminal Code has still not been cleaned up to this day. For an ambitious legislative agenda, that leaves a lot to be desired. I heard Michael Spratt, who regularly appears as a witness before the justice committee, describe Bill C-51 as dealing with the lowest of the low-hanging fruit. Therefore, if we had been serious, we could have made some very reasonable progress on that. Be that as it may, we have Bill C-51 before us and we have to go over it.

Before I get into the specific amendments brought forward by the Senate, I think it is worth going over some of the things we are talking about. Among the things Bill C-51 would repeal is the offence of challenging someone to a duel. It used to be illegal to provoke someone to fight a duel or to accept the challenge. We will get rid of that section because it obviously reflects an earlier time in Canada's history. It is the reason why in this place we are two sword lengths apart. Members of parliament in the U.K. used to go into that place with swords on their hips. The bill would also get rid of section 143 dealing with advertizing a reward for the return of stolen property. It would get rid of section 163, dealing with the possession of crime comics, a legacy of a 1948 bill by a member who thought that crime comics negatively influenced kids by encouraging them to commit crimes, and that they were not a part of a good upbringing. The section on blasphemous libel would be dropped. Fraudulently pretending to practise witchcraft is probably one of my favourite ones.

While Bill C-51 is making some much needed changes to sections of the Criminal Code, as I said earlier, we would not be arguing these cases in the House three years into the mandate of the current government if the bills had been bundled up into a single bill, which I am sure could have had royal assent by now.

We did have a very interesting discussion at the justice committee on section 176. When I first read Bill C-51 and it mentioned that this section would be repealed, I read right over it. However, when hearing witnesses at committee, it became quite apparent that section 176 had a lot of very deep meaning to select religious groups. After hearing all of that testimony about the importance of having section 176 remain in the code, I am glad to see that the committee members were able to work together to polish the language to ensure that it would now be applicable to all religious faiths, and not just single out the Christian faith. Now, if someone were to interrupt the religious proceedings of any faith, that would be dealt with appropriately under section 176.

The heart of the matter before us is the Senate amendments to Bill C-51. As I mentioned, it is kind of awkward for a New Democrat to be recognizing the work of the Senate. I value the people who sit as senators. I know there are some very determined people who certainly try to do their best there. My problem has always been with a 21st century democracy like Canada having an unelected and unaccountable upper house. I have to face the electorate for the decisions I make and the words I say in this place, and for what the Senate as a whole does.

I am going to be rejecting the government's motion on Bill C-51, because I agree with the substance of what the Senate was attempting to do in Bill C-51. It very much reflects some of the testimony that I heard at committee, and I have also reviewed some of the Senate Hansard transcripts of the debates it had on Bill C-51. While it is true that the amendments were not passed at the legal and constitutional affairs committee of the Senate, they were passed at the third reading stage. When we see the transcripts, we can see that the hon. senators in the other place were trying to codify what they saw as some missing aspects of the bill.

If we look at the heart of the matter, it comes down to the Supreme Court decision in R. v. J.A. The Supreme Court ruling reads:

When the complainant loses consciousness, she loses the ability to either oppose or consent to the sexual activity that occurs. Finding that such a person is consenting would effectively negate the right of the complainant to change her mind at any point in the sexual encounter.

In some situations, the concept of consent Parliament has adopted may seem unrealistic. However, it would be inappropriate for this Court to carve out exceptions to the concept of consent when doing so would undermine Parliament’s choice. This concept of consent produces just results in the vast majority of cases and has proved to be of great value in combating stereotypes that have historically existed. In the absence of a constitutional challenge, the appropriate body to alter the law on consent in relation to sexual assault is Parliament, should it deem this necessary.

The court in a sense is recognizing the very important part that Parliament plays in this. One thing I have learned during my time as our party's justice critic is that, in looking at the Criminal Code, ultimately, we in this place are responsible for drafting and implementing the law and it comes down to the courts to interpret it. There is this kind of back and forth. When the justice aspect of the government and the parliamentary part of it work in tandem like that, we hopefully arrive at a place where the law is reflective of today's society.

However, it is not only the J.A. decision that we should be looking at. On October 30, which coincidentally was the very same day that the Senate sent the bill back to the House, there was a decision in the Alberta Court of Appeal, R. v. W.L.S. In that particular case, an acquittal on sexual assault charges was overturned by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal acknowledged in its decision that the complainant was incapable of consenting.

Senator Kim Pate provided us with a message. She said:

In regard to our discussions concerning Bill C-51, I write to draw your attention to the recent case of the Alberta Court of Appeal, concerning the law of incapacity to consent to sexual activity. Please find a copy of this case attached.

The Alberta Court of Appeal heard this case on October 30, the same day the Senate passed the amendments to Bill C-51. The court overturned the trial decision on the grounds that the trial judge had wrongly held that nothing short of unconsciousness was sufficient to establish incapacity. While this erroneous understanding of the law was rectified on appeal in this case, as we know, the vast majority of cases are never appealed. The trial judge's decision demonstrates the very error, fed by harmful stereotypes about victims of sexual assault, that many of us are concerned the original words of Bill C-51 risks encouraging.

Senator Kim Pate is basically acknowledging that there is a role for Parliament to play in providing a more explicit definition of consent, what it means and when consent is not given. While I am certainly one of those people who trusts in the power and ability of judges to make decisions, the judicial discretion, I align that thinking more with the decisions that they make and not in the interpretation of the Criminal Code. There is room in some parts of the Criminal Code to be very specific so that there is no judicial discretion, and that we are very clear on what consent means and what it does not mean.

Turning to the actual Senate amendments, they would be adding specificity in both clause 10 and clause 19. Basically, those particular aspects want to ensure:

(b) the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity in question for any reason, including, but not limited to, the fact that they are

(i) unable to understand the nature, circumstances, risks and consequences of the sexual activity in question,

(ii) unable to understand that they have the choice to engage in the sexual activity in question or not, or

(iii) unable to affirmatively express agreement to the sexual activity in question by words or by active conduct;

Adding this kind of specificity to the Criminal Code is very much a good thing. In paragraph (b), it says “including, but not limited to”. I think adding that kind of specificity will help with certain cases. From the very interesting Senate deliberations on this subject at third reading, we can see that senators were not very happy with how Bill C-51 left a bit of a hole.

We have made much of the witness testimony at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Professor Janine Benedet did look at this particular aspect of the Criminal Code. As I said in my exchange with the member for Mount Royal, one thing she stated was:

Any clarification we can give will be beneficial. It doesn't have to be an exhaustive list, but there has to be the idea that consent has to be informed, that you have to have the ability to understand that you can refuse—because some individuals with intellectual disabilities do not know they can say no to sexual activity—and that it has to be your actual agreement. Those are all things that can be read into the code as it's currently written, but sometimes are not fully realized in the cases we see.

Adding that specific part would be very much in line with what Professor Benedet was saying at the committee. That is why I will be rejecting the government's motion and voting in favour of the Senate amendments.

Turning to the Senate deliberations on this bill, in some of that debate it was said that R. v. J.A. outlines the requirement for active consent. However, the Senate very much found that without the specific amendment by Senator Pate to Bill C-51, we would have failed to capture the scope of consent laid out for us by the Supreme Court, supported by experts in the law of sexual assault in Canada.

Feminist experts in sexual assault law have advised that the inclusion of the word “unconscious” risks creating a false threshold for the capacity to consent. There were also deliberations that the current wording in Bill C-51 poses a serious risk that women who are intoxicated would be blamed if they are sexually assaulted. They would not be protected by this bill.

Further, some have noted that the weakness is in the definition of what constitutes non-consent. According to a legal expert who provides sexual consent training to judges, there is not enough precedent or awareness among judges to believe that the proposed wording in clause 10 and clause 19 of the bill is clear enough.

I see my time is running out, but I will end with some of the really scary statistics we face as a country. Statistics Canada estimates that some 636,000 self-reported sexual assaults took place in Canada in 2014. Shockingly, it also estimates that as few as one in 20 were actually reported to police. Those are statistics which should give us great pause and lead us to ask ourselves what more we could be doing. The Senate amendments are very much in faith with trying to keep that.

I would also note that this is probably one of the last opportunities I will have to rise in this particular chamber to give a speech. I want to acknowledge the history of this place and what an honour it has been for me, in my short three years here, to have served in this House of Commons chamber. I know we will be going forward to West Block, and an admirable job has been done there.

I finish by wishing all my colleagues a merry Christmas. I hope they have a fantastic holiday season with friends and family, and that we come back in 2019 refreshed and ready to do our work on behalf of Canadians.

Bill C-51—Time Allocation Motion

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, again to the question and comments of my colleague across the way with respect to section 159 and the legislation that has now been put into Bill C-75, removing this provision in the Criminal Code is a priority of our government, as are all of the provisions contained within Bill C-75. I am very pleased that Bill C-75 has passed third reading in this House and will be debated and discussed in the other place. I look forward to the results of the deliberations from the other place.

I would say that we are committed to ensuring that Bill C-75 moves through the parliamentary process, benefits from the parliamentary process and becomes law as soon as possible. From what I can account for from the member's comments is that there are major pieces within Bill C-75, if not the entirety of Bill C-75, that are in the interest of moving forward and amending the Criminal Code and addressing the issues that have been raised by members in this place.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I believe I understand the member's question. With respect to section 176, he characterized it as backing down, but what we did is we listened to what the committee members sought to say around religious officiants and we recognized the recommendation in terms of the amendments that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights made and acknowledged that and accepted that. We did make some amendments to ensure that this reflected all religious officiants as opposed to the confined way it was drafted in terms of the amendments that were proposed at the House committee. Basically the answer is that we listened to what the House of Commons committee said. That is the importance of committees in this place that we take incredibly seriously.

In terms of hybridization of offences, we are proposing in Bill C-75, which is not the bill at issue here today, a number of offences to be hybridized, to contribute to the broad and bold criminal justice reforms that will address delays, efficiencies and effectiveness in the criminal justice system. By hybridizing certain offences, it gives prosecutors the ability to exercise their discretion and proceed in terms of criminal charges in the most expeditious manner as appropriate to the circumstances of a particular case.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was appalled when I heard that the Liberal government was trying to remove section 176 of the Criminal Code. This is the only section of the Criminal Code that can directly protect the rights of individuals to freely practise their religion, whatever that religion might be. It was recently used in a case on June 9, 2017 here in Ottawa.

Why did the Liberals back down on removing section 176? Was it due to public backlash and they did not properly investigate this? Why are they not trying to hybridize this under Bill C-75?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, in terms of reintroducing the Criminal Code, I am incredibly proud to be part of a government that has taken action, which has not been taken for decades, as the member mentioned, to ensure that we have a modernized Criminal Code, that we remove the unconstitutional provisions, the zombie provisions, that we update the laws around sexual assault and intimate partner violence and that we look at the victim fine surcharge as well as section 159. All of these are issues raised in government bills the member opposite has spoken to.

We are moving forward with comprehensive reform of the criminal justice system, and that starts with looking, in a substantial manner, at the Criminal Code. This is what we have sought to do and what is contained in Bill C-51 and also in Bill C-75.

I look forward these two pieces of proposed legislation becoming law so that we can do what has not been done for far too long, which is modernize the Criminal Code.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not satisfied with the minister's previous response to my question. We can look at the legislative track record of the Minister of Justice, starting with Bill C-28, the victim surcharge bill, which was rolled into Bill C-75. We had Bill C-32, which was rolled into Bill C-39, which was then rolled into Bill C-75, and now we have Bill C-51.

I talked about tactics. Time allocation is a tactic. It would have been an unnecessary one if we could have dealt with the substantive provisions in all those bills, but instead, the government's strategy was to basically string us along with the introduction of these justice bills that would clean up the inoperative provisions of the Criminal Code and then leave them in some kind of purgatory stuck at first reading.

When the Minister of Justice took office, everyone knew that there were zombie provisions in the Criminal Code that had to be cleaned up. This has been a topic of discussion for decades, and every year, the Criminal Code is faithfully reproduced with all of these mistakes.

Again, why did the Minister of Justice, in 2016, the first year of her mandate, not take the provisions in Bill C-32 and Bill C-39 and elements of Bill C-51 and package them in one bill? We could have had that passed, done and dusted by now, but instead, they were rolled up with contentious provisions, and they are still being debated. Bill C-75 has only just been sent to the Senate. Who knows how long it is going to take there?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak to the comments and questions from my colleague across the way with respect to the then Bill C-39, which is now incorporated in the broad criminal justice reforms contained within Bill C-75.

I am very pleased that Bill C-75 has passed third reading in this place and is in the other place for debate and discussion. We look forward to its deliberations with respect to these very important and bold reforms presented in Bill C-75. I would look to all members in the House to assist in encouraging the members in the other place to proceed in an expeditious fashion so that the provisions the member opposite references will be passed as part of Bill C-75 and we can remove those provisions from the Criminal Code.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague across the way sat on the justice and human rights committee, which has debated many justice bills.

As for the member's characterization of parliamentary tactics, the only parliamentary tactic I employ and that our government employs is to work as co-operatively as we can with all members in the House to have informed debate about particular bills the government puts forward, seeking feedback from hon. members in this place and the other place and valuing the work done at committee.

With respect to all the justice bills that have been advanced, we have been working expeditiously to move forward with Bill C-39, Bill C-51 and Bill C-75 so that we clean up the so-called zombie provisions and the unconstitutional provisions. I would look to all hon. colleagues in this place to work with us to make sure that these pieces of legislation move forward as expeditiously as possible.

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

Madam Speaker, I have found myself, as a New Democrat, in the awkward position of agreeing with the work the Senate has done. I was one of those who voted in favour of Bill C-51, because I agree with the focus of the bill and the provisions in it. Ultimately, what the Senate has attempted to do reflects very much what I attempted to do at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

My issue with the government's approach and its parliamentary tactics comes from the fact that for the various justice bills, Bill C-32, Bill C-39, Bill C-51 and Bill C-75, the Minister of Justice could very well have packaged many of the inoperative provisions of the Criminal Code in Bill C-39 and Bill C-51 in one bill that would have passed through Parliament relatively quickly. Instead, she packaged in some other provisions that have been more contentious, and therefore, has forced the government to use extraordinary measures like time allocation.

With all the evidence from legal experts over the years who have talked about the inoperative provisions of the Criminal Code, why could the Minister of Justice not have packaged the provisions in Bill C-39 and Bill C-51, which would not have had any argument, in one bill? Instead, three years into the government's mandate, we find ourselves still deliberating on these provisions, and nothing has changed.

Criminal Code

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from London who spoke earlier and all members for their comments on Bill C-51 today.

At the outset, because I have some time today to give a bit of a longer speech, I want to address the fact that I am troubled that in government, the Liberals are doing exactly what they said they would not do when they were in opposition. In fact, this is our second omnibus justice bill.

I know my friend from Winnipeg, the deputy House leader of the Liberal caucus, likes when I quote some of his outrage in the past Parliament about the use of omnibus bills. However, when it comes to justice omnibus bills in particular, I think the need for a lot of these provisions to be considered independently is the best way to go.

Although the bill is certainly not as long as the government's latest budget implementation act, at 850 pages or more, weaving together a variety of unrelated things in the form of one bill, here we have another substantive piece of justice legislation being presented in an omnibus bill.

Breaking it down, there are some good parts and some parts we certainly have some challenges with. I would like to use my opportunity, if I may, to highlight both the good and the bad.

The good is that as a Parliament, we need to show that we can speak with a united voice with respect to zero tolerance for sexual assault and not respecting the consent of an individual in the case of sexual relations of any kind. Therefore, I think it is good that we are having a fulsome discussion on this part of the bill today. In fact, several members have quoted from some of the case law that has led to the need for Parliament to weigh in and be very clear that people cannot provide the consent necessary to engage in sexual activities when they are unconscious. We need to send a clear signal from Parliament. I think the Senate amendments actually take away that clarity somewhat, and I am glad we are having the debate here on proposed section 273.1 in the bill.

The Supreme Court case that drove clarity in this area was very clear. It said that it was not possible for people to provide consent if they were not conscious, even if express consent had been provided ahead of time, when they were conscious. I think Parliament needs to be crystal clear that consent evolves and that there has to be the constant presence of consent and respect. That is what this bill is intended to do. In fact, some of the Senate amendments, which would almost create tests with respect to the standards, confuse the issue. There needs to be a clear signal sent that consent has to be constant. I think that is a signal that, as parliamentarians, we have to send.

I can say, as someone of my generation, that the debate on campuses about no means no and all these sorts of things was not taken seriously in the early 1990s. We are still having debates today about it. An accused will try to suggest that consent was provided sometime earlier. If consent was provided in the context of alcohol or substances, and if someone was unconscious, consent could not be provided.

The Supreme Court was clear. I think Bill C-51 and our updates to the Criminal Code send a very clear message. There is no test to be performed. It is a bright line. Everyone, all Canadians, need to show respect and a commitment to consent in the context of sexual assault cases. It is basic respect. We are in the era of the #MeToo movement and discussions about unsafe workplaces. All these things have been positive in making sure that one has a positive obligation, with respect to one's relations with someone else, to make sure that there is always consent present. I think that is clear.

I am also glad that a number of speakers from several parties have referenced Bill C-337, the bill of the former interim Conservative leader, Rona Ambrose, on judicial training in the context of sexual assault trials. The bench comprises a cross-section of society, and those attitudes need education to make sure that judicial standards adhere to the expectations we have as a society of respecting consent.

We know, in Ms. Ambrose's home province of Alberta, the case of Justice Camp, where attitudes toward a victim by the bench showed just how disconnected some may be. The vast majority of the bench would be explicitly mindful of the complainant in those cases, but we have seen cases in recent years that show that judicial training with respect to consent, in the context of sexual assault trials, is needed, as is education for all members of the bar.

As a member of the bar, I am glad that a few years ago, law societies across the country incorporated continuing legal education requirements for lawyers to make sure that they are aware of expectations with respect to consent and the law. The very fact that there would be some reluctance to have same continual legal education for judges in the context of sexual assault cases is troubling. I know that most justices demand that level of CLE, so I hope that the government, in the context of my starting off my speech by talking about some of the positive elements of Bill C-51, pushes Bill C-337 through. It should not matter that it came from a former Conservative member of Parliament, Rona Ambrose. It should not matter that it came from this side of the chamber if it addresses the same elements I am saying I support in Bill C-51 today. Let us hope there is some movement in the Senate so that in the spring, we can ensure that it is an expectation that all members of the bench have that training so they can guarantee an environment of respect for all complainants who come forward.

The provisions in proposed section 273.1 also show that Parliament is clear in its direction with respect to consent always being a requirement, and if there is any uncertainty, we err on the side of complainants. Everyone should know that if circumstances change, be they the context, consciousness, alcohol or these sort of things, prior consent is not sufficient. We have to be crystal clear on that.

This is also similar to Bill C-75, an omnibus justice bill, which I have spoken to in Parliament. I have also spoken to Bill C-77, on modernizing criminal justice within the context of the National Defence Act. I supported a number of measures in that bill. In fact, the previous government introduced Bill C-71 in the last Parliament to try to update the National Defence Act and the treatment of criminal conduct by members of the Canadian Armed Forces. That is still in a state of flux. All these bills, particularly because they deal with the rights of the accused and the rights of the victims or complainants in these cases, should be given specific attention and not be put into omnibus bills.

I would like to speak for a moment about the fact that this bill is part of the process of requiring a charter statement from the government with respect to legislation before the House of Commons. I have some concerns about that approach, in two ways. First, I am worried that it may send some sort of chill to suggest that the government is trying to inoculate itself by saying that it reviewed the bill ahead of time and has a charter opinion on it, meaning, therefore, that we cannot raise charter concerns or that there is no reasonable basis to have concerns about its validity under the charter by groups that may be impacted by the decision of this Parliament.

The very nature of the charter itself was to give a back and forth test with respect to the will of Parliament, and the ability for the court to determine whether fundamental charter rights were breached directly or indirectly by legislation in the context of enumerated groups under section 15 of the charter, are expressly contained within the charter, or are analogous ground groups, provided by subsequent court decisions.

The balancing test under section 1 of the charter, the Oakes test, which I learned in law school and is some of the first charter jurisprudence, is that balancing of the charter. By issuing a charter statement, I am quite concerned the government is trying to suggest it is doing its own Oakes test, its own charter examination of issues at the time it is passing legislation. I am not suggesting it will cause chill, but I have not have heard an argument from a member of the government bench to suggest this is any different than any government since the mid-1980s, when the charter came into effect.

Suggesting that the seal of approval for the charter is granted by one of these statements is simply ridiculous. It is up to the court to provide that reasonableness and those limitation tests under the provision of section 1 of the charter, which allows a charter right to be violated by legislation, but applies a reasonableness and balancing test to it since the Oakes jurisprudence started.

I will give a couple of examples of why I have this concern. In this Parliament, we have seen many instances of the government acting in a way I firmly believe violates the charter rights of many Canadians. This is germane because just today, shortly before we rise for Christmas, the government is reversing its position on the so-called values screen for Canada summer jobs.

We all know the controversial values test was applied for the first time in the history of this summer employment plan for youth as a clear way the government intended to exclude faith-based organizations and other service organizations from funding related to students. There were concerns from a charter basis expressed from day one when it came to the values test. Is the government suggesting, with its charter statements, that its actions on a whole range of decisions are somehow inoculated because it is providing a charter assessment? That is political theatre. It cannot provide its own charter assessment. It tries to craft legislation that it feels strikes the right balance, but the actual charter determination is not made in this chamber, which writes the laws, but in other courts.

We bow to the Speaker. We have a bar. This is a court. We write the laws, but we do not adjudicate our own laws. This is a very big distinction I have not heard the government express any clear indication on yet.

I will use another example. There have been several violations, in my view, of indigenous peoples' rights with respect to the duty to consult. In fact, I believe Bill C-69 violates that duty. We can look at the approach the government has taken on the cancellation of the northern gateway pipeline, which is one-third owned by indigenous groups. The duty to consult is not frozen in time. It does not exist 10 years before one develops a pipeline or cuts trees in a forest. If one decides to change the circumstances of that consultation, or cancel something that indigenous peoples are a one-third owner of, one has a duty to consult them on the cancellation. This is an ongoing duty.

The fact that the government may have a piece of paper that says this is our charter statement, this is our validation that the bill conforms with the charter, is political and inappropriate, because the government is suggesting this legislation will withstand any judicial scrutiny before the judicial scrutiny is applied. The government is suggesting that this is A-okay. That is not the way it works.

I invite the Minister of Justice and Attorney General and the parliamentary secretary to walk a little past the Confederation Building on the Hill to a building called the Supreme Court of Canada. It is there that the Oakes test was born, the Oakes test where the section 1 charter clause was.

As I have said, the values test that the government did to politicize the Canada summer jobs program would not be inoculated because of a government-produced charter statement nor would some of its actions with respect to Bill C-69, Bill C-75, Bill C-77. These are court determinations.

I do not have any proof because the charter statement concept is part of the government's justice reforms, including in this legislation, but I do have serious concerns that it will send a chill to suggest that the government will not consider valid concerns people have with respect to their charter rights.

I would like subsequent members of the Liberal caucus, particularly the ministers or the parliamentary secretaries, to provide a substantive rationale for their approach with respect to the charter statements. Are they somehow suggesting that previous governments, both Conservative and Liberal, have somehow not conformed to the charter by doing exactly what we are supposed to do as a Parliament, which is to try and find the right balance between the will of the people and certain provisions within the charter? That is done by a court using the Oakes test, doing the balancing. Producing a charter statement does not protect the government from criticism.

As I said today, days before Christmas, the government suddenly admits that its approach on the values test for summer jobs is wrong. This is much like days before Christmas last year, when it broke its promise to veterans on the return to the Pension Act. The Liberals make very good use of the pre-Christmas period not just for parties, but for dumping out their dirty laundry.

I would like to thank the thousands of Canadians from across the country and many of my colleagues in this chamber for representing the charter rights of millions of Canadians with respect to the conduct of the Canada summer jobs program.

Why I am focusing on this part of the bill is because we have to make sure that Canadians, members of the media and members of both Houses of Parliament do not get fooled by the fact that the government validating its own legislation under the guise of charter approval is not actually charter approval.

I am hoping in the remaining debate we can actually hear a cogent argument from the Liberal caucus on this. Otherwise, it seems to be more of the sort of media spin that we hear from the government.

The Prime Minister just yesterday, while leaning on his desk acting like a professor, told the opposition what we should ask and what we should criticize. We know full well what we should ask and we know where our criticisms and critiques are warranted.

Quietly, when the House does not sit, the Liberals backtrack on things, like they did today on the summer jobs values test, like when we rose for Remembrance week, and Miss McClintic, another justice consideration, was quietly transferred to a prison as we had been demanding, and as the break week happened Statistics Canada suddenly pulled back its program.

Like the Chris Garnier criticism, the non-veteran murderer who is receiving treatment funds from Veterans Affairs Canada, on most of the criticisms we have been raising even though they make the Prime Minister uncomfortable, the Liberals have backtracked. We have been doing our job quite effectively.

In the remaining time for debate, I would like one of the Liberal members to stand up and provide a context and a rationale addressing my concerns in regard to charter statements with respect to the bill before us and others.

As I said at the outset, we support the amendments and update of our Criminal Code with respect to sexual assault.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to say that right now, we have an outstanding bill sitting in the Senate, Bill C-377, put forward by the hon. Rona Ambrose. It is an opportunity for our justices to actually be engaged and trained on sexual assault. The government has not pushed that item whatsoever. Regardless of whether the government has put in more or fewer justices, they are not being trained properly. Bill C-377 has been sitting there for the last year and a half. The government could be doing better, especially in working with Senate colleagues, if it is serious about making sure that people alleged to have committed sexual assaults are actually convicted and go to jail. We need to have that sensitivity and empathetic understanding of what is going on for the victims of this crime.

As for Bill C-75, seeing that it is a hybrid bill, I cannot support what the government has done with regard to reducing sentences and convictions when it comes to those people who have victimized someone through sexual assault.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the contributions of the member opposite to this important debate today, particularly on December 6, the 29th anniversary of the Montreal massacre.

My questions for the member opposite are twofold. First, she outlined the important issue of consent in sexual assault and how the statistics demonstrate that it remains an ongoing problem in Canada today. Part of what we are doing is improving education, sensitivity and outreach to all the actors in the judicial system. That includes training for lawyers and judges.

Would the member agree that the record of our government in appointing judges, 56% of whom are women, is a step in the right direction and compares favourably with the record of the previous government, which appointed only 30% women?

Second, she raised Bill C-75 and its relationship to this piece of legislation we are discussing. Bill C-75 includes an important provision to eliminate preliminary inquiries in sexual assault trials so that victims do not have to be revictimized by proceeding through a preliminary inquiry and having to testify again at the actual trial on the merits. Is that a step in the right direction in addressing the trauma sexual assault victims face, which was outlined by the member opposite?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for St. Albert—Edmonton for leading our Conservative caucus, the House and all Canadians through this legislative process to make the Canadian Criminal Code better.

This opportunity has provided me a chance to read, research and develop a much better understanding of the Criminal Code and its importance to all Canadians. I have read that one of the conveniences of the code is that it constitutes the principle that no person can be convicted of a crime unless otherwise specifically outlined and stated in a statute.

Today, we are discussing section 273.1 of the Criminal Code, which the bill would amend to clarify that an unconscious person is incapable of consenting. This reflects the Supreme Court decision in R. v. J.A. in 2011. The bill would also amend section 273.2 to clarify that the defence of mistaken belief in consent is not available if the mistake is based on a mistake of law, for example, if the accused believed that the complainant's failure to resist or protest meant that the complainant consented. This provision would codify aspects of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Ewanchuk in 1999.

Currently, the Criminal Code of Canada states that no consent is obtained where “the complainant is incapable of consenting”. Bill C-51, in subclauses 10(2) and 19(2), would amend this to clarify that unconsciousness is not the only situation in which an individual could lack capacity to give consent to sexual activity.

As indicated in the legislative summary of the bill, the amendment takes into account the Supreme Court judgment that was made in R. v. J.A., requiring active consent throughout every phase of the sexual activity. This is important to note, as this amendment would protect Canadian men and women against sexual exploitation.

I will relate a news story we heard back in 2017. When we were going through the bill put forward by our former colleague, Rona Ambrose, we talked about sexual consent and unconsciousness, and about judges being trained to understand sexual exploitation and assault.

This newspaper story told of a Nova Scotia judge who acquitted a Halifax taxi driver of raping a female fare. She was found unconscious in the back of his cab, partially naked and having urinated on herself. The woman, whose blood alcohol level was found to be three times the legal limit, had hailed the cab just 11 minutes earlier. The Crown has announced it will appeal Justice Gregory Lenehan's verdict, in part over concerns the judge did not properly apply the test for capacity to consent.

The proposed legislation also focuses on a Supreme Court case in 2011. It was very interesting to read the original case in the Court of Appeal in Ontario, and the appeal in the Supreme Court of Canada.

The case before the Supreme Court of Canada was Her Majesty The Queen appellant, and J.A. respondent, and Attorney General of Canada and Women's Legal Education and Action Fund on appeal from the Court of Appeal for Ontario. It reads:

Criminal law—Sexual assault—Consent—Accused and complainant consensually engaging in erotic asphyxiation—Accused...penetrating complainant during period of unconsciousness—Whether Criminal Code defines consent as requiring conscious, operating mind throughout sexual activity—Whether consent to sexual activity may be given prior to period of unconsciousness

For anyone who has a daughter or son, we want to make sure the laws are there to help and protect Canadians.

While I was going through the information regarding the Supreme Court decision, I read some of the background to the decision. I would like to put it on the record. This is from the Supreme Court ruling:

One evening, in the course of sexual relations, J.A. placed his hands around the throat of his long-term partner K.D. and choked her until she was unconscious. At trial, K.D. estimated that she was unconscious for “less than three minutes”. She testified that she consented to J.A. choking her, and understood that she might lose consciousness. She stated that she and J.A. had experimented with erotic asphyxiation, and that she had lost consciousness before. When K.D. regained consciousness, her hands were tied behind her back, and J.A. was inserting—

I will omit the details here, but suffice it to say that it was something a person should have a choice in, and it was not an act the complainant was prepared for. K.D. gave conflicting testimony about whether this was the first time J.A. had performed this act. Ten seconds after K.D. regained consciousness, J.A. ceased doing what he had been doing.

At the end of the day, we have to look at this and understand why there is an issue here. K.D. made a complaint to the police two months later and stated that while she had consented to the choking, she had not consented to the sexual activity that had occurred.

Chief Justice McLachlin and Justices Deschamps, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell ruled, “The legislation requires ongoing, conscious consent to ensure that women and men are not the victims of sexual exploitation, and to ensure that individuals engaging in sexual activity are capable of asking their partners to stop at any point.”

Sharing the background to the Supreme Court's decision and the story of the woman in Nova Scotia provides a great illustration of the challenges and the need for changes to the Criminal Code. With regard to the amendments proposed by the Senate, I support our party's position and the government's decision not to accept these amendments.

This is a very complex issue. The complexity can be seen from Statistics Canada figures from 2009-14. In that period of time, 93,501 sexual assault incidents were reported to the police. Charges were laid in 43% of those, or 40,490 incidents; 49% or 19,806 incidents went to court, and 15,804 cases were completed in court, of which 55% or 8,742 resulted in guilty decisions. Of those, the number of adult cases sentenced to custody was 3,846, or 56%.

I want to look at the first number, the gross number, and the fact that over 93,000 sexual assaults occurred from 2009-15. Many of us would say that is extraordinary. If we think of the population of Canada and the fact that almost 100,000 Canadians have been sexually assaulted in that five-year period, we would be in total awe.

Sexual assault is a problem here in Canada. It is a very complex problem, and there are many key factors that must be assessed. One of the most critical ones, I believe, is consent. According to Planned Parenthood, sexual consent is an agreement to participate in a sexual activity. It states:

Consent is never implied by things like your past behavior, what you wear, or where you go. Sexual consent is always clearly communicated—there should be no question or mystery. Silence is not consent. And it's not just important the first time you're with someone. Couples who've had sex before or even ones who've been together for a long time also need to consent before sex—every time.

This past summer, I had the opportunity to listen to members of the community at the 519 Centre in Toronto, where I spoke to Glen Canning, the father of Rehtaeh Parsons. Although Rehtaeh is no longer with us, Glen advocates for education focusing on sexual consent. In a blog, he writes:

My years without Rehtaeh taught me that kids need to know consent. In the past three years l've learned that the most powerful tool to combat violence against women could very well be the minds of young men. l've learned that if we don't fill those minds with examples of virtue, empathy, affection, tolerance, trust, kindness, courage, and bravery, then those minds will end up being filled with ignorance, racism, sexism, hate, and anger. What would have happened to Rehtaeh Parsons if just one of the boys with her that night was informed about consent and his role in preventing sexual violence?

In summary, I am very glad that we are moving forward and reviewing the information in the Criminal Code, specifically when it comes to consent. This is an area where, as I indicated, a look at the statistics shows we can do better and we must do better. We cannot just be virtue signalling. We cannot just talk about what we should not do, yet do it in the privacy of our homes, or not own up to things we did years ago.

At the same time, as other members have indicated, a lot of the information and a lot of the things we are studying are in conflict with what we see in Bill C-75, specifically with regard to the sexual exploitation of women.

It is wonderful to go ahead with consent, expanding it and having a better understanding to make sure more people are convicted of sexual assault when necessary. However, when it comes to Bill C-75, a slap on the wrist is not enough.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the beginning of this. When this bill was originally brought forward, there was an outcry regarding the measures being taken to minimize the offence of disrupting a service of worship, from which clergy are protected under section 176. We saw it on every social media out there. Twitter, Facebook and all of them were going crazy about the current government coming forward with those measures to repeal section 176. Thousands of people protested that it was wrong, and to the Liberals' credit they appeared to have backed down.

However, my point is that the Liberals backed down on this bill, yes, but then they turned around and put similar wording into Bill C-75, which as we know is now going to the Senate. Therefore, the Liberals hybridized section 176, turning much of it into a summary conviction with a lesser charge.

We live in a time when we recognize religious freedom. That means that as a Christian, I nevertheless expect that in every type of worship service, be it Jewish, Muslim, name the religion, people have the opportunity to worship whom they wish and how they wish. As long as it does not impede anybody else, they have the ability to do that. Lessening the offence of being able to come in and disrupt that service sends the wrong message.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand in the House to debate Bill C-51, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another act.

I would first like to highlight the fact that this is an omnibus bill, containing many changes to a variety of different matters. Similar to many other Liberal promises we have heard in the House, or before the last election, the introduction of this bill breaks another promise not to table legislation of this nature. In debate in the lead-up to the election we had that commitment, just like we had a commitment on the deficit. However, it is another broken promise.

Ironically, Bill C-51 was introduced on June 5, 2017, just after the government House leader called for major reforms that, among other things, aimed to limit a government's ability to introduce omnibus bills. Just a couple of days later, it introduced an omnibus bill.

Second, it would remove a number of sections of the Criminal Code that no longer have any particular relevance. This includes section 365, some of which deals with witchcraft and sorcery; and section 71, related to duelling in the streets. Much of this we can support. Other aspects may be a little more problematic.

It also originally proposed to repeal section 176 of the Criminal Code, which makes it a crime to unlawfully obstruct, threaten or harm a religious official before, during or after he or she performs a religious service. It also makes interrupting or disturbing a religious service a crime. We have voiced our concerns in regard to that in the House many times.

As a number of my colleagues, including the former minister of justice and attorney general of Canada, pointed out during debate on the bill, the Conservatives were the first to identify this grave mistake of the Liberal Justice Minister and to draw the attention of Canadians to this flagrant attack on their freedom to worship without fear in their own way.

I will be splitting my time, Mr. Speaker, with the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

Our highlighting of Bill C-51 and this offensive Criminal Code amendment resulted in significant backlash from tens of thousands of Canadians who signed petitions urging the Liberals to back down on minimizing an obstruction or disturbance of a worship service. The government finally relented, and as such, Liberal members of the justice committee were instructed to introduce an amendment that effectively stopped the repeal of section 176.

That is one of those times where Parliament works, when the Conservatives can bring forward a concern like that. Unfortunately, sometimes it takes the outcry of tens of thousands of Canadians speaking up about what the Liberals were trying to do to our worship services of all different faiths.

While many of my constituents of Battle River—Crowfoot are thankful the Liberals finally saw the light, I still remain stunned by the fact they even contemplated the removal of section 176 of the Criminal Code, let alone attempting to do it.

After steady but relatively small increases since 2014, in 2017, hate crimes in Canada rose sharply. We can see that on the front pages of most papers. It is up 47% over the previous year. For the year, police reported 2,073 hate crimes, 664 more than in 2016. Higher numbers were seen across most types of hate crimes, with incidents targeting Muslim, Jewish and black populations, as well as Christians. These increases were largely in Ontario and Quebec.

Barbara Perry, an expert on hate crimes and professor of criminology at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, was quoted in The Globe and Mail, on November 29, saying, “This is staggering. You don’t see this kind of increase in any sort of crime data”, adding that “the numbers should be a wake-up call for provincial and federal leaders.” She went on to say, “It’s an assault on our core values of inclusion and equity.”

In the same article, Leila Nasr, a spokesman for the National Council of Canadian Muslims, said, “We’re devastated to see the numbers go up yet again.”

As revealed in the Globe and Mail article:

Hate crimes also rose across all categories of religion, with those targeting the Jewish population accounting for 18 per cent of all hate crimes in the country. The surge echos B’nai Brith Canada’s tracking of anti-Semitic incidents, which saw a record last year.

Chief executive Michael Mostyn, in a release that recommended an action plan to counter online hate, as well as enhanced training for police officers, said, “We need real and effective measures to extinguish this rise in hatred”.

The Canadian Race Relations Foundation called the numbers:

....a warning against complacency and....a stark reminder that hate crimes are an attack not only on individuals and their communities but on the very fabric of our society.

As I pointed out, those remarks were issued or reported on just a week ago today regarding the 2017 hate crime statistics, the year in which the Liberals introduced the bill. Again, whatever motivated them to repeal section 176 Criminal Code?

What has motivated the government to retreat on the one hand, while still sending the wrong message that the disruption of religious service is not a serious offence? That is exactly what they have done by taking it out of this legislation and moving it into Bill C-75. Currently, it is a solely indictable offence which, as we know, are for the most serious offences. However, in Bill C-75, by hybridizing it, this offence could be prosecuted as a summary conviction offence which is reserved for less serious offences.

It is important to note that the maximum sentence under section 176, if prosecuted as an indictable offence, is two years. Making it a hybrid offence, the maximum sentence as a summary conviction offence would be reduced by only one day. It would fall into the two years less a day, with the indictable offence being much more than that. Therefore, why the change?

Again, we really have to question why, at a time when hate crimes against religious communities across Canada are significantly increasing, are the Liberals trying to downgrade the seriousness of these offences?

Section 176 is not unconstitutional, has never been challenged in court and is not obsolete. Furthermore, a number of individuals have been successfully prosecuted under section 176. It is the only section of the Criminal Code that expressly protects the rights and freedoms of Canadians to practice their religion without fear or intimidation, a freedom that is a fundamental freedom guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

One can only surmise that despite the outcry from all across the country and them retreating on repealing this offence, the Liberals really do not believe it is a serious crime, just like they do not believe impaired driving causing bodily harm is a serious offence. That is what they have changed again in Bill C-75.

This past Tuesday, the Minister of Justice and the newly appointed Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction took to the air waves to remind Canadians that in two weeks they would be subject to mandatory alcohol screening if they were stopped by the police, something I support, as I want the horrific loss of life and injury due to impaired driving stopped.

While one minister bragged this was a game charger and another defended the change because impaired driving remained the leading cause of criminal death in Canada, both were being disingenuous in that they failed to reveal the fact they had downgraded the offence of impaired driving causing bodily harm. Under Bill C-75, this offence, which is currently solely an indictable offence, becomes a hybrid offence and as such, if proceeded summarily, may result in two years less a day of prison time or worse, a monetary fine.

I would like to state my support for the government motion to reject a Senate amendment to the bill before us today, Bill C-51. Bill C-51 clarifies that consent can never occur when an individual is unconscious, which is consistent with the J.A. decision. The Senate amendment would only lead to added complexity and confusion over what evidence would be relevant to determine consent in sexual assault cases. Instead of adding certainty to the law, it would lead to further litigation.

We cannot afford further delays in our courts due to prolonged cases. Sexual assault victims should be supported, not subjected to undue delays, so for that we commend those measures within Bill C-51.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me a bit of opportunity to veer off and go to some of the things that were pulled out of this bill. I recognize that.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. Certainly, there are practical considerations in getting legislation to move through the House. It takes a certain amount of time. With respect to the schedule of this place, it can be a challenge. I appreciate that it has been incorporated into Bill C-75, which has now been passed to the other place. I await its expeditious treatment of that bill.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, whom I enjoy serving with on the justice committee. I share his concerns about the Senate amendments. Therefore, I want to ask him a question about what he initially spoke of, which was the zombie sections of the Criminal Code that have been found to be unconstitutional.

He cited the Vader case, involving the murder of Lyle and Marie McCann of St. Albert. It was our committee, the justice committee, that wrote to the minister all the way back in October 2016, calling on the minister to move forward with legislation to remove unconstitutional sections. The minister did move ahead with Bill C-39, which is stuck at first reading. The government then put it into Bill C-75. However, that is going to take months to go through the Senate. Why did the government not just get it done and pass Bill C-39? It does not seem to make any sense to me. Can the hon. member comment?

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join this portion of the debate and speak to Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act. Before turning to the specific issue of the amendments passed in the other place, I want to take a few minutes to remind all colleagues about what this important piece of legislation seeks to address and why it is critically important that we support its swift passage into law.

As all members will recall, Bill C-51 was introduced by the Minister of Justice on June 6, 2017. Bill C-51 was not the first criminal law reform bill introduced by the minister that seeks to make our criminal justice and laws fairer, clearer, more relevant and more accessible.

Since its introduction, the minister has introduced other critically important legislation that continues to seek those objectives. Considering also Bill C-75, it is clear that the minister has thought long and hard about the challenges facing our system and has proposed concrete measures to address them. I strongly support the minister's legislative proposals, and I understand that many of her provincial and territorial counterparts, legal academics and criminal justice system actors also support these measures.

Colleagues will recall that Bill C-51 would amend the Criminal Code in three broad ways. First, it proposes amendments that would remove unconstitutional laws. This reflects our government's unwavering commitment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The risks of leaving unconstitutional laws on our books are grave, and in a constitutional democracy like Canada that is grounded in the rule of law, it is important we take the steps necessary to prevent those risks from manifesting, as unfortunately occurred in the 2016 Alberta trial of Travis Vader.

Second, Bill C-51 proposes to remove laws from our Criminal Code that are vestiges of a bygone era and are no longer relevant in modern Canadian society, as well as laws that are redundant and capture conduct addressed by other offences of general application. We should not underestimate the importance of amendments of this nature. Criminal law is a reflection of our values. Offences like blasphemous libel, which targeted criticism against the king and Christianity, have been criticized as contrary to free expression, and have been used by certain regimes to repress free speech. Canada should not be held up as an example by repressive governments that seek to justify their own blasphemy offences as a means of curtailing criticism by pointing to the example of Canada's Criminal Code. I strongly support these amendments.

Turning to the other critically important aspect of Bill C-51, the proposed changes to modernize and clarify Canada's sexual assault laws, it is in this area that amendments were passed by the Senate that necessitate our looking at Bill C-51 again.

As introduced, Bill C-51 brings forward important and welcome changes to our sexual assault laws. One area where it does so is in respect of consent to sexual activity. First, Bill C-51 proposes to clarify the important legal principle confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in its 2011 decision in R v. J.A. that no consent is obtained where a person is unconscious. This amendment has been well received by many, but some stakeholders suggested that it should go further to codify another important principle from the J.A. decision, that consent must also be contemporaneous to the sexual activity in question. I recall this well during the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights' study, which amended Bill C-51 to address this very point.

During our committee's study of the bill, additional amendments were proposed in the area of consent to sexual activity. These amendments were, I believe, inspired by the submissions of the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, LEAF. It suggested that Bill C-51 might extend beyond the scope of its original objective, and proposed amendments that would seek to define when a person is incapable of consenting to sexual activity due to impairment that falls short of unconsciousness, such as cases involving intoxication. To my knowledge, no defence lawyer, Crown prosecutor or victims' organization spoke specifically to this proposal.

As may be recalled, the amendment proposed before the justice committee on this point was defeated due to concerns that it could have had unintended and negative consequences. For instance, concerns were expressed that by focusing entirely on the subjective state of mind of the complainant, the courts might ignore other important objective evidence that might help to establish that the complainant was incapable of consenting.

When Bill C-51 went to the other place for consideration, the legal and constitutional affairs committee there heard from only a handful of witnesses. Nevertheless, much of the discussion at that committee again centred on the issue of consent to sexual activity. Much of the testimony provided was motivated by concerns about sexual assault involving intoxication and the need to have clarity in this area. To be sure, these are legitimate concerns, and I am not trying to minimize the importance of looking closely at this issue.

As a result of these concerns, an amendment was proposed at the Senate committee to again try to specify the circumstances under which a person is incapable of consenting for reasons of impairment that fall short of unconsciousness. After a vigorous debate, those amendments were not passed. Again, the reasons for this related to concerns about the unintended consequences. Nevertheless, when the bill was returned to the Senate at third reading, amendments were made, notwithstanding the calls for caution and concern about the practical implications.

I greatly appreciate and respect the spirit behind the proposed amendments. I agree that it is critically important that we consider changes to our sexual assault laws that would help clarify the law. On the other hand, because of the very sensitive and difficult nature of sexual assault, I believe it is imperative that we only pass laws when we are 100% certain they will not create more challenges for victims and for the accused.

Unfortunately, I am not 100% certain. I am deeply concerned that passing these amendments at this late stage, and without the benefit of greater consultation and consideration, would not provide the clarity that is assumed to result from them. I am concerned that this change could lead judges to ignore other important evidence respecting capacity to consent. I am concerned that these charges focus too squarely on intoxication and do not consider the impact on individuals with cognitive impairments.

For these reasons, I must respectfully oppose the amendments passed in the other place. In so doing, I encourage the government to look closely at the issues raised by these amendments in collaboration with key partners and stakeholders. I support the message to be sent to the other place.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, speaking to the Senate amendments, I believe that adding the word “unconscious” consistent with the J.A. decision would not in any way confuse the law or create uncertainty. I think it provides some degree of clarity.

I reiterate that the wording of the specific subsection proposed in bill C-75 is broad enough to encompass not only unconsciousness but any other reason by which a complainant might be incapacitated.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I spoke to the McCann family about the fact that Bill C-39 was moved into Bill C-75 and quite frankly, they were appalled. They were appalled that the government would include Bill C-39 in a bill that would, among other things, water down sentences for impaired drivers and for kidnapping of a minor and, speaking of sexual assault, for administering a date-rape drug. I voted against Bill C-75. If the McCann family were members of Parliament and could have voted, they would have voted against it too.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, to characterize what is in the bill as defence disclosure is inappropriate and incorrect. I refer the member opposite to the Darrach decision, paragraph 65 of the Supreme Court jurisprudence, which he is fond of quoting.

The member talked at length about the situation with Travis Vader and the McCann family. This is an important issue that affected his community directly and I appreciate his submissions in that regard. However, when the provisions in Bill C-39 that would have eliminated those unconstitutional provisions from the Criminal Code were moved into Bill C-75 and that legislative vehicle is being used to eliminate the very provisions he is talking about, I ask the member why he would have voted against that bill at third reading in this chamber last week?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-51, a massive omnibus bill. Perhaps it is not surprising that when we are talking about a massive omnibus bill, there are some positive aspects in it and other aspects with which I and my colleagues on this side of the House have some concerns.

One of the positives of Bill C-51 is that it seeks to remove sections of the Criminal Code that have been found to be unconstitutional by appellate courts. This is a welcomed effort to help clean up the Criminal Code. Likewise, it seeks to remove sections of the Criminal Code that are obsolete or redundant, which again is a welcome effort to clean up the Criminal Code.

As I alluded to in the question that I posed to the minister a few moments ago, while the government is moving forward with the removal of obsolete sections and sections of the Criminal Code that have been found unconstitutional by appellate courts, it is disappointing that the government has still failed to move forward with the removal of sections of the Criminal Code that have been found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

The minister is quite right that Bill C-75 does include the removal of those unconstitutional sections. However, as I pointed out to the minister, it was all the way back in March 2017 that the government introduced Bill C-39.

Bill C-39 is a very straightforward bill. It is not controversial. There is support on all sides of the House for the passage of Bill C-39, and yet for whatever reason, after the minister introduced the bill on March 8, 2017, it remains stuck at first reading. It is stuck at first reading with really no explanation. This is an issue that I have spoken to on a number of occasions because it really hits home in the community of St. Albert which I am very fortunate to represent.

When we talk about unconstitutional sections of the Criminal Code, zombie sections, and their removal from the Criminal Code, perhaps it sounds a little abstract and academic. However, the consequences of failing to keep the Criminal Code up to date can be very serious.

We saw that in the case of Travis Vader, who was charged and convicted of two counts of second-degree murder of Lyle and Marie McCann, an elderly couple from St. Albert. They were murdered in 2010. It was a very complicated case. The family waited a number of years for justice to arrive. Just at the moment they thought justice had arrived, they found out that, in fact, it had not because the trial judge applied a section of the Criminal Code that is inoperative as the basis for convicting Travis Vader of two counts of second-degree murder. I am referring to section 230 of the Criminal Code, a section that had been found to be unconstitutional going back to 1990, and yet there it was in the Criminal Code.

That prompted the justice committee, on which I serve as a member, to write a letter to the minister calling on her to introduce legislation to repeal these unconstitutional sections. It was a letter that was sent by the chair of the committee, the hon. member for Mount Royal, all the way back in October 2016.

Following that, I stood with the McCann family in December 2016, when we had a press conference in St. Albert to urge the minister to move forward with legislation. Again, to the minister's credit, she did move forward in a relatively quick fashion because the bill was introduced, as I mentioned, on March 8, 2017. Then nothing happened. It stalled.

I have been in touch with the McCann family. They just cannot understand why, on something as simple as removing unconstitutional sections of the Criminal Code, sections that are of no force or effect yet remain there in black and white purporting on their face to represent the law, remain in the Criminal Code.

The minister has not been able to explain why the government could not pass Bill C-39, why that bill is stuck at first reading, why it needed to be copied and pasted into Bill C-75, an omnibus bill. Bill C-75 is a massive bill which, frankly, is controversial in many respects. It saw a number of amendments at the justice committee and is, undoubtedly, going to receive a whole lot of scrutiny when it goes to the Senate. It will likely be months and months and months before the Senate is able to address Bill C-75. Meanwhile, those unconstitutional sections of the Criminal Code are going to be there.

While the Vader case is one case, it is not the only case that a section of the Criminal Code, an inoperative section, has been applied with real and significant consequences to the administration of justice. There was a case in British Columbia back in 2005 in which the trial judge in a murder trial left a copy of a section of the Criminal Code that was inoperative with the jurors. On that basis, the conviction of the accused was appealed. The British Columbia Court of Appeal ultimately upheld the conviction but only because of the fact that the trial judge's instructions to the jury were deemed impeccable by the Court of Appeal.

That is another case, so it is not just the McCann case. We have seen other cases, including the case in British Columbia.

To say that we will just get around to this whenever is not an excuse. It opens the door to another Vader situation, and if that happens, the government will be to blame. It certainly was not to blame for what happened in the Vader case but once that became apparent about the serious consequences that can come through inaction, the fact that it has been now two years, I think, just does not hold water and there really is no excuse. However, it does speak more broadly to the fact that the government, on the big things and the small things, just cannot get it done time and time again.

Another aspect of Bill C-51 when we are talking about inoperative sections of the Criminal Code was the unfortunate decision by the government initially to include section 176 of the Criminal Code among the sections that the government deemed to be obsolete. Section 176 is hardly redundant. It is hardly obsolete. It certainly is not unconstitutional.

Indeed, section 176 is the only section of the Criminal Code to protect clergy from having their services disrupted, something that is very serious and goes to the heart of religious freedom. The government turned a blind eye, the Conservatives called them on it and, as a result, tens of thousands of Canadians spoke out, telling the government that it was wrong.

To the government's credit, it backed down at the justice committee a year ago and agreed to remove the repeal of section 176, and rightfully so. However, not long after backing down on the removal of section 176, the government, in Bill C-75, hybridized section 176, so that instead of its being treated as a solely indictable offence, it would potentially be treated as a summary conviction offence.

While this specific change does not have a significant impact on the maximum sentence, unlike some of the other offences the government is hybridizing, it sends a message, and I would submit that it sends exactly the wrong message. It sends the message that disrupting a religious service, infringing on the freedom of religion of Canadians, not just any freedom but a fundamental freedom in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is not that serious. That is just wrong and why Conservatives have opposed it and stood up in fighting Bill C-75.

A lot of Bill C-51 relates to changes to sexual assault laws in Canada. As I indicated when I rose to ask the minister a question, many aspects of this bill include welcome changes to the Criminal Code with respect to sexual assault laws. Among the positives in Bill C-51 is that it would codify the Ewanchuk decision. That means it would make it absolutely clear that the defence of mistaken belief on the basis of a purported misapprehension or misunderstanding of the law cannot be advanced. It is a positive to have clarity on that and to have the Ewanchuk decision codified.

Another positive change the government is making with respect to sexual assault provisions is the codification of the J.A. decision. The J.A. decision makes clear that in no circumstances can a complainant be deemed to be giving their consent while unconscious. By way of background, in J.A., the accused said that no sexual assault took place on the basis that the unconscious complainant had consented to both being made unconscious and the sexual activity. That argument was successful before the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, holding that for there to be consent, that consent must at all times be contemporaneous; that consent must occur at all times at all stages of the sexual activity. Therefore, Bill C-51 would amend section 273 of the Criminal Code, which contains a list of non-exhaustive factors when consent is deemed not to have occurred. More particularly, Bill C-51 would amend that section to specifically include the word “unconscious” to make it crystal clear that in no circumstances will consent be deemed when the complainant is unconscious.

As the minister went into some detail about in her speech, there were some concerns raised by a number of witnesses, both before the justice committee when we heard from them about a year ago, as well as from witnesses who appeared before the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee. Essentially, their argument was that codifying R. v. J.A. really would not do anything, that the whole issue of consciousness has never really been an issue, and that prior to R. v. J.A. the courts were never really finding there was consent when complainants were unconscious. In that regard, the concern was that by adding the word “unconscious”, an unintended bright line would be established whereby arguments would be put forward that consciousness or lack of consciousness would be a bright line in determining the issue of consent. That was the argument.

That was part of the reason why Senator Pate put forward her amendments, her concern being that there could be some added confusion in those cases where the person was not unconscious, but, for example, highly intoxicated. Unfortunately, while the Senate amendments may have been well intentioned, they would simply cause more problems and solve a problem that really does not exist. They would establish untested factors, which would be litigated, dealing exclusively with the mental state of the complainant. We know from some of the decisions, including the Al-Rawi decision, that it was not the mental state of the complainant that resulted in the acquittal of the accused, but rather the failure of the trial judge to consider some of the other evidence. Therefore, again, the amendments are problematic.

In terms of the language in Bill C-51, it is sufficiently clear, because it speaks of unconsciousness, but then it speaks to all other circumstances outside of that, so the language is broad. On that basis, I am not convinced that it would create the bright line that was said to be a concern by Senator Pate and by some of the other witnesses who appeared before the justice committee. As for whether or not it should be codified, I do think it is helpful. It does provide some additional clarity, and so on that basis I do support that aspect of Bill C-51.

Another area where I agree with the government is in respect to the applicability of the twin myths under section 276. Section 276 of the Criminal Code prohibits using evidence of a complainant's sexual activity for the purpose of advancing two discriminatory myths, namely that the sexual activity of the complainant makes the complainant less believable or most likely to consent. What Bill C-51 clarifies is that in no circumstances may evidence be tendered for the purpose of advancing those twin myths. That is a step in the right direction.

However, one of the areas I do have some questions about with respect to section 276 is an amendment proposed in the bill related to the definition of sexual activity. In that regard, Bill C-51 seeks to amend sexual activity to include “any communication made for a sexual purpose or whose content is of a sexual nature.” There is some concern that the definition may be overly broad. It is understandable why in this digital age, for the purpose of section 276, it makes sense to include communications in the form of text messages with photos or videos, etc. However, there was some concern expressed by the witnesses that it would be broad enough to encompass communications that were immediately before or after the alleged assault, which could be highly relevant in properly determining the case. Communications that might provide some context as to what in fact took place might no longer be admissible as a result of the wording of that section. Therefore, while I support the objective of the section, and the intent of the amendment is a good one, I do have some concerns about its breadth and how it might impact the types of cases I referenced.

On the whole, Bill C-51 is a good bill, but my biggest concern is with respect to the defence disclosure requirements. The defence disclosure requirements require the defence to bring forward an application in order to admit any record relating to the complainant. That application must be brought at least 60 days before trial. What is wrong with that? There are a number of problems I see with it. First, the definition is extremely broad. The wording is “no record relating to the complainant”. To be clear about what that means and what we are talking about, it is not about a record of the complainant involving their sexual activity. That is captured in section 276 of the Criminal Code, relating to the twin myths I just spoke of.

We are not talking about records for which there would be a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as health, therapeutic or educational records involving the complainant. They are already addressed in section 278.1 of the Criminal Code. What we are talking about is any record relating to the complainant. What type of record might that encompass? It could encompass just about anything, regardless of whether there was any connection to a reasonable privacy interest on the part of a complainant. We are talking about joint records. We are talking about Crown records. We are talking about records that might have been obtained by way of a third party application. So broad is the wording of this amendment, it could arguably relate to a record of the accused to the degree that the record was a basis upon which to cross-examine a complainant and therefore would relate to the complainant.

Why is that a problem when we are talking about all these records? We should just think about that for a minute. Let us think about it from a practical standpoint. Put aside issues of trial fairness. Put aside issues of the presumption of innocence. Think about it from a practical standpoint, the mechanics of how this is going to work. From that standpoint, there are very serious concerns.

If we are talking about any records, in most cases we could be talking about thousands of records the defence counsel would have to comb through and bring an application for, and a court would have to go through each record to determine its admissibility, not, by the way, on the basis of relevance and materiality but on the basis of eight factors provided for in Bill C-51, eight factors that have not been tested and have obviously not, to date, been litigated, because the bill has not been passed.

That would create a lot of uncertainty. It would create a lot of new litigation, and it would create the potential for real delay in our already backlogged courts. That would be an issue at the best of times, but it would particularly be an issue in light of the Jordan decision, where we have cases that are being thrown out due to delay, yet here is something that is likely to have a very significant impact on adding to delays. That is just if the defence counsel brings an application 60 days before the trial.

Again, thinking about how this might play out, there might be a record that does not seem to be that relevant, that does not seem to really assist the defence or relate to needing to be tendered as evidence, but an issue might arise at trial, and suddenly that record that did not seem very significant becomes extremely significant. Then what would we have? We would have a mid-trial application, with the possibility of a mid-trial adjournment, contributing to even more delay. That would slow things down. It would create delay, but for what purpose, what objective?

There are some who say that it would be consistent with the Mills decision of the Supreme Court in that this would guard against fishing expeditions on the part of an accused against a complainant, except for the fact that we are talking about records already in the control and possession of the accused. Therefore, there would be no fishing expedition to be had, because they would already be in the control of the accused. That argument that has been put forward does not hold a lot of water.

Another argument put forward is that it would protect the privacy of a complainant. A great deal of sensitivity is required to do what is possible to protect the privacy of complainants. I wholeheartedly agree with that. There is no question that victims are victimized when they go through the assault and can be victimized again as they go through the trial and the court process. There is no question that efforts need to be made to protect victims. However, again, we are talking about any record, regardless of whether the victim had a reasonable privacy interest and regardless of the nature of the document. As long as it related to the complainant in some way, one would need to go through this process. To the degree that it would protect complainants and the privacy of complainants, it would add a lot more than that due to the very broad wording of that section. That is a concern.

While it seems to go a lot further than necessary to protect a complainant, it would potentially have very significant consequences for the ability of an accused person to advance a defence, and ultimately, for the court to fulfill its role as a proof finder. It would significantly impact upon the presumption of innocence. It would significantly impact upon an accused person's right to make full answer and defence. When we speak about the right to make full answer and defence and how important it is, I cite the Supreme Court in R. v. La, wherein the court stated, at paragraph 43:

The right to make full answer and defence is one of the pillars of criminal justice on which we heavily depend to ensure that the innocent are not convicted.

How would this provision potentially impact the ability of an accused to make full answer and defence? In one significant way, it would impede the ability of an accused person to cross-examine a complainant. When we talk about cross-examination, I quote the Supreme Court again on the important role of proper, thorough cross-examination in getting to the truth. The Supreme Court said, in the Lyttle decision, that “without significant and unwarranted restraint” it is “an indispensable ally in the search for the truth.”

Cross-examination is an important tool to guard against wrongful convictions. One might ask how this disclosure would impact upon the ability of an accused to make a full answer and defence and undertake a thorough cross-examination of a complainant. It would in one very simple way. It would create a positive disclosure requirement ahead of a trial. This bill would mark the first time in the Criminal Code that there would be a disclosure requirement for an accused person to provide to the Crown in advance of a trial, aside from a handful of narrow exceptions that have been well accepted and are not in the least bit controversial. The bill would require not only that evidence be disclosed to the Crown before a trial but that the evidence be disclosed to a complainant. Not only that, under Bill C-51, a complainant would have the right to counsel at that application. Therefore, instead of two parties at the application, the Crown and the defence, there would now be three parties, the Crown, the defence and the complainant.

Let us think about what that would mean with respect to the trial. The defence would have records in its control. It would now be tendering them and having to argue why they were relevant and should be admitted. That would provide a whole lot of insight into potential lines of cross-examination and the strategy of the defence. That could have a huge impact when it came to trial.

There is no question that the vast majority of complainants are telling the truth, but not all complainants are telling the truth. I want to emphasize again that the vast majority are, but not every single complainant is. In those rare cases when a complainant was not telling the truth, this positive disclosure requirement would open the door to tipping off someone who was not telling the truth before it got to trial to understand the defence strategy and the potential lines of cross-examination. It would certainly give someone who was not telling the truth a huge advantage going into the trial. The person could change his or her story or address perceived shortcomings in the case against the accused.

It gets even more complicated than that because of what I referred to with respect to who the parties to the application would be, because it would not just be the Crown and the defence. It would also be the complainant's lawyer. The complainant would have the right to be represented through his or her lawyer.

However, if it was, for example, just the Crown that was a party to the application, and we did have a situation where a complainant was maybe not telling the whole truth on issues around preparation leading up to that application, those questions could be asked at the trial of the complainant, but because the complainant would be represented by counsel, suddenly those questions become subject to solicitor-client privilege. Again, it is another impediment to asking questions, to cross-examining a complainant.

Make no mistake, I fully support every step that is necessary to protect complainants, having regard for the sensitivity of sexual assault and the profound toll it can have on victims. However, the issue in this particular instance is that we are talking about something that is so broad, so unwieldy, that while the intention may have been a good one, it misses the mark when it comes to fully protecting complainants all the while doing much to undermine the ability of an accused person to make full answer and defence.

When I spoke previously on Bill C-51, I quoted Madam Justice Molloy of the Ontario Superior Court, which I think bears reading into the record again. Madam Justice Molloy, in the Nyznik decision in acquitting three individuals of sexual assault, stated that:

Although the slogan ‘Believe the victim’ has become popularized of late, it has no place in a criminal trial. To approach a trial with the assumption that the complainant is telling the truth is the equivalent of imposing a presumption of guilt on the person accused of sexual assault and then placing a burden on him to prove his innocence. That is antithetical to the fundamental principles of justice enshrined in our Constitution and the values underlying our free and democratic society.

Bill C-51, with respect to the defence disclosure requirements, does not strike the right balance of protecting the victim while guarding against the potential for wrongful convictions. Therefore, I flag that issue as a serious concern that I have. However, on the whole, there are positive aspects to the bill that we are happy to support.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am not going to speculate as to whether or not a previous bill, Bill C-39, could have been passed by unanimous consent.

What I am confident in and very pleased with is that Bill C-75 includes the former Bill C-39 to remove these zombie laws that my friend has spoken about. It is contained within Bill C-75, which has passed third reading in this House and is on its way to the other place. I look forward to the debate and discussion in the other place on this important piece of criminal justice reform and to the speedy passage of Bill C-75 so that we can, in fact, remove the zombie provisions that are contained within the Criminal Code.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is positive that Bill C-51 seeks to remove redundant and obsolete sections of the Criminal Code. What is unfortunate is that the government still has not been able to move forward with the removal of the so-called zombie laws, the sections of the Criminal Code that have been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

The minister mentioned Bill C-75, which includes the removal of those provisions. However, the minister neglected to note that Bill C-39 was introduced all the way back in March 2017, which would have removed those sections. Why did the government not pass Bill C-39, which could have been passed unanimously in this House almost two years ago?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, this gives me an opportunity to acknowledge the parliamentary secretary's important work on advancing our justice legislation. His questions give me the opportunity to highlight broadly what our government continues to do with respect to addressing sexual assault and gender-based violence.

We have invested significant dollars in budget 2018 to combat gender-based violence, including sexual assault. We have provided $25 million over five years for legal aid for victims of workplace sexual harassment. We and the Minister of Status of Women are embarking on a national strategy to address gender-based violence and to support judicial education and training, among other initiatives, in the Department of Justice, such as the victims fund. We continue to work with my counterparts in the provinces and territories to continue to have a fulsome response to gender-based violence.

In terms of our legislative agenda on law reform, there is a direct connection between Bill C-51 and Bill C-75, which is the criminal justice reform bill that addresses efficiencies and effectiveness, all of which are intended to ensure that we are protecting and supporting victims of crime.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the minister's comments today, especially on December 6 as we recognize the 29th anniversary of the Montreal massacre, on a bill that would address head-on gender violence, this day and everyday. I thought the minister captured the sentiment that “no” does not mean “yes”, a simple but important phrase.

I want to ask the minister two questions. One builds on the question that was posed by the NDP with respect to other efforts that have been made not just by the justice ministry but across government, to assist in addressing gender-based violence. I am thinking about the access to justice components of pro bono law in Ontario, the victims fund, as mentioned by the minister, and also our efforts to support legal aid.

Second, could the minister connect this bill to another important initiative, which is our response to the Jordan decision in Bill C-75 to clean up provisions that have been found unconstitutional? That bill would reduce backlogs and delays. How does that address our efforts to respond to Jordan?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved:

That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that the House respectfully disagrees with amendments 1 and 2 made by the Senate to Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, as they are inconsistent with the Bill’s objective of codifying Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence on a narrow aspect of the law on sexual assault and instead seek to legislate a different, much more complex legal issue, without the benefit of consistent guidance from appellate courts or a broad range of stakeholder perspectives.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand to speak to Bill C-51, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another act, and to respond to the amendments from the other place in this regard. It is a particular honour for me to stand to speak to the bill on white ribbon day, which, as we heard, commemorates the massacre that occurred in Montreal 29 years ago today.

As part of my mandate commitments I have been reviewing the criminal justice system with a view to ensuring that it is meeting its objectives and maintaining public safety. My review is also intended to ensure our criminal justice system is fair, relevant, efficient and accessible, that it meets the needs of its victims, respects an accused's right to a fair trial and is better able to respond to the causes and consequences of offending.

These are broad and important objectives, so our government has approached these tasks in phases. In Bill C-39, we removed passages and repealed provisions in the Criminal Code that had been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada, so that the law as written reflected the law as applied.

In Bill C-46, we significantly modernized Canada's impaired driving laws in order to protect the health and safety of Canadians and to provide law enforcement with the resources they need to effectively detect and prosecute impaired driving.

In Bill C-75, we seek to tackle the delays that are encumbering our courts.

Today, with Bill C-51, we continue to build on our government's commitment to reviewing the criminal justice system and to making all aspects of the criminal law fairer, clearer and more accessible to Canadians. In particular, the bill seeks to modernize the Criminal Code by repealing or amending provisions that courts have found unconstitutional or that raise unavoidable charter risk.

The bill also aims to ensure that offences in the Criminal Code continue to reflect today's society and its values. To that end the bill removes a number of obsolete or redundant criminal offences that no longer have a place in our criminal law.

Further, the bill creates amendments to the Department of Justice Act. Pursuant to these amendments, the Minister of Justice would have a statutory duty for every government bill to table in Parliament a statement that sets out the bill's potential effects on the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the charter. For every one of the bills I have tabled, I have tabled charter statements. These amendments would provide greater openness and transparency about the effects of government legislation on charter rights.

Finally, the bill seeks to clarify and strengthen the law on sexual assault in order to prevent misapplication of the law and to help make the criminal justice system fairer and more compassionate toward complainants in sexual assault matters.

The importance of these reforms cannot be overstated, and I would like to recognize and acknowledge all those who have been subject to sexual assault and gender-based violence. Sexual assault is a serious problem in Canada. It affects communities across the country and across all social and economic barriers, and it remains a significant barrier to women's equality.

Addressing violence against women is an issue of the utmost importance to me and to our government as a whole. We remain deeply committed to ensuring that our criminal justice system is responsive to the needs of sexual assault victims. To that end, we have provided significant funding for judicial education relating to sexual assault law, so that judges are better educated on this crucial area of law.

We have also made millions of dollars available through the victims fund to enhance the criminal justice system's response to sexual violence. These resources support important work such as pilot projects in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador to provide four free hours of independent legal advice to victims of sexual assault.

It is through efforts like these, as well as those contained in Bill C-51, that we are working to effect a culture shift in our criminal justice system and to foster an environment where sexual assault complainants feel empowered to come forward for justice and support.

We should be proud that Canadian laws around sexual assault are robust and comprehensive, even more so with the proposed steps set out in Bill C-51. However, we must also recognize that more work lies ahead, and we must continue to strive for further improvements. In short, we must continue to work to reduce the incidence of sexual assault in Canada and to ensure more victims feel encouraged to come forward and report their experiences to police.

To that end, Bill C-51 would make important changes to strengthen the law of sexual assault. These changes include creating a new regime governing the admissibility of evidence in the hands of an accused, where the evidence is a complainant's private record.

In addition to the strengthening the law of sexual assault, Bill C-51 would also clarify the law. It would do so by making clear that consent must be affirmatively expressed by words or actively expressed through conduct. This principle codifies the Supreme Court of Canada's 1999 Ewanchuk decision, and makes it explicit that there is no consent unless the complainant said “yes” through her words or her conduct. Passivity is not consent, and “no” does not mean “yes”.

Finally, as introduced, Bill C-51 proposes to clarify one aspect of the law pertaining to consent or capacity to consent to sexual activity by codifying the Supreme Court of Canada's 2011 decision in J.A. In J.A., the Supreme Court held that an unconscious person is not capable of providing consent to sexual activity. Therefore, the bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code to state explicitly that an unconscious person is incapable of consenting, but also to clarify that a person may be incapable of consenting for reasons other than unconsciousness.

To pause for a moment, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the members of the other place for their very careful study of Bill C-51. While the other place supported most of the bill, it adopted amendments related to the determination of a complainant's incapacity to consent to sexual activity in the context of sexual assault.

By way of background, many stakeholders welcomed Bill C-51's proposed sexual assault reforms after its introduction. Some offered suggestions concerning the elaboration of the Criminal Code consent provisions to reflect J.A. In part, those witnesses argued that the J.A. decision stands for a broader proposition. They noted that the court held that our consent law requires ongoing conscious consent and that partners need to be capable of asking their partner to stop at any point.

In other words, they suggested that the bill should be amended to reflect an additional principle articulated by the Supreme Court in J.A. to the effect that consent must be contemporaneous with the sexual activity in question.

After hearing from a number of witnesses on the question, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights agreed, and amended to clarify that consent must be present at the time the sexual activity in question takes place. Our government agreed with that point, and we were happy to see that the justice committee amended Bill C-51 at that time so it would codify this broader principle in J.A. Doing so was in keeping with the objectives of the bill, including to ensure that the criminal law is clear and reflects the law as applied.

However, some stakeholders offered additional suggestions concerning our proposed codification of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in J.A. They suggested that the provision that would codify that no consent is obtained if a complainant is unconscious be entirely removed. While the House committee did not amend the legislation to this effect, the other place nonetheless proceeded to adopt amendments that would eliminate this provision.

In its stead, the other place proposed a list of factors to guide the court in determining when a complainant is incapable of consenting.

According to the proposed amendments, complainants are incapable of consenting if they are unable to: one, understand the nature, circumstances, risks and consequences of the sexual activity; two, understand they have the choice to engage in the sexual activity; or three, affirmatively express agreement to the sexual activity in words or active conduct.

I would like to be clear. I agree that courts could benefit from guidance in making determinations on a complainant's incapacity to consent when she or he is conscious. The proposed amendments underscore some very significant issues in the area of consent. I also agree that intoxication, short of unconsciousness, represents challenges in the adjudication of sexual assault cases.

For one, as Bill C-51 specifically recognizes, incapacity applies to a broad range of cases well beyond those in which intoxication is an issue. This is an important conversation that we must continue to have. It is for this reason that I plan to consult with a variety of stakeholders on this issue moving forward to determine whether further action is helpful with respect to our common goals and if so, how this might be effectively accomplished.

In taking the time we need to get this right, we recognize just how complex the law of consent is. There is no clear guidance from the Supreme Court or other appellate courts to which we can turn for an exhaustive definition of what incapacity means. In addition, because Bill C-51 proposes to legislate on a very narrow aspect of the law of consent, more detailed guidance and specific instructions on this further issue are needed from stakeholders, as well as those who would be impacted by the further changes in this area. Without this guidance, the risk of unintended consequences is very real.

Moreover, the amendments made in the other place on this issue, though very laudable in their aim, unfortunately do not assist courts in adjudicating incapacity cases. For one, the amendments focus on concerns that arise in cases where the complainant is conscious but intoxicated. As a result, our government has concerns about the potential impact of the amendments on the law governing incapacity to consent in other types of incapacity cases, including those where incapacity is due to a more stable state, such as individuals living with cognitive impairment.

I also wish to note a couple of points concerning the way the courts currently treat these issues.

First, appellate decisions show that a complainant's ability to understand that he or she has a choice to engage in sexual activity or not is determinative of incapacity. However, it is not clear from the existing case law whether the other elements proposed in the amendments are determinative of incapacity or merely factors to be taken into consideration, supported by circumstantial evidence in assessing capacity.

For example, in overturning the Al-Rawi trial decision earlier this year, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal rejected incapacity to communicate as a determinative test for incapacity to consent. As a result, courts may well have difficulty interpreting the proposed provision.

Furthermore, the amendments' proposed factors focus solely on elements that are internal to the complainant and may lead some courts to overlook relevant circumstantial evidence in the determination of incapacity. Though the complainant's subjective state is important, there is a risk that the amendments will lead courts to overlook other evidence that bears on the complainant's capacity. This was also an error of the trial court in this case, as noted by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.

The amendments adopted in the other place would also prohibit drawing inferences about the complainant's capacity to consent to the sexual activity at issue from evidence of capacity to consent at the time of another sexual activity. These amendments simply restate a well-settled principle of law, which is already proposed for codification in Bill C-51. That principle is that consent must be contemporaneous with the sexual activity in question. This principle applies equally to capacity to consent. Each allegation of sexual assault must be considered on its own merits. The law is clear in this regard and the bill already proposes to codify it.

In short, the proposed changes are well-intentioned, but will not achieve their aim and, in fact, carry great risk of unintended consequences in what is a difficult yet critical area of law. Sexual assault law is too important to leave any room for error. If the definition of incapacity is to be provided, it is imperative we get it right.

If we are to alter this complex area of law in such a significant way, we must be informed by adequate analysis and debate in both chambers as well as by a broad range of stakeholder perspectives, including prosecutors from whom neither of the committees in this place or the other had the opportunity to hear. In addition, we need to consult with the defence bar, police associations and victims groups.

It is our obligation to ensure that the hundreds of sexual assault cases that are prosecuted every day in the country are not negatively affected by an amendment that has yet to be subject to full discussion and deliberation.

As I mentioned before, in order for these issues to receive the treatment they deserve and require, I will and have committed to study the issue of incapacity, with a view to striking the right balance on this important matter. I am grateful to the witnesses who appeared before the Senate committee for suggesting that this issue be the subject of further study. I look forward to consulting with them further as part of my future review.

Our government continues to work toward fostering an environment where survivors of sexual assault feel empowered to come forward and trust the system they turn to for justice and support. Consulting on and studying the issue of capacity to consent while conscious will form an integral part of that effort.

I am incredibly proud of our government's efforts to date within the area of sexual assault law. I am confident that our continued efforts will help to ensure that all victims are treated with compassion, dignity and the respect they deserve.

Bill C-51 is an important part of our work on this issue. It is also consistent with our broader efforts to ensure that our criminal law is responsible to the needs of all Canadians and that it reflects our values. Our government will continue to find ways to improve upon our criminal justice system so it keeps Canadians safe, respects victims, responds to the needs of vulnerable populations and addresses the underlying social causes of crime. I am proud of the role Bill C-51 will play in helping us to achieve these goals. I look forward to the bill's expeditious passage to ensure these important reforms are enacted without further delay.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House: (a) any recorded division requested in relation to the third reading stage of 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, or the third reading stage of Bill C-86, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, be deferred until Monday, December 3, 2018, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment; and (b) at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions on Thursday, November 29, 2018, the House revert back to the rubric “Motions” for the purpose of considering a motion to concur in the 66th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Criminal Code

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House: (a) any recorded division requested in relation to the third reading stage of 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, or the third reading stage of Bill C-86, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, be deferred until Monday, December 3, 2018, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment; and (b) at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions on Thursday, November 29, 2018, the House revert back to the rubric “Motions” for the purpose of considering a motion to concur in the 66th Report of the Standing Order Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not think anyone in Canada would look at a 900-page budget bill with legislative changes inside of sections. Recently, Bill C-75 lightened the penalties for many serious crimes. It had 23 sections where legislative changes were hidden inside of sections making other legislative changes. I have to say that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. It is the same with these omnibus bills that the Liberal government campaigned against, and yet it sits here day after day and introduces them in the House.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will resume third reading debate of Bill C-81, the accessibility legislation.

Our intention for tomorrow is to call Bill C-75, justice modernization, at third reading. We sincerely hope that Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers reach an agreement. However, if they do not, we will call government Motion. No. 25, concerning the resumption of postal services, for debate tomorrow.

On Monday, we will consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-86, Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2. This will also be the business for Tuesday and Wednesday.

Criminal Code

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this Senate public bill, Bill S-240, which proposes amendments that seek to tackle an issue that is of concern internationally and to Canadians, and that is the illicit trafficking of human organs.

Before I discuss the substance of this relatively small but important piece of proposed legislation, I would like to spend a few minutes discussing the issue on which it focuses. As I mentioned, this issue has affected many other countries around the world, yet as my hon. colleague for Winnipeg North has said, it is important to note that, to our knowledge, no known cases have yet occurred in Canada, nor would we want them to.

Organ trafficking is a lucrative and dangerous form of transnational organized crime. According to a 2015 study by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, this activity purports to net in excess of $1 billion U.S. annually in illegal profits. What this illicit revenue is used for can be far-reaching, but one can well imagine that some of it is funnelled into other criminal ventures, which can undermine public safety, fuel corruption and negatively impact the rule of law.

It is also important for members to understand what it is we are talking about when we say “organ trafficking”. According to the Council of Europe Convention against Trafficking in Human Organs, the only international treaty on this issue, trafficking in human organs includes the removal of organs from a person who has not provided free, informed and specific consent or who has received a financial benefit in exchange for the removal of organs.

We know that organ trafficking puts lives at risk. Medical procedures that might be performed in substandard and unregulated environments can impact those whose organs are being removed or those who are seeking organs themselves. Quite simply, this is an appalling and dangerous business, and it requires a strong legislative and operational response. It is against this backdrop that I would like to turn my attention to the substance of Bill S-240.

As I said earlier, this legislation is short and proposes amendments to both the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. However, despite the protests of my colleague across the way, there are still some questions we must address.

I will start with the Criminal Code proposals, the most significant of which relate to the creation of new criminal offences punishable by considerable periods of imprisonment. Bill S-240 would enact four new offences targeting organ trafficking and related conduct.

The first offence, in proposed paragraph 240.1(1)(a), would prohibit obtaining an organ in order for it to be transplanted into one's body and in a situation where the person who has received the organ knew or was reckless as to whether or not the person who provided the organ gave informed consent. This particular proposed offence appears to be focused on the beneficiary of the organ and not on anyone else who may be involved in organ trafficking generally.

The second offence, in proposed paragraph 240.1(1)(b), would more squarely address the facilitators. This offence would target those who carry out, participate in or facilitate the removal of an organ in cases where they know or are reckless as to whether or not a person provided informed consent to have the organ removed.

The third offence, in proposed paragraph 240.1(1)(c), would address those who enable illegal organ removals by prohibiting acting on behalf of or at the direction of or in association with a person who has removed an organ and where the accused knows that the organ was removed from someone who has not provided informed consent or was reckless as to that fact.

Finally, Bill S-240 proposes an offence at proposed subsection 240.1(3) to target those who are involved in obtaining an organ for consideration. In essence, this offence would make it illegal to obtain an organ for money, even in cases where the organ was provided by someone who provided free and informed consent.

As I mentioned, these proposed offences would be subject to a significant maximum penalty, imprisonment for 14 years. As with other indictable offences, a sentencing court would also have discretion to impose a fine of any amount.

I am interested in our discussion of these proposed new offences, and I say this because I have a number of questions on these proposed new offences. While I will not be able to raise all of them here this evening, I wonder, for example, whether it is the role of Parliament to use criminal law to target someone who has purchased an organ, perhaps in another country where it may be legal to do so, in a situation where the individual who provided the organ did so freely, in a safe manner and under circumstances that were closely regulated. This type of action would be captured by the bill, because the bill also proposes to allow the prosecution in Canada of Canadians who go abroad to purchase organs.

These are extremely difficult and complicated situations. I can well understand why some who are faced with the prospect of serious health consequences or even death and who cannot otherwise obtain a necessary organ might look to other options for saving themselves or someone they love.

On the other hand, I also recognize the motivation behind the proposal and the need to ensure that individuals, often from developing countries, who may be vulnerable to abuse given their own economic situation, are protected from potentially exploitative practices.

Bill S-240 proposes a definition of informed consent that would be a key feature of the new offences. I would note that, as introduced, the bill did not propose to define this term but that a definition was added by the Senate out of concern for the need to be clear in the law, particularly given that we are talking about criminal offences.

From my own perspective, I welcome the changes by the Senate in this regard, in that they try to make the law clear and clearly understood. At the same time, the Senate committee did not appear to consider the impact of this change in any significant detail. I wonder, for example, whether this definition of informed consent is consistent with the approach that is taken in the medical assistance in dying regime or whether defining it in the Criminal Code in the manner that has been done is consistent with how that term is understood in the health law context.

I look forward to hearing more and considering these points further. I would also like to comment briefly on the changes proposed to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which would result in someone who has engaged in conduct captured by three of the four proposed offences being inadmissible to Canada. In thinking about this proposed change, I wonder whether it is, strictly speaking, essential given that the current laws on inadmissibility already address criminality and organized criminality. I am curious as to why the offence prohibiting the receipt of an organ for money would not provide a basis for excluding someone from Canada when the other newly proposed offences would.

There can be no doubt that Bill S-240 is targeting an important issue and this issue is deserving of our attention. However, as we are talking about criminal law, which is one of the most blunt and powerful instruments available to a government, I think it is critically important that we do our due diligence and fully examine the proposals contained in this bill and the full range of consequences that flow from its changes.

I worked on Bill C-75, which has several hundred clauses, and being in the cut and thrust of such legislation is hard work. We need to do the homework and take the time to make to make sure that the laws to be passed in the country are fair and balanced for all concerned.

Report Stage

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this important bill, which affects entire segments of our justice system and is essential to the organization of our society.

However, I have no choice but to start this brief speech by saying that the government's approach has left a very bad taste in my mouth. I am choking on this gag that has been forced on me.

The Liberal government is once again imposing a gag order. It has used this tool over 50 times in the past three years to prevent parliamentarians from discussing and fully debating this type of bill, which will affect our justice system, the way justice is meted out in our country, and the rights of victims and accused persons.

Once again, the Liberal government is refusing to allow us to take the time we normally would to conduct a full and exhaustive study of a bill. It is the same broken record, the same old story. The Liberals promised to restore confidence in our institutions, to restore Parliament's credibility, and to once again allow parliamentarians, MPs, to fully participate in discussions. Instead, the government is once again muzzling us and sweeping us aside.

Bill C-75, which we are debating today, is the government's response to the Supreme Court's ruling in Jordan. The court was examining some very long delays in some complex cases. These delays represented a denial of justice for the accused. The cases were never-ending, going on for years.

The Jordan decision set limits. For a normal case, there must not be more than 18 months between the time when charges are filed and the trial is concluded. There are, however, some exceptions. In some cases, the maximum may be 30 months.

The Jordan decision was meant to prevent justice from being unduly delayed or denied, but it has also led to the release of criminals who essentially escaped justice, an unforeseen consequence of the decision. When cases go beyond the time limit set by the Jordan decision, the accused in these cases walk free and never have to face justice or face the charges that were filed against them.

That being said, the government's response must be to determine how to free up the justice system and ensure that criminals are made to stand trial and cannot escape conviction and be released.

That would not necessarily be a good thing from a public safety perspective. We want to keep that from happening again. We agree with the Jordan decision because it was based on sound reasons and grounds, but it has had unintended and dangerous consequences for our society and our fellow citizens.

Is the government's response adequate? That is where we disagree with the Liberal government. We do not think that the solutions set out in Bill C-75 will meet the objective of speeding up the court system so that any accused persons are duly tried within the time frame set out in Jordan. The simplest and most effective solution would be to put more resources into the system so that more files, more cases and more charges can be dealt with more quickly. There are a number of things the government could do to make that happen. The easiest one would be to appoint judges. If there were more judges, then there would be more trials. If there were more trials, then they would be handled much more diligently and would take less time.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government has been dragging its feet on this for three years, and there are still quite a few vacant seats on federal court benches. We are still waiting for those decisions to be made.

To the NDP, this is not about being tougher. The NDP believes that until the government decides to invest in the judicial system, open courts, appoint judges and hire clerks so everyone in the legal system can meet these deadlines, anything else is just a half measure and could even make things worse.

Before getting into preliminary inquiries and routine police evidence, I would like to take two minutes to mourn yet another broken Liberal promise.

This bill is 300 pages long and covers all kinds of things. One might have thought that, while making such major changes to our judicial system, the Liberal government would have taken the opportunity to keep its promise to scrap the mandatory minimum sentences brought in by the Stephen Harper government.

During the campaign, the Liberals told us they would get rid of those mandatory minimum sentences because they made for a bad system that prevented judges from doing their job properly. They said they wanted to restore flexibility to the judicial system and empower judges to exercise judgment because no two cases, no two situations, and no two trials are identical. There are always slight differences.

The Conservatives, meanwhile, took a right-wing populist approach to mandatory minimum sentences. They wanted to provide a show of force and send a message to criminals that they would not get away with anything. Instead, judges' hands were tied, as legislation took away their ability to determine, based on a full understanding of the evidence presented, the best way forward and the most appropriate sentence for an accused.

This is even more disappointing considering that not only was it one of the Liberals' promises in their election platform, but it was also included in the mandate letter given to the Minister of Justice. The mandate letter said that mandatory minimums were a priority issue for the Liberals, yet the Liberals did not include this important matter in their criminal justice reform legislation. This is a lost opportunity to implement real, meaningful reform.

We are left, then, with the status quo, and judges still have no discretion around sentencing. Defence counsel will have no incentive to negotiate a plea, and the number of cases going to trial could increase. Once again, the Liberals missed the boat. This problem could have been solved.

I would like to take a moment to quote a few people. Amanda Carling, Emily Hill, Kent Roach and Jonathan Rudin wrote an article earlier this year in The Globe and Mail. The authors believe that mandatory minimum sentences are a bad idea. They argue that Parliament cannot possibly know all the varieties of offences and offenders who might commit them. Furthermore, such sentencing does not take into account the various circumstances offenders might find themselves in, for example, whether offenders live in abject poverty, have intellectual disabilities or mental health issues, have experienced racism or abuse in the past, or have children who rely on them. The authors added that mandatory minimum sentences do not allow judges to decide whether incarceration is necessary to deter, rehabilitate or punish a particular offender.

I think that is a major point that the Liberals should have included in this bill, but they missed the mark. Let us not forget that the courts are a reflection of the social problems and the social reality in our communities. This bill not only offers solutions that will not help clear the backlog in the system, but it does very little to recognize the root causes of the court backlogs, the myriad of social problems such as poverty, addiction, mental health problems, marginalization, and so forth. Investments and social support are urgently needed to reduce the burden on the courts and address the complex issue of over-representation of minorities, especially indigenous or racialized persons in the prison system.

In closing, I want to point out that the NDP is particularly concerned about the provision authorizing the admission of routine police evidence presented by way of affidavit. In other words, if we consider the fact that this routine evidence is presented through an affidavit, there is no opportunity during a trial to cross-examine the police officer on this piece of evidence. We think this could infringe on the rights of the accused to a full and complete defence.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been participating in this debate quite a bit throughout the day.

The member for St. Albert—Edmonton sent out a message via social media that said that he thought it was incredible that I and others were defending the hybridization of serious criminal offences in Bill C-75 by trying to distinguish which were serious and which were less serious. He went on to talk about kidnapping and said that kidnapping is always serious.

We are not saying that kidnapping is not serious. We are saying that there are a range of ways offences can be committed and therefore a range of ways in which we could look at the seriousness of offences, and we would leave it to the prosecution to make that determination. It is not up to a politician to look from within this chamber and decide what the range of seriousness is within an offence. That happens in a court room. It is up to the prosecution and the judge to make that determination.

When my hon. colleague talks about hybridization, does he think it is fair that we would leave it up to the prosecution to decide the range in which offences could be committed and therefore that the correct sentencing for those offences could be applied within our justice system?

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate of Bill C-75. I would like to use my time today to discuss some aspects of amendments to the selection of juries. As we know, jury reform is an area of shared jurisdiction and Parliament is responsible for the criminal law and the rules in the Criminal Code setting out the framework for in-court jury selection. The provinces and territories are responsible for determining, for example, who is eligible for jury duty and the process by which the jury roll is compiled. Bill C-75 proposes several reforms with respect to the in-court jury selection process.

First, is the abolishment of peremptory challenges. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights heard several witnesses testify on jury reforms. Several legal experts and advocates expressed strong support for their elimination, as it would finally put an end to discriminatory exclusion of jurors.

Kent Roach from the University of Toronto stated:

The proposed abolition of peremptory challenges in s.271 of Bill C-75 is the most effective and efficient way to ensure that neither the Crown or the accused engages in discrimination against Aboriginal people and other disadvantaged and identifiable groups when selecting a juror.

Brent Kettles from Toronto said:

...having peremptory challenges cannot help but lower the public confidence in the administration of justice when members of the public and perspective jurors watch perspective jurors excluded on the basis of no reason, on the basis of no evidence, and without any information.

When those exclusions are based basically on the gut feeling of who is likely to be sympathetic to one side or the other, then that doesn't give the public or perspective jurors a feeling that jury selection is happening in a way that is fair and impartial, and also represents the community.

Legal expert Vanessa McDonnell noted:

It's important to recognize that these challenges have historically been, and can be, used against accused persons to their detriment. We have to balance the perceived benefit of having the peremptory challenge in your pocket to challenge someone whom defence counsel doesn't feel quite right about against the very real risk, I would suggest, that these challenges are going to be used in a way that disadvantages the accused person. My view is that, on balance, the potential harm, not only to the system but to accused persons, is greater than any benefit that accrues.

Discrimination in the selection of juries has been documented for decades. Concerns about the discriminatory use of peremptory challenges and its impact on indigenous people being under-represented on juries were raised in 1991 by Senator Murray Sinclair, then a judge with the Manitoba aboriginal justice inquiry.

More recently, we heard from retired Supreme Court Justice Frank Iacobucci, who studied these issues in his 2013 report on first nations representation on Ontario Juries. Having read these reports and after hearing from many experts on the topic, I am confident that Bill C-75 proposes the right approach in abolishing peremptory challenges. It is a simple and effective way to prevent deliberate discrimination and the arbitrary exclusion of qualified jury members.

Furthermore, to bring greater efficiencies to the jury selection process and to make it more impartial, the bill proposes to empower a judge to decide whether to exclude jurors challenged for cause—for example, because they are biased to one side—by either the defence or prosecution.

Currently, such challenges are decided by two laypersons called “triers” who are not trained in the law. This process has been problematic, causing delays in jury trials even before they begin and appeals resulting in orders for a new trial.

The proposal would shift the responsibility for such challenges to judges, who are trained adjudicators and therefore better placed to screen out impartial jurors. The proposed change reflects a recommendation made in 2009 by the Steering Committee on Justice Efficiencies and Access to the Justice System, a group established by the federal-provincial-territorial ministers of justice, comprising judges, deputy ministers of justice from across Canada, defence lawyers, representatives of the bar associations and the police. It is also consistent with what is done in other common law countries, such as England, Australia and New Zealand.

I am confident that this change in procedure would result in improvements in the overall efficiency of our jury trials.

There are also several proposed changes to modernize and update the challenge for cause grounds. Notably, the proposed change to reduce the number of jurors with criminal records for minor offences who could be challenged and excluded from jury duty would help address concerns that excluding individuals with minor criminal records disproportionately impacts certain segments of society, including indigenous persons, as noted by Justice Iacobucci. It would also assist in improving broader participation on juries, and thus, jury representativeness.

In conclusion, the jury reforms in Bill C-75 would mark critical progress in the area of promoting fairness, diversity and participation in the jury selection process. These improvements would also enhance efficiencies, as well as public confidence, in the criminal justice system.

I call upon all members of the House to support this transformative bill.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on Bill C-75, which is officially called an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to other acts. Once again, we have before us another omnibus bill.

Just two weeks ago, I spoke on the budget implementation act, part 2, which was an omnibus bill as well, which of course followed the BIA 1, which was also an omnibus bill. Those bills had sections inside of sections making legislative changes.

When the Liberals were in opposition they railed against omnibus bills, so much so that they actually put it into their campaign pledge. If we go to Liberal.ca, it is still there. This is what it says about omnibus bill. It starts, of course, by attacking Stephen Harper, and what Liberal talking point would be complete without blaming Prime Minister Harper? It says, “Stephen Harper has...used omnibus bills to prevent...properly reviewing and debating...proposals. We will...bring an end to this undemocratic practice.”

When we say that, of course, we put our hand over our heart. However, despite their pledge, here we have another omnibus bill. Perhaps that pledge meant they would prevent others from bringing omnibus bills, but not the Liberals.

If we go to the famous Liberal mandate tracker, what does it say on this promise? Under the “unfair and open government” part, it says they will end the use of omnibus bills. Funnily enough, we have an omnibus bill here, the budget implementation act, part 2, and part 1 is on omnibus bills.

Despite that, under the Liberal mandate tracker under “End the improper use of omnibus bills...” it says it is completed and fully met. Of course, this is the same mandate tracker that is judging balancing the budget by 2019-20. It says it is under way with challenges. The government has stated, its own finance department has stated, we will not see it balanced until 2045. However, somehow it was promised for 2019, and by 2045, it is under way with challenges. It makes me think that if the Liberals were the head of the Titanic, after hitting the iceberg and while it is going down, the Cunard Line reaches out to the captain and asks, “How are you making out on your trip?” and the response is, “Well, we are under way with challenges”.

Moving on to Bill C-75, I agree with a few items in this omnibus bill. With over 300 pages of changes, one has to be able to find a few good things. Bill C-75 would repeal unconstitutional provisions in the Criminal Code. That is fair and good. It would increase the maximum prison term for repeat offences involving intimate partner violence. It would provide that abuse from a partner is an aggravating factor on sentencing. We agree with that and fully support it. It would provide more onerous interim release provisions. Again, we can get behind that. It makes some efforts to reduce delays in the judicial system by restricting the availability of a preliminary hearing, increasing use of technology to facilitate remote attendance, and providing for judicial referral hearings to deal with administration of justice offences involving failure to comply with release conditions or failure to appear.

That being said, I have many grave concerns with the bill, mostly around how it waters down penalties for crimes. The Liberals are claiming they want to push through Bill C-75 using time allocation in order to speed up the court process, and also because of the Jordan ruling. The big problem is, the Liberals are not able to get their act together and appoint judges. It is one thing to make small steps in this way, but until they get their act together and appoint judges, we are going to continue with justice delays and people being released under the Jordan ruling. There have been hundreds of cases tossed due to delays because the government has been unable to do its job and appoint judges.

There are about 2,000 more applications before the courts to dismiss cases because of delays. We had a gang hit man in Calgary accused of three murders, and suspected by the Calgary police of committing 20 murders. He was released from his trial for the three murders he was charged with, because of delays, because we do not have enough judges. We had a man accused of murder, charged in Edmonton, released because of delays, because the government cannot get its act together and appoint judges. We had a killer in Quebec released because of delays. Possibly the worst was a monster in Nova Scotia who took a baseball bat and broke the ankles and shins of his baby. This man was released because the government is too incompetent to do its job and appoint justices. This is an issue that they have to get hold of and they are failing Canadians.

I am pleased that the Liberals did listen to the Conservatives and other opposition members at committee and backed away from having lighter sentences for some crimes, such as terrorism-related offences and advocating genocide. It makes one wonder why it takes us, in committee, to force the government to back away from lightening a sentence for advocating genocide.

Just two weeks ago in the House, we heard the Prime Minister, the opposition leader, the NDP leader, the Green Party leader and members of other parties stand up and make wonderful speeches, apologizing for the disgrace of Canada's not accepting the MS St. Louis and the genocide that happened. The same week, we had a concurrence report from committee about the genocide against Yazidi women, a report that, to the credit of my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill, dragged the government, kicking and screaming, into the light of recognizing that this had indeed been genocide. Despite everything ISIS has done in slaughtering these people, member after government member stood up to say that the UN had not decided it was genocide and that we could not call it that.

At least the government has recognized this and is not watering down the sentences for advocating genocide. However, I have to ask, why does it take the opposition to demand the government make this change?

As I mentioned, I have serious concerns about the watering down of serious crimes in this bill and reduced sentences for many serious crimes, including sometimes just a monetary fine. I want to go through a few of them.

One is prison breach.

Then there is municipal corruption, the influencing of municipal officials. Members will recall a couple of ex-Liberal cabinet ministers who went on to pursue careers in municipal politics who were charged with fraud. Maybe they were just doing a favour for their compatriots.

There is also influencing or negotiating appointments or dealing in offices. Actually, we now have the Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade being looked at for the clam scam. Perhaps they are trying to do him a favour.

Then there is obstructing or violence to or arrest of officiating clergyman. This one is especially egregious. The Liberals tried to suspend this under section 176. There were special protections for clergyman performing ceremonies, whether church ceremonies, funerals, or other religious ceremonies. The Liberals tried to take that protection away. The opposition fought back. They promised they would not do that, and yet here in this bill they are reducing that crime.

Let us think about it. Two weeks ago we heard of the massive anti-Semitism that results in the genocide of Jewish people. This is two years after the massacre at the mosque in Quebec and just a month after the defacing of the Talmud Torah School, the Jewish school in my riding, with swastikas. Now we have the government saying that it is okay, that we do not need special protection for religious figures and clergymen.

Other crimes the Liberals are watering down include keeping a common bawdy house. Now, that may be great for parliamentarians, but certainly not for Canadians.

Then there is punishment for infanticide. As I mentioned earlier, we had a gentleman, a monster in Halifax, who was released after breaking the bones of his baby. Here we have a bill that allows for a reduction in sentencing for infanticide.

Another is concealing the body of child.

A further one is driving offences causing bodily harm. Again, we just legalized marijuana. We do not have a proper way to measure the impairment. Police departments have said they are not ready, and here we have the government going out of its way to reduce possible penalties for that.

Others include material benefit—trafficking, abduction of person under age of 16, abduction of person under the age of 14.

There there is forced marriage. Just in committee yesterday, we heard that in Sudan, Somalia and the Congo something like 50% of young girls are being forced into marriage. We have the government saying that we need to do more to prevent that, and we do overseas, but why is it reducing the crime here?

Again, to wrap up, I am sure this bill has wonderful intentions, but the government should look at fulfilling its responsibility of filling judicial vacancies and focus on victims and society, not on making things easier for criminals.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her contribution to Bill C-75.

She made reference to the limitation of preliminary inquiries only to those cases where the maximum sentence is life behind bars. She is quite right that the evidence before the committee overwhelmingly was that it would not reduce delay and that, in fact, it might increase delay because preliminary inquiries help weed out cases, particularly weak cases.

However, in addition to that, I was wondering if she could speak to this life criteria. It seems to be quite arbitrary, because there are certain offences where the maximum sentence may be life and others where it is not. In terms of the sentencing guidelines of case law, one would expect a similar sentence to be imposed, but yet in one case a preliminary inquiry would be available, in the other case it would not. It seems not to make a lot of sense.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do recognize the amendment, but it kicks it to the provinces to act and the question is whether they will act to deal with the question of making sure law students can participate in hearings.

The bail issues and not recriminalizing people for things over which they really do not have control go directly back to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Morales. I think we have done a partial job in Bill C-75, but I think we could have done more.

As my hon. colleague will remember, a number of my amendments went to that question of making sure that we really thought through the levels of conditions of addictions or poverty that would make it virtually impossible to meet certain bail provisions. We could have done more, but I agree there are steps in the right direction in Bill C-75 to respond to R. v. Morales.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise today at report stage of 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. This is an omnibus bill that addresses matters related to the Criminal Code of Canada.

At first, everyone in our society who deals with major justice issues were quite pleased with what the Minister of Justice had to say. There is a clear need for reform. Unfortunately, many in the legal community and elsewhere who are calling for real reform are disappointed.

There is a great sense of disappointment. The longer we work with Bill C-75, the more the disappointment deepens. Michael Spratt, the former chair of the Canadian Criminal Lawyers' Association, has been quoted in this debate before. As he put it, “It all sounded so good. But it has all gone so wrong.”

I did attempt to make improvements to the legislation. Members of this place will know that while my status as leader of the Green Party of Canada does not allow me to sit on any committees, through the work of the PMO, first under former primer minister Stephen Harper and now under our current Prime Minister, I have what some might think of as an opportunity but I have to say it is an enormous burden that increases my workload. It is rather unfair because if it were not for what the committees have done, I could have been presenting substantive amendments here at report stage. That is my right as a member of Parliament and not of one of the three big parties. I have very few rights as a member of Parliament with one seat for the Green Party, but one of those rights was to be able to make substantive amendments at report stage. My rights have been subsumed into what, as I said, was done first by the Conservative government and now by the Liberals, to say that I have an opportunity to present amendments during clause-by-clause study at committee, although I am not a member of the committee. I do not have a right to vote, but I get a chance to speak to my amendments.

It was under that committee motion I was able to present 46 amendments. I participated vigorously in the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-75. It was a very discouraging process as very few amendments from opposition parties were accepted. Most of my amendments went directly to testimony from many witnesses who wanted to see the bill improved and I am disappointed that none of my 46 amendments made it through.

I should say that some of the worst parts of Bill C-75 were changed on the basis of government-proposed amendments. One of the ones that had worried me a great deal was the idea that in a criminal trial, evidence from the police could come in the form of a written statement without proffering the police officer in question for cross-examination. That was amended so that the prosecutors cannot use what is called routine police evidence without having someone put forward to be cross-examined. There was also the repeal of the vagrancy law and repeal of the law about keeping a common bawdy house.

However, many other sections of this bill cry out for further amendment, so at this point I want to highlight those sections that really need to be amended. We are at report stage, and third reading will come in short order. We are already under time allocation. I hope that when this bill gets to the other place, as it inevitably will, the other place will pass amendments that are needed.

It is quite clear that this bill, in some key areas, would do the opposite of what the government has promised, particularly in relation to disadvantaged people, particularly in relation to the status of indigenous peoples in our prisons, and particularly in relation to access to justice and fairness which have actually been worsened in this bill. That is not something I expected to be standing up and saying at report stage, but there it is. It is massively disappointing, and I hope that the Senate will improve it.

One of the things that was done, and I am not sure it was the best solution, but it was clearly a response to the Stanley case where it was a massive sense of a miscarriage of justice. When there is a jury, it is supposed to be a jury of the accused person's peers. If the person is an indigenous youth and his or her jury is entirely Caucasian, it is not exactly a jury of his or her peers. One of the reasons this happens is the use of peremptory challenges. Therefore, I do appreciate the effort in Bill C-75 to eliminate peremptory challenges. However, I want to go over the way in which this bill actually takes this backward.

The effort here of course, as many other hon. members have pointed out, is that this bill is in direct response to the Jordan decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in 2016. In the Jordan case, the delays were so profound that the case could not proceed. Therefore, I think it is very clear that all Canadians feel the same sense of concern with the new trial timelines of 18 months for provincial courts and 30 months for superior court. No one wants people to be freed, who at this point still have the presumption of innocence, because they have not gone through their court case. If the evidence is good enough, the prosecutors bring those people forward. The idea that they are just let out of jail because the trial times and the processing of that person took too long offends our sense of justice. The Government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada were given a very quick jab toward justice by the Supreme Court of Canada. However, have we got it right?

In an effort to speed up trials, I will mention one thing first, which is the issue of eliminating preliminary inquiries. There was a great deal of evidence before our committee that the Government of Canada and the justice department did not have good data to tell us that preliminary inquiries were a source of great delay.

I want to quote from one of the legal experts. Bill Trudell is the current chair of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers. He described preliminary inquiries like this, “They're like X-rays before an operation”. That is a very useful thing to have. They do not happen all the time, but when we remove them without good evidence as to why we are removing them, we could end up having innocent people convicted. In fact, Bill Trudell said that as difficult as it was for him to say, he thinks more innocent people will be convicted because we have taken out preliminary inquiries without quite having the evidence that that was a good thing to do to speed up trials.

We have heard a lot from my friends in the Conservative caucus about the question of hybridization. We have the problem that, having changed the range of sentencing, the effect of Bill C-75 is to also increase the sentencing for a summary conviction from six months to two years.

The Liberals have also added in Bill C-75 provisions about the use of agents that I do not think were thoroughly thought through. To give a better sense of agents, and this goes to the question of access to justice, suppose people are not quite poor enough to get a legal aid lawyer but are trying to navigate the legal system and they cannot afford a lawyer. In many of those cases, for a very long time, criminal defendants have had the benefit, particularly if they are low income, of law school clinics, which are young lawyers in training. They are student lawyers working as a clinic to provide legal services to people charged with lesser offences. It is too late to amend as here we are at report stage. I hope the other place will amend this to ensure access to legal aid clinics out of law schools in order to help marginalized groups navigating the legal system. I think this is an unintended consequence. I am certain that people in the Department of Justice did not ponder this and say that one of the problems is too many poor people are getting help from law students. That was not a problem that wanted solving, that was a very good and ongoing process that has been recklessly compromised in this bill. I have to hope that when it gets to the other place, we can fix this and make sure that in the definition of “agents” we exclude law students and law schools running clinics.

There are other aspects of this bill where the Liberals have just failed altogether to deal with the issue of the disproportionate number of indigenous people behind bars. They have taken in some aspects, in taking things into account. However, one of my amendments, that I really regret was not accepted, was we have no definition of “vulnerable populations”, and a lot of the evidence that came before the justice committee suggested we need such a definition. I tried one and it failed. Maybe the other place can try again. I hope that Bill C-75 will see more improvement in the other place before it becomes law.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

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.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Yellowhead for his contribution to today's debate on Bill C-75. I would offer two comments and one brief question.

The first comment is that the term “intimate partner” is used in this legislation for a deliberate reason. It is a more expansive term than just “spouse”. Violence occurs, as we have heard in today's debate, against half of all women in this country, and that violence is perpetrated within couples that are married but also in couples that are unmarried or, indeed, just dating.

The second point is that there was a factual error in the comments by the member opposite. He indicated that a reduction in penalties has been provided for a list of offences, and he listed them. Hybridization does not ipso facto reduce a penalty; hybridization allows the Crown to proceed by way of summary conviction or by way of an indictable proceeding. It does not predetermine the sentence.

The member for Yellowhead is convinced of the need to ensure there are tougher penalties for people who are convicted of crimes. On this side of the House, we agree, which is why we are taking the summary conviction limit from the six months it has traditionally been to two years less a day. I invite the member's comment on that provision and on whether he approves of that increase in the penalty for summary conviction offences to two years less a day.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to 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. This omnibus bill is over 200 pages. It includes major reforms to our criminal justice system.

With a concerning level of rural crime in my riding, the safety of my constituents is a high priority for me. The safety of Canadians should be the number one priority of any government.

While there are some aspects of the bill that I agree will help to reduce delays in the court system, there are several problems associated with it with which I have concerns.

First, I want to talk about the bill itself. As I mentioned, this is a 204-page omnibus bill. I want to remind the Liberals that during the election, they promised they would never table omnibus bills, but here it is. However, 80 other promises have either been broken or have not even started.

This is still on the Liberal web page, which I looked it up the other day. It states that omnibus bills “prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating [the government's] proposals. We will change the House of Commons Standing Orders to bring an end to this undemocratic practice.” Yet here we are today discussing an omnibus bill.

It is a mixed bag that amends a total of 13 different acts in various ways. The bill needs to be split into more manageable portions so we can properly study it. What is more is that the government also has thrown in three bills that have already been tabled, Bill C-28, victim surcharge; Bill C-38, consecutive sentencing for human traffickers; and Bill C-39, repealing unconstitutional provisions. Perhaps if the government could manage its legislative agenda more effectively, it would not need to re-table its bills, push through omnibus bills or repeatedly force time allocation and limit debates.

The Liberals are failing to take criminal justice issues seriously. In March they tabled this bill the day before a two-week break period in our sitting schedule. Then they waited a half a year. Now they have returned it when there are only a few weeks left before our six-week break period. This does not give the image that justice is a high priority for the Liberal government.

The government's lack of judicial appointments has resulted in violent criminals walking away without a trial. As of November 2, 54 federal judicial vacancies remained. Appointing judges is an effective solution that is much faster than forcing an omnibus bill through Parliament. I remember in April when the minister talked about 54 more federal judges, yet here we are, almost the end of the year, and still no action.

I also want to talk about what is actually in the bill. Again, some parts of the bill I can support. For example, I agree with efforts to modernize and clarify interim release provisions and provide more onerous interim release requirements for offences involving violence against an intimate partner.

Modernizing and simplifying interim release provisions is an important step that will assist many rural communities across the country that do not have the resources to navigate lengthy procedures and paperwork. For that reason, I support this.

However, I wish the stricter release requirements were not limited to offences involving domestic abuse. With an alarming rate of rural crime in my riding and across Canada, which is often carried out by repeat offenders, we need to make it more difficult for all violent criminals to be released. Otherwise, we have a revolving door where they commit a crime, get arrested, get released and start all over again.

I was at a rural crime seminar in the city of Red Deer last Friday. A former police officer from Calgary city police told us about one of the cases he had worked on recently. An Alberta offender was charged with 130 offences, ranging from break and enter to car theft, equipment theft and possession of stolen property.

At the last sitting in Alberta the judge released him. Out the door he went. Where did he go? He took off to B.C. Now we understand they are looking for him in British Columbia, which has 100 similar outstanding charges against him in a very short period of time. This person should not have been released.

These criminals prey on farmers and elderly people. They know that RCMP resources are lacking in these areas and take full advantage of that. What the government needs to do is to provide our law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to stop the revolving door of criminals in and out of the courts. That is happening constantly.

Victims should be the central focus of the Canadian criminal justice system rather than special treatment for criminals, which is why our party introduced the Victims Bill of Rights. The government, unfortunately, does not agree since Bill C-75 would repeal our changes to the victim surcharge and reduce its overall use and effectiveness.

I believe in protecting victims of crime, which is why I introduced my own private member's bill, Bill C-206, that would ensure that criminals who take advantage of vulnerable people, specifically adults who depend on others for their care, are subject to harder, sure punishment.

Last month, a gentleman from my riding of Yellowhead was a witness before our public safety and national security committee. He shared with us his first-hand experience. It was a terrible story. This gentleman, whom I consider a friend, is aged 83. He heard his truck start up one day when he was having lunch with his wife. He walked outside to see his truck being driven out of his yard. He lives about 70 kilometres from the town of Edson where the local police office is located. He picked up his phone and was about to call when his vehicle returned to his yard. Two youths, one aged 18 and one aged 17, got out, knocked him to the ground, repeatedly kicked him in the face, the chest, the ribs, attempted to slash his throat, and then drove off again. This gentleman is 83. This is still being dealt with in the courts despite the fact it happened a year ago. This gentleman has had to attend court 10 times so far and the matter is still not over.

We on this side of the House will always work to strengthen the Criminal Code of Canada and make it harder for criminals to get out.

I am concerned that portions of Bill C-75 would weaken our justice system. Through the bill, the Liberals would reduce penalties for the following crimes: participating in criminal organizations, various acts of corruption, prison breach, impaired driving, abduction, human trafficking, forced marriage, and arson, just to name a few of many in the bill. Participation in terrorist activities and advocating genocide were deleted from this list only because a Conservative amendment was accepted at committee. Those are just a few examples of more than a hundred serious crimes that could be prosecuted by summary conviction and result in lighter sentencing, or even fines.

The government is failing to take criminal justice issues seriously. Reducing penalties for serious crimes sends the wrong message to victims, law-abiding Canadians and to criminals.

I am also concerned about the wording used in the section that would increase maximum sentences for repeat offences involving intimate partner violence. I support increasing these sentences but I do not support replacing the language of “spouse” with “intimate partner”. I believe both should be included. I understand that not all domestic abuse is within a spousal relationship, so there is a need to have "intimate partner" included. However, it should not replace "spouse". Rather, both terms should be included.

Another problem I have with Bill C-75 is the reversal of protections for religious officials.

When Bill C-51 was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in January, two amendments were moved by my Conservative colleagues. The first amendment proposed keeping section 176 in the Criminal Code of Canada, while the second aimed to modernize the language of that section. The Liberals agreed to them and that was good, but they need to listen more.

Imagine my disappointment when I read in Bill C-75 that section 176 in the Criminal Code was once again under attack. Assault of officiants during a religious service is very serious and should remain an indictable offence.

Thank you for the opportunity to present my views.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his work on the justice committee. His question is a very important one. It is true that when it comes to administration of justice charges, it is mostly the vulnerable communities that are again disadvantaged, people who are poor, or who suffer from mental illness or substance abuse. They go to work and, by accident, they break their curfew.

For example, they are waiting for a bus and it does not arrive, or it is late or they miss the it and there is no other way for them to get home, so they are stuck outside. They cannot afford to take a taxi. They are barely making ends meet. It is very punitive on them to have an administration of justice that penalizes them for the circumstances of their life, such as being poor, or suffering from substance abuse or mental illness. This is one of the reasons why Bill C-75 is so important to our criminal justice system.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her important contribution to the debate on Bill C-75. She outlined an important component of the bill, which is the access to justice component. I would like her to comment on another component of the bill that addresses an issue for the community she represents in Montreal and the community I represent in Toronto, and that is the overrepresentation of certain groups in the justice system. We know indigenous Canadians, black Canadians and other racialized groups are overrepresented in the justice system. The bill would treat administration of justice offences differently. These are offences such as breaching curfews when those curfews do not allow people to get to their places of employment because they have to work at night, for example.

Could the member comment on how we are changing the administration of justice offences so people are no longer criminalized for things such as breaching a bail condition and how that assists the marginalized communities that exist in Montreal and in other cities across the country?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke about the reverse onus for offences related to intimate partner violence. That is a step in the right direction. We on this side of the House fully support that aspect of Bill C-75. However, it seems like for every step forward that the government makes, it takes two steps backward.

On the issue of violence against women, could the hon. member speak to the fact that under Bill C-75 offences such as forced marriage or administering a date rape drug are now being reclassified as hybrid offences, in other words, less serious offences? Therefore, yes, one step forward, but it seems many steps backward when it comes to standing up and defending the rights of women.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-75.

There is no doubt that we need to modernize our criminal justice system, and in order to do so, we need to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other acts. Some of the issues that must be reviewed are the lengthy pre-trial delays, changes to how administration of justice issues are managed, legislative changes, as well as judicial case management. However, in my humble opinion, the most important amendment has to do with how the justice system deals with certain accused persons.

Some groups, like indigenous peoples, minorities and people with mental illness or substance abuse issues, are overrepresented in our criminal justice system. These groups are among the most vulnerable members of our society, yet they are sometimes treated unfairly by the justice system. One could even say they are treated with hostility. Our justice system cannot treat different people differently. This is unacceptable, and it has been going on for a very long time.

Bill C-75 allows us to correct these inequalities in the justice system. Complainants who wait years to testify and witnesses who want to move on and get back to a normal life have no choice but to wait because of delays in the system. These delays interfere with their need to feel safe and the justice system's mission to maintain public order. Then there is the matter of the accused who wait years to be declared innocent or those who commit heinous crimes but end up walking away because of the dysfunctional system.

I am running out of time, so I will focus on the issue of bonding. This is an aspect of criminal law that directly affects the presumption of innocence. This fundamental concept is protected under section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter guarantees that any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. Section 11(e) of the Charter provides that any person charged with an offence has the right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause. Section 7 of the Charter states that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

When it comes to bail, everyone should be fully entitled to their charter rights. Every one of us must receive equal treatment in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other laws. Unfortunately, that does not always happen. For example, defendants who live in remote communities are disproportionately affected by the existing bail system. Statistically, poverty, unemployment and substance abuse are more prevalent among people who live on reserves, and, as a result, they own very little. Bail is also required of people who have to travel from their remote communities to big cities because the judicial system does not serve their hometowns. How are these people supposed to come up with bail? When the financial burden is so great, is that not a violation of people's charter rights?

That is why Bill C-75 is so important. It would allow for less burdensome conditions of release for those who are already disadvantaged compared to other members of society.

This will also help break the cycle of the most vulnerable Canadians being overrepresented in the justice system.

Another reason that Bill C-75 is very important is because it deals with remote appearances. This bill would bring the system in line with current technology and all of its benefits. It would be invaluable to have access to audioconference and video conference technology, allowing all parties involved in the process, including judges, to participate.

It would be helpful if accused persons could participate via these types of technologies instead of having to fly in from remote communities, which takes considerable resources. These technologies would alleviate the financial burden on society and give accused persons better access to justice. Furthermore, complainants would not have to travel from their remote communities, since they could use these technologies to seek justice.

Courts would have discretionary powers and would consider the individual circumstances of each case, so these technologies could be used for individuals to appear remotely at each stage of the justice process.

The reason for the amendments to remote appearances is to help ensure the proper administration of justice, which includes fair and efficient criminal proceedings, while respecting the right of the accused to a fair trial and to a full and complete defence, as guaranteed by sections 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

If we take another look at plea bargaining, a lot can go wrong. For instance, the accused will often plead guilty in order to minimize the cost of their defence. Those living in precarious situations are less likely to properly defend themselves. This once again demonstrates the need for Bill C-75. It is very sad to think of an innocent person pleading guilty because it is faster and cheaper.

Clause 270 of the bill highlights an important fact. Many vulnerable people are not always aware of the magnitude of their actions and decisions. This can include adolescents, aboriginal people, minorities and people who want to avoid the stress of long delays before the trial. They are more likely to plead guilty for those reasons.

In addition to the provisions set out in section 606 of the Criminal Code, the amendment would require judges to be satisfied that the facts presented support the charge before accepting a guilty plea.

Bill C-75's modernization of the bail system also includes changes regarding intimate partner violence. It is unfortunate that not until recently the matter of intimate partner violence was not given the attention it warranted. The changes to the criminal justice system in this aspect are in keeping with our government's commitment to give more support to those who have faced domestic violence.

Statistically, intimate partner violence is the most common form of violence reported to the police. One in two women face intimate partner violence. This is a dire statistic. It means that 50% of our female population has been victimized while in an intimate relationship. Those who are already vulnerable, such as the elderly, trans, people with disabilities and the indigenous population, face these things in a difficult way. One time is one time too many when people who are accused of intimate partner violence are given bail and go back and attack the very same partner. This reason alone demonstrates to all of us the urgency in having intimate partner violence directly addressed during bail hearings.

The amendments I have mentioned are crucial for the protection of those facing such forms of violence. For all of these reasons, I support 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.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her good work and standing up for victims in Canada. On this side of the House, our priority is to stand up for victims.

In my riding, in the member's riding and other members' ridings, we have all heard from MADD Canada, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which has major concerns about the incidence of drunk driving on our roads, often resulting in bodily harm or death. Within the last few weeks in the House, we have heard of family members who have died as a result of drunk driving. We need to take this seriously.

I would ask my colleague to comment on the application of the reduction of the penalties for impaired driving causing bodily harm in Bill C-75, what the negative impacts of that could be and, if she has time, comment on whether she is hearing the same thing from MADD Canada in her riding or from other constituents who have expressed concern about the weakening of this provision.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House and speak to 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.

It is disappointing to again see the Liberal government bring in a 300-page omnibus bill after the Liberals specifically said in their campaign promises that they were not going to do that. However, a broken promise a day seems to be the order of the Liberal government.

That said, let us think about what we are trying to accomplish in our judicial system and then look at how Bill C-75 may or may not fit into that.

What we first want to do in our criminal justice system is define the behaviour that is criminal. We want to say which things are not acceptable in Canadian society. That would be goal number one. Goal number two would be to make sure that appropriate punishments are established to deter people from perpetrating these crimes. We want to make sure that we have those appropriate punishments defined. We want to make sure that victims rights are protected, that we are not just focused on the criminal but we are also focused on making sure that victims rights are protected. Then we want to make sure that whatever rules we decide, we actually enforce them in a timely way.

I think that is really what we want to get out of the criminal justice system.

If we look at the Conservative record, everyone in Canada well knows that the Conservatives want to be tough on crime. We want to ensure that if people commit crimes, they do the time. We want to make sure that people are not just let off the hook.

If we look at the Liberals' record on this, it is not quite so clear. In fact, I would argue that the criminals seem to be making out very well under the Liberals.

The first issue is the Liberal government's failure to appoint judges so that cases could be tried in a timely way. According to the Jordan principle, if they are not tried in a timely way, within two years, those people will go free. We have seen murderers and rapists having their cases thrown out of court because there were not enough judges being appointed. Clearly, that is a failure of the Liberal government. We are in the fourth year of a four-year mandate and there are still vacancies, which is causing cases to continually be thrown out.

If the government were responsible, at some point it should have taken a look at perhaps more minor crimes. For example, if it thought that it was going to legalize marijuana, perhaps any of the charges with respect to possession of marijuana that were in the system could have been punted in order to focus on prosecuting more serious crimes, like murder and rape. However, that was not done.

The other thing we saw is that the Liberal government is continually trying to soften the penalties for crime.

Today, in Canadian society, it is a crime to disrupt a religious ceremony or to threaten a religious official or cleric. The Liberal government tried to put Bill C-51 in place to take away those protections with respect to worship and the clerics. There was a huge outcry across Canada. I know that all the churches in my riding wrote letters. There were many petitions that were brought forward. There was a huge outcry from Canadians, so the government backed off on that. Now we see that the government has brought this back under Bill C-75 as one of the things the government wants to reduce sentences on to a summary conviction, which would be less than two years in prison or a fine for obstructing or violence to or arrest of an officiating clergyman. It seems a little bit sneaky that the government heard a clear message from Canadians to back off and then it tried to slide it into another bill. That is not a good thing.

Let us look at some of the other crimes that are now considered in Bill C-75 to be minor and subject to a judge's decision on whether or not they get a fine or a summary conviction of up to a two-year maximum.

One is prison breach. Really, somebody who breaks out of prison is going to be given a fine. That should not even be an option. Municipal corruption is another thing on the list, as is influencing or negotiating appointments or dealing in offices. We have already talked about obstructing or violence to clergymen.

Another is impaired driving offences causing bodily harm. It is unbelievable that at this particular moment in time, when the Liberals have just legalized marijuana and every other jurisdiction has seen a tripling of traffic deaths due to impaired drug driving, they would decide that this crime is less serious and people might be able to get off with just a summary conviction or a fine.

Regarding abduction of a person under the age of 16 or abduction of a person under the age of 14, what is a more serious crime than kidnapping a child? I cannot imagine. To give that person a fine or a summary conviction just seems like there is no moral compass whatsoever.

It is interesting that polygamy is on the list. We have not had a lot of trouble. Polygamy has always been illegal in Canada. Why are we now saying that we would reduce the penalty for polygamy and make it a fine?

What about forced marriage? I was at the foreign affairs committee yesterday, and we had testimony from the Congo, Somalia and South Sudan about the dire situations there and 50% of girls being forced into child marriage and what a horrendous impact that had on their life. The Liberal members of the committee were sitting there saying, “Oh, this is a terrible thing.” However, here in our own country, we have decided that the penalty for forced marriage is going to be a fine or a less-than-two-years summary conviction. It is ridiculous.

Arson, for a number of reasons, is now on this list and is not considered that serious when in fact it drives up the cost of insurance and it takes people's homes. It is obviously a serious crime.

Participating in the activities of a criminal organization is now on here as not being that serious. The government members have been standing up, day after day, talking about trying to eliminate organized crime from Canada. Now if people are part of organized crime, apparently that is not a serious offence.

Therefore, Bill C-75 does not meet what we said we wanted to meet originally in our justice system. We wanted to talk about the appropriate punishments that need to be established to deter crime. That is not what is happening here.

In addition to all of those things, we see that there are other changes recommended in this bill. There is the repealing of the victim surcharge changes that were brought by the Conservatives. It is important that we protect victims' rights and that there is a fund that will help victims in some way after they have suffered a crime.

Removing the power to have a youth tried as an adult is a bit concerning to me. There are some very heinous crimes where the judges still need to have the ability to do that.

Delaying consecutive sentencing for human traffickers was an important law that was brought into place under the Conservative government. We have a huge issue with human trafficking. From my riding to Toronto, there is a huge ring. If someone were caught human trafficking, it would not be just one life that was impacted. There would be hundreds of girls involved. The consecutive sentence allowed individuals to be sentenced for each one of those victims and not get out of prison for a very long time, for what is a heinous crime.

I always like to say what the good things are that I like about the bill as well as the things that I do not like. I see in here that the only increases in penalties are for repeat offenders on intimate partner violence. I am glad to see that because the government has been totally inadequate in its response to violence against women. As the former chair of the status of women committee, we studied and found that one in three Canadian women suffers from violent acts in her lifetime. It has been disappointing to see that the current government, while pledging $400 million in the last budget for StatsCan to steal people's private information, gave $20 million a year to address the problem of violence against women. That has been totally inadequate. At least the Liberals have done something in this bill to try to move forward on that.

In summary, I would say that this bill has not met the objectives. It has not helped put penalties in place. In fact, I would argue that it would erode the penalties that people would receive.

I call on the justice minister to do her job, to appoint the justices who are missing and to put in place punishments that fit the crime. I have brought numerous petitions to the House on Bill C-75 to just eliminate it.

The Liberals talk about trying to get wait times down. They could get wait times down by not trying any criminals and not putting any of them in prison. That would get the wait times down, but it would not achieve what we want in our justice system, which is to define the crimes and to define adequate punishment and ensure that they are enforced in a timely way.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy serving on the justice committee with the member for Willowdale. He did appear before the justice committee to provide evidence about why genocide and terrorism-related offences should not be reclassified. His testimony was certainly helpful to the committee.

The member spoke of consultations that took place in the lead-up to Bill C-75. The fact is the government simply took a whole series of offences that were at a 10-year maximum and reclassified them, including terrorism and genocide, which I think the member would agree had no business being reclassified.

The member spoke a few moments ago about the fact that those offences should not be reclassified because they need to be treated seriously and prosecuting them by way of summary conviction would not do justice.

I wonder if the hon. member could speak to why the government does not seem to also take seriously offences such as impaired driving causing bodily harm or administering a date rape drug.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my honour to address the House today in discussion of Bill C-75. As members are aware, Bill C-75 represents our government's commitment to ensure that the criminal justice system continues to serve Canadian citizens in the most efficient, effective, fair and accessible manner possible.

Through Bill C-75, our government is fulfilling its promise to move forward and modernize the criminal justice system and address court delays. Due to the failures of the previous government, court delays have persisted within the criminal justice system. Court delays are not a new problem.

However, our government recognizes we can and must do better. Since 2015, we have heard from countless stakeholders, community members, lawyers and other individuals regarding the need to reform the criminal justice system.

In fact, the Supreme Court's rulings in the Jordan and Cody cases further support this rationale. As such, through collaborative efforts identified by the federal, provincial and territorial governments, Bill C-75 seeks to remedy these significant gaps and inefficiencies.

Among other reforms, Bill C-75 proposes to limit the use of preliminary inquiries for offences carrying maximum penalties, modernize bail practices and procedures in order to improve access to justice, better protect victims of intimate partner violence, provide judges with greater discretionary tools to manage cases and efficiently bring criminal matters to resolution, hybridize offences punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years or less, and increase the maximum penalty for all summary offences to two years less a day.

Today, I will be focusing on the hybridization aspect of Bill C-75. Bill C-75 introduces legislation that provides Crown prosecutors the discretion to elect the most efficient mode of prosecution, evaluated on a case-by-case basis. This system of reclassification would reduce court time consumed by less serious offences while allowing limited resources to be redirected to more serious offences. Moreover, this legislation prevents indictable cases from being dismissed or stayed due to the system's inability to try the accused within a reasonable time frame.

Bill C-75 amends over 115 offences punishable by either an indictable offence or summary conviction. Since the proposal hybridizes all straight indictable offences punishable by a maximum of 10 years or less, criminal offences relating to terrorism and genocide are subsequently captured. These are clauses referring to section 83.02 of the Criminal Code, providing or collecting property for certain activities; section 83.03, providing, making available, etc., property or services for terrorist purposes; section 83.04, using or possessing property for terrorist purposes; section 83.18, participation in activity of terrorist group; section 83.181, leaving Canada to participate in activity of terrorist group; subsection 83.221(1), advocating or promoting commission of terrorism offences; subsections 83.23(1) and 83.23(2), concealing person who carried out terrorist activity and concealing person who is likely to carry out terrorist activity, and finally subsection 318(1), which relates to advocating genocide.

Canada is a leader among nations in the fight for universal human rights and the international rule of law. We were one of the first countries to sign the Rome Statute and the first country to ratify its membership within the International Criminal Court. Moreover, on a number of occasions, Canada has publicly denounced the actions of other governments due to their harsh treatment of their citizens, and urged their cases to be referred to the International Criminal Court for investigation, such as in the cases of Myanmar and Venezuela. Canadians are proud to live in a country that is diverse, with a global reputation as a defender of human rights.

Given the very few times that genocide and terrorism-related charges have been invoked in Canadian courts, the extremely serious nature of the issues, as well as Canada's moral obligation to continue to serve as an international promoter of justice, I am proud to inform the House that all eight clauses referred to above relating to genocide and terrorism-related offences were removed from the hybridization list. Specifically, all genocide and terrorism-related offences will continue to remain as straight indictable offences with a maximum penalty of 10 years less a day.

In its witness testimony, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs expressed its strong support for such amendments. It stated:

...terrorism [is] a heinous and potentially catastrophic phenomenon. Today, terrorist groups around the world, some of which actively seek to inspire recruits in Canada, are often motivated by ideologies infused with antisemitism. Far too many Jewish communities around the world – from Argentina to Denmark, and from France to Israel – have suffered from deadly terror attacks.

Additionally, B'nai Brith Canada expressed its concerns regarding the hybridization of offences relating to genocide and terrorism, stating:

It is inappropriate to allow these offences to be prosecuted in a summary fashion. To be treated with the seriousness which they deserve, they should continue to be prosecutable by way of indictment only.

Following the proposed amendments to remove all eight genocide and terrorism-related clauses from Bill C-75, our government will continue to send a clear, symbolic and moral message rebuking the offensive crimes mentioned above. However, I would like to strictly emphasize that the reclassification of offences does not affect basic sentencing principles exercised by courts. Depending on the severity of the case, Crown prosecutors will be required to consider a multitude of factors and ultimately decide to prosecute either as an indictable offence or summary conviction.

Before I conclude, as a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I would like to take this opportunity to offer my sincerest thanks to all the witnesses for submitting their testimony and appearing before the committee to present their expert opinions regarding Bill C-75. I can assure everyone that all recommendations and appeals put forward were carefully considered and taken into account.

Although there is no simple solution to resolve the issues of court delays, our government is taking action to introduce a cultural shift within the criminal justice system to address its root causes. We are taking important steps forward to act on what we have heard. Moreover, we are taking full advantage of this opportunity to create a criminal justice system that is compassionate and timely, a system that reflects the needs and expectations of all Canadian citizens.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and put some thoughts on the record with respect to Bill C-75, which is the government's response, we are told, to the Jordan decision, which had to do with lengthy delays in the criminal justice system in Canada. The ruling maintained that cases had to be dealt with in a certain amount of time or the people accused of committing a crime would be off the hook. We have seen across the country instances of people accused of very serious crimes not being tried in court because of a failure to meet deadlines.

It is quite important, I think, that both the government and Parliament take action. This is a long-standing complaint, and not just in some of the most serious crimes and trials. We have also heard from Canadians who have had occasion, one way or another, to deal with court proceedings, especially if they are victims or the families of victims, that they are often outraged at the amount of time it takes to get justice. Of course, justice delayed too often is justice denied. The Jordan decision emphasizes that even more so and raises the stakes in terms of being able to deal with issues in a timely way. If we do not do so now, we will face a situation of people never being tried for the crimes they are accused of having committed.

Our responsibility as parliamentarians is to judge, on balance, this piece of legislation being presented by the government, which was not greatly amended at committee. I know the hon. member for Victoria and the NDP caucus did a lot of great work on this bill and made a lot of proposals at committee that were not accepted by the government, so this really remains a government package of reforms. Our duty as parliamentarians is to decide whether, on balance, this is going to address the issues that were raised in the Jordan decision and expedite our legal processes so that Canadians can expect to get justice through the courts.

One of the ways the government could have done that prior to presenting any legislation in this House would have been to act swiftly to appoint federal judges. It has been an ongoing story of this Parliament in terms of the failure of the justice minister to ensure that the roster of judges is full. We have heard many times in this House that the government ought to have been acting more quickly. Vacancies remain on the bench. The fact of the matter is that even if we have perfect laws, which we do not now and will not after Bill C-75 passes, if we do not have judges to hear the cases, it matters very little what the laws on the books are. It is the judges who hear the cases and the judges who make decisions.

Thus, it is incumbent upon the government to move more quickly on this. It has been three years now. Surely the government is not going to make a case that Canada does not have people qualified to hold those positions. The people are out there. It is a matter of the government making it a priority to actually make those appointments happen. Saying it is a priority is not enough. They have to actually appoint those judges. I do not want to hear government members getting up to talk about how important it is to them. I will wait to see when those positions are filled. That is the true test of how important it is for the government, and so far, it has not been very important.

The other thing we know is that if this is the government's signature justice reform, which it appears to be, a contributing factor to what is at stake with the Jordan decision is the issue of mandatory minimum sentences. That issue was very popular with the previous Conservative government. For a wide range of criminal charges, they brought in mandatory minimum sentences. We know that those are problematic in a number of ways. I think they are problematic in principle.

The fact of the matter is that no two crimes are the same. There are different circumstances depending on the particular crime and who is involved. The people best qualified to make decisions about what is an appropriate time to serve, along with other measures, such as addictions treatment and whatever else is factored into sentencing, are the people who hear the cases. I do not think it is for Parliament to pre-judge, for any case or set of cases, what the appropriate punishment is. That is why we have judges, people who are trained in the legal profession and have seen many different cases and are able to discriminate.

It is appropriate to entrust that work to judges, for whom it is a profession. Mandatory minimum sentences are about taking that away. One of the side effects of that, particularly in cases of smaller charges like minor drug possession and charges of that nature, is that when people know there is going to be a mandatory jail sentence of two, three, four or five years, it is really a disincentive for them to plead guilty. We have tools in order to make sure the most serious cases are heard in a timely way, and that murderers and gang members are not getting off easy because of the Jordan decision. One of those tools is to take some of those smaller cases and plead them out. People are not going to do that if it means serious jail time.

Again, there are people in the courts and the police force who are involved in making those kinds of decisions when they have that discretion. It is important to leave it to judges, prosecutors and the police to prioritize those cases, precisely to make sure that the worst ones and the ones they have the best chance of getting a conviction on are tried. Those people then get justice, and the courts are not bogged down with other kinds of cases without any ability to make a judgment call about what is relatively more or less important.

That was a major problem with changes to the justice system that we saw in the last Parliament. Outside of the Conservative Party and people who supported them in the last election, there was a pretty broad consensus that those things had to be repealed. We do not see that here. That is an obvious thing that is not in this legislation. It would have helped with respect to the Jordan decision, and would have been important to do on principle anyway.

One of the other things the bill does is establish hybrid offences between the provinces and the federal government. There is real concern that this is going to mean we are going to improve federal court wait times at the expense of provincial court wait times. This is classically Liberal, in a certain way.

I do not want to be too partisan about it, but I remember the nineties, when the federal government decided it was going to balance the budget at all costs. It made deep cuts to the health and social transfer. That ended up on the ledger of provincial governments, which now did not have the same funding for health services and other services that they were providing to their populations. Those governments went into deficit or had to take other measures, whether it was cuts to services or raising taxes, in order to be able to maintain what had theretofore been supported by the federal government.

For as much as the federal books looked better, there was only one taxpayer, and those people paid it at the provincial level instead of at the federal level. What looked good on the federal government did not ultimately make a difference to Canadians. They paid for it, either through higher taxes at the provincial level or through serious cuts to service.

Unfortunately, we had a Conservative government in the nineties, and we paid for that in terms of serious cuts to services. We lost nurses and teachers, and the federal government sat pretty while pretending it was not responsible for that. At the end of the day, its budget cuts did that.

We are gearing up for the potential for something similar, where the federal government will say, “Look at us. The wait times for the Federal Court are way down.” However, we have the potential to see those same waits happening at the provincial level, because people who at one time would have faced a charge at the federal level will now instead face a similar charge at the provincial level. We will not get rid of the wait times; we are just shifting the burden from the federal books to the provincial books.

For anyone paying close attention, the Liberals are not fooling anybody. If our job is to make sure those wait times go down and justice is served in a timely way, it is really important that we do it in a way that actually accomplishes that and does not give the federal government a talking point at the expense of the provinces.

I am out of time, but I look forward to questions.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his leadership on this file.

It is very clear, and the Prime Minister was clear in his apology, that we had work to do on the bawdy house provisions. The committee unanimously agreed to repeal them in Bill C-75, including the vagrancy provisions.

Gay men were charged, arrested and now have criminal convictions for simply going to meet other men in bath houses or gay clubs. This change would allow future additions to happen to expunge in legislation so that those records could be expunged.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, if the member for St. Albert—Edmonton were to go back on the tape, he would also see that I was very clear about his comment to the committee and said “hogwash and poppycock” on his politicization of a very serious matter in Bill C-75.

I have met with Ms. Arsenault. I have met with George Marrinier. They are constituents. Quite frankly, that member knows, as members on the other side know, that this is not a sentencing question. We doubled the fines for impaired driving to 14 years. I can tell members that this is going to help us respect the Jordan principle.

The member can be upset about this, just like I am, but this is going to help us in the administration of justice.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am going to answer the question, if the heckling will stop.

What I can say very clearly is that the hybridization of offences would provide the courts with the tools they need to make sure that we respect our obligations under Jordan's principle. Nobody wants to see criminals on the streets because they did not get their time in court within two years. Principles of sentencing would not be affected by Bill C-75. That is section 718 of the code. Members can look at it.

Hybridization would be another tool for prosecutors, and they would be able to use it.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member could explain why he thinks that forceable confinement, the kidnapping of a minor, or enforced marriage are minor enough offences that they should have a summary conviction of less than two years or a fine, as laid out in Bill C-75.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for Bill C-75. I would like to use my time today to discuss the proposed changes to this bill that would affect the LGBTQ2 community, human trafficking and the victim surcharge.

As special adviser to the Prime Minister on LGBTQ2 issues, I am particularly proud of the work of our government in advancing the rights of LBGTQ2 Canadians and the work of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in making concrete, tangible legislative changes that would improve the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and two-spirit Canadians.

Today, on the the International Transgender Day of Remembrance, when we pause to reflect on the lives of transgender people here in Canada and around the world that have been lost to murder, suicide, hatred and discrimination; the lives diminished due to overt transphobia and misogyny; and the daily discrimination faced by trans children, siblings, parents and their loved ones, I am proud, as the first openly gay MP elected from Alberta to the House, that Parliament passed Bill C-16 to protect trans persons in the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act. I am particularly proud that our government led this charge.

I am also proud of the work of our government in passing legislation to enable Canadians who have criminal records for same-sex consensual activity to have these records expunged, and I acknowledge the leadership of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness on this file.

I would also like to thank the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada for including in Bill C-75 the removal of section 159, which discriminates against young gay or bisexual men. That would now be removed from the Criminal Code with the passing of Bill C-75.

I also applaud the work of the committee and the ministry in responding to expert testimony for the repeal of the bawdy house and vagrancy provisions that were used by police forces to arrest gay men who frequented gay clubs and bathhouses. Men arrested in these police raids, many now in their 60s, 70s and 80s, still face criminal records as a result of these charges. We heard the testimony, and the committee and the ministry responded. Should Bill C-75 pass, these odious provisions in the Criminal Code would be removed and amends could thus be made.

Parts of the bill pertain to human trafficking and the victim surcharge.

I think it is very important to clearly state that human trafficking cannot be tolerated and that our government sees it as a very serious concern. That is why we continue to work closely with the provinces, territories, law enforcement agencies, victim services groups, organizations representing indigenous peoples, and other community groups, as well as our international partners. We are working together to combat all forms of human trafficking in Canada and abroad, to provide victims with special protection and support, to bring the perpetrators of these crimes to justice and to ensure that their punishment reflects the severity of the crime.

Human trafficking is a very difficult crime to detect because of its clandestine nature and victims' reluctance to report their situations out of fear of their traffickers. We heard testimony about that when the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights travelled across the country to listen to victims of human trafficking and to see how we could change the Criminal Code to provide more opportunities for police to work with those organizations that work with victims.

The legislative changes within Bill C-75 would provide police and prosecutors with additional tools for investigation and prosecution. These measures would bring the perpetrators of human trafficking to justice so they can answer for the severity of their actions.

The amendments proposed in Bill C-38 would bring into force amendments that have already been passed by Parliament, but were not promulgated in the former parliamentary initiative, Bill C-452. They would also strengthen the legislation to combat all forms of human trafficking, whether through sexual exploitation or forced labour, while respecting the rights and freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution.

We heard of heinous crimes being committed not just against those who are unknown to the perpetrators, but also against family members. Family trafficking exists in this country, and we must make sure that police forces are armed with the tools they need to be able to put an end to such heinous crimes.

More specifically, the proposed changes will make it easier to prosecute human trafficking offences by introducing a presumption that will enable the Crown to prove that the accused exercised control, direction or influence over the victim's movements by establishing that the accused lived with or was habitually in the company of the victim.

In addition, these changes would add human trafficking to the list of offences to which the provisions imposing a reverse onus for forfeiture of proceeds of crime apply.

I would now like to discuss the changes that would affect the victim surcharge. Bill C-75 proposes to restore judicial discretion to waive the victim surcharge by guiding judges to waive the victim surcharge only when the offender is truly unable to pay. For certain offences against the administration of justice, where the total amount would be disproportionate in certain circumstances, the bill would also provide for limited judicial discretion to not impose a federal victim surcharge amount per offence.

The federal victim surcharge, which is set out in the Criminal Code, is imposed on a sentencing basis, and revenue is collected and used by the province or territory where the criminal act was committed to assist in the sentencing process for funding victims services. Bill C-75 would maintain that the federal victim surcharge must be imposed ex officio and must apply cumulatively to each offence. However, to address concerns about the negative impact of current federal victim surcharge provisions on marginalized offenders, the bill would provide limited judicial discretion regarding the mandatory and cumulative imposition of the surcharge in certain circumstances.

Bill C-75 would provide clear direction as to what would constitute undue hardship. These guidelines would ensure that the mandatory exemption, or waiver, would be applied consistently and only to offenders who were truly unable to pay the surcharge. In addition, the bill would state that undue hardship would refer to the financial ability to pay and was not simply caused by harm associated with incarceration. We are trying to avoid the criminalization and over-criminalization of people simply because of their inability to pay a federal victim surcharge.

For certain offences against the justice administration, in the event that the cumulative surcharge was disproportionate to the circumstances, Bill C-75 would contain provisions allowing an exception to the victim fine surcharge ratio. This exception would apply to two types of offences against the administration of justice: failure to appear in court; and breach of conditions of bail by a peace officer or court order, and only when said breach did not cause any moral, bodily or financial damage to the victim.

Studies show that marginalized offenders, especially indigenous offenders and offenders with mental health and addiction issues, are more likely to be found guilty of offences against the administration of justice.

Under the existing victim surcharge provisions, it is unlikely that much of the money collected in the federal victim surcharges that are paid out to the provinces and territories comes from groups of offenders who are unable to pay the victim surcharge or who are only able to pay part of the surcharge because of their personal situation or because of their multiple offences against the administration of justice.

In addition, offenders who suffer undue hardship as a result of the mandatory victim surcharge are, by the current application of the provisions, hampered in their ability to regain financial stability. This places them in a situation where the surcharge does not allow them to successfully reintegrate into society after serving their sentences or paying their outstanding fines, and they risk reoffending. These types of situations do not help survivors or victims of crime or the provision of services to help them. This proposed exception would be consistent with the principles of fairness and equity.

I am confident that by maintaining a higher mandatory surcharge, this proposed legislation would support the objective of the victim surcharge to provide a source of funding for provincial and territorial victim services while strengthening offender accountability regarding victims and society in general. At the same time, the bill would be in keeping with the principles of proportionality, fairness and respect for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Not having gone through law school, I can say that it is an honour to serve on this committee and to be part of making Bill C-75 appear in the House today.

The House resumed from November 8 consideration of 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, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Bill C-75—Time Allocation Motion

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, again, I appreciate the comments and the opportunity to respond to the comments.

The member opposite asked what this is achieving. What is Bill C-75 achieving? It is achieving the necessity of addressing delays in the criminal justice system, achieving efficiencies and effectiveness.

Again, I disagree with the characterization that Canadians are not supportive of this. We have done substantial consultation right across the country. In terms of the member opposite's comments about downloading to the provinces, I would like to inform the member opposite that I have been working with the provinces and territories on an ongoing basis for three years, and they are supportive of this. This is not a download on the provinces and territories. This is co-operative federalism at its best, around the administration of justice, to ensure that we do everything we can as actors in the criminal justice system to heed the call of the Supreme Court of Canada.

This has robust support right across the country.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do remember going on campaign stops before the election, talking about doing things differently. In fact, our government is doing things differently.

We have engaged in consultation for the past three years. There was a lot of discussion at committee. There was a lot of discussion in this House. I would be very happy to sit down with the member opposite to talk more about Bill C-75 and the provisions that are contained therein.

Again, we are doing things differently. We have fundamentally changed the way that we engage with Canadians. I look forward to the discussion and debate in the other place. However, we also have a responsibility to ensure that our legislation moves through the parliamentary process so we address the desires and the needs of Canadians, and we address the delays in the criminal justice system. We made a commitment as a government to heed the call of the Supreme Court of Canada to address delays.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments on the importance of answering the call of Canadians, the call of the Supreme Court, to move forward with criminal justice reform that would address delays in the criminal justice system. To speak to the member's specific questions about what has gone into Bill C-75, in the lead-up to the introduction in March of this year I conducted, and my parliamentary secretary participated in, round tables across the country. We conducted online surveys and had requests for feedback. We received thousands of responses and we produced a report of what we heard. We benefited from ongoing discussions, as well as reports from years ago by the Senate committee, on what we can do to improve delays in the criminal justice system. We have incorporated many of the recommendations from the other place into Bill C-75. Again, I want to highlight the discussions and debate that occurred in this House, the robust discussion that happened at committee with the 95 witnesses heard, the 27 hours of debate and discussion we benefited from, and improving the bill through various amendments that came from the committee.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, again, I will stand to speak to the nature of Bill C-75 and the substantial discussion and consultations we have had for the last three years on the very elements of Bill C-75. I understand and recognize the desire of members to speak to this important piece of legislation. Many members from the party opposite have risen in this House to speak to this legislation and during the many hours of debate and discussion that occurred at the justice and human rights committee.

As members in this House, we have an obligation to move forward and answer the call of the Supreme Court of Canada to address delays in the criminal justice system. Bill C-75 would do just that, in a comprehensive way. I look to all members of this House to support this important piece of legislation moving forward.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to stand to address the comments made by the member opposite, and I dispute his comments completely.

In terms of not listening to witnesses, that is absolutely not true. My parliamentary secretary and all members of the justice committee had the benefit of hearing from 95 witnesses at the justice and human rights committee, all of whom spoke about their passion for criminal justice reform and made very concrete suggestions about how the bill could be improved. We accepted many of those recommendations that I believe have very significantly improved Bill C-75. I look forward to continued debate and discussion as this bill goes to the other place.

On top of all of the discussion that happened in this House and at committee, we engaged in discussions and consultations right across the country with criminal justice stakeholders. I engaged on an ongoing basis with my counterparts in the provinces and territories, all of whom are supportive of the bold reforms that we are proposing in Bill C-75.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's appreciation of the importance of this legislation and having Bill C-75 move through the parliamentary process and be passed in order to address the delays in the criminal justice system and to answer the call of the Supreme Court of Canada. This is a priority for this government and I would hope it is a priority for all members in the House.

There has been a lot of debate and discussion. As I have said, at committee there were some 27 hours of debate and discussion. I very much appreciate, as does the government, the feedback and amendments that came from committee, the additional amendments requested by stakeholders and voted on by committee members, that would repeal vagrancy and bawdy house offences.

I thank the committee once again for all of its input and the amendments put forward that improve this legislation.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will say that it is the commitment of our government to work co-operatively with all members in this House to ensure that we have robust debate on bills we are putting forward. There has been substantial discussion on Bill C-75 in this House and at committee.

I recognize and acknowledge the member's comments and concerns. I will follow up and speak to the government House leader.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, this gives me the opportunity to stand up to acknowledge and appreciate the work that was done by all members of the justice and human rights committee in bringing forward many amendments. In fact, 50 motions to amend Bill C-75 were adopted.

The amendment brought forward to remove routine police evidence by way of affidavit was something our government recognized, along with the testimony of many people who came before the committee. We were able to accept that amendment.

In terms of agent representation, some of the changes that are contained within Bill C-75 raised concerns among many stakeholders who came before the justice committee about the inability to have agent representation because of the increase of offence penalties. We have accepted amendments from committee to provide for that to give provinces and territories the ability to determine agents in terms of representation of various offences.

Again, I appreciate the input on other amendments as well from the committee.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, in terms of time allocation, but more important to ensure that Bill C-75 proceeds, we are committed to working with all members of this House. We appreciate the discussion and debate that came from the justice committee and look forward to the discussion that will happen in the other place.

Bill C-75 is about addressing delays in the criminal justice system and creating efficiencies and effectiveness. It is our responsibility to address the call of the Supreme Court of Canada to address the delays that exist in the criminal justice system. Bill C-75 is in response to that.

Yes, this is a large piece of legislation. It has benefited from 27-plus hours of debate at committee. I look forward to continued discussions in this regard.

In terms of the member's question around mandatory minimum penalties, we are continuing to work on sentencing reform. This is a commitment that our government has made and we will continue that discussion and bring forward changes in due course.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, our government is committed to working co-operatively with all members of the House.

With respect to Bill C-75, I would point out that there has been a total of seven hours and 45 minutes of debate in the House. The bill went to committee, where there was major discussion among committee members, and I thank them for that discussion. The committee heard from 95 witnesses. Twenty-seven hours of discussion and debate happened at committee. I thank members for the suggested amendments, many of which were accepted by the government.

Bill C-75 is a robust bill which proposes to amend the Criminal Code. It is not an omnibus piece of legislation. It seeks to address Criminal Code changes.

To comments by the member opposite around serious offences, under this legislation serious offences would still be prosecuted in a serious manner.

I am glad the member raised impaired driving. I am very pleased that our government was able to pass Bill C-46, major legislation to create in Canada among the toughest impaired driving laws in the world. I appreciate the member's bringing that up.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I reflect back on the campaign of 2015, and sitting in many all-candidates debates, I remember hearing so clearly that if the Liberals became the government they would not bring in closure or time allocation and they would get rid of the practice of introducing omnibus bills in Parliament. Here we have those things being brokered at the same time.

In Bill C-75 there are some serious offences that will be downgraded to hybrid offences which gives the discretion to prosecute them as summary convictions, such as obstructing or violence to or arrest of officiating clergyman and blood alcohol over the legal limit. We know the scourge of impaired driving on our streets and it is unbelievable that the government would actually reduce this offence.

I am not as concerned right now about those particular items as I am concerned about the fact that the government is intent on shutting down debate on a very serious issue when all parliamentarians should have the option of giving their views and letting their constituents know their views.

Why is the government so intent on shutting down debate on this important issue?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree that this is a large and significant bill. The bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code to answer the call of the Prime Minister to me in my mandate letter and our government's commitment to transform the criminal justice system and create efficiencies and effectiveness in that system.

The member opposite stated that this bill would solve some problems but create others. I disagree with that statement. This legislation and the lead-up to the introduction of this legislation in March of this year was the result of significant consultation right across the country through round tables. I have personally engaged in three federal, provincial and territorial meetings with my counterparts in the provinces and territories, all of whom are supportive of the robust and bold changes in Bill C-75.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate being able to rise to talk about Bill C-75, the importance of the bill and the intent behind the bill.

There is absolutely nothing that our government is trying to hide with respect to the major bold reforms we are seeking in Bill C-75 to the criminal justice system to answer the call of the Supreme Court of Canada in Jordan and other decisions to create efficiencies and promote the effectiveness of the criminal justice system. That is precisely what we are doing in Bill C-75. Since we formed government, this has been considered through very robust consultations.

I appreciate the discussions, the considerations and listening to 95 witnesses at the House of Commons committee on justice and human rights, who provided very substantial feedback.

With respect to the member opposite's question with respect to the hybridization of offences, serious offences will continue to be treated seriously. The hybridization of offences does nothing to change the fundamental principles of sentencing.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-75 was introduced on the day before Good Friday in an effort to hide from Canadians what was in the bill. Now, after just two sitting days, the government is already bringing in time allocation at report stage. It is absolutely shameful.

At the justice committee, Liberal MPs were right to back down from the reclassification of terrorism and inciting genocide. However, shockingly, the Liberals have doubled down when it comes to the hybridization of what are currently serious indictable offences, including human trafficking, impaired driving causing bodily harm and kidnapping a minor, just to name a few.

Does the minister not agree that these are also serious offences? Does she not agree with the hon. member for Edmonton Centre when he said, “Let's be serious....We're talking about terrorism. We're talking about very serious offences.”? Why does the minister not also treat impaired driving causing bodily harm, human trafficking and other offences as serious offences?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to 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, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage of the said bill and not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill; and

That 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and on the day allotted to the consideration at the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-75—Notice of time allocation motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that I share that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of 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.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at those stages.

Business of the House

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure our colleagues were looking forward to the chance when I could answer the Thursday question again. It is good news as I am about to do so.

This afternoon, we will continue with the report stage debate on Bill C-75 on the modernization of the criminal justice system.

Tomorrow, pursuant to an order made on September 21, the House will be adjourned to allow members to return to their ridings for Remembrance Day.

As my colleague indicated, next week will be dedicated to working on behalf of our constituents.

On Monday, November 19, we shall have an allotted day.

On Tuesday, we will resume debate at report stage of Bill C-75, the justice modernization bill.

Finally, I know all Canadians are looking forward to Wednesday, because the Minister of Finance will deliver his fall economic statement.

While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, at 4 p.m. on Wednesday, November 21, 2018, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings to revert back to "Statements by Ministers" to permit the Minister of Finance to make a statement; after the statement, a member from each recognized opposition party, a member of the Bloc Québécois, and the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands may reply; after each member has replied, or when no member rises to speak, whichever comes first, the House shall proceed to the taking of any recorded divisions deferred to the end of government orders or to immediately before the time provided for private members' business and then proceed to the consideration of private members' business.

I think that was quite clear. If necessary, I can repeat the whole thing again.

Justice and Human Rights

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 22nd report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights concerning 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.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House, with amendments.

Justice

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are many things the Liberal government has failed on: balancing the budget, cutting taxes for the middle class, and maintaining Canada's strong presence on the world stage. What it has not failed on is standing up for the rights of criminals over the rights of victims.

Bill C-75, the Liberal's 300-page omnibus justice reform bill, would water down penalties for very serious crimes. If passed, criminals could be sentenced with as little as a fine for serious offences such as human trafficking, using drugs in the act of sexual assault, and impaired driving causing bodily harm.

Canadians can always count on the Conservative Party to put the rights of victims before the rights of criminals. That is why we introduced the victim's bill of rights, introduced mandatory minimums and campaigned on life means life legislation.

Today, as the father of Tori Stafford and hundreds of others are outside these walls protesting the Liberal government, I call on the government to put its ideology aside, do the decent thing and stand up for victims of crime.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I completely reject the characterization by members opposite on Bill C-75, which is a comprehensive bill that seeks to address delays in the criminal justice system.

There is nothing in this legislation that would reduce sentences. There is nothing that would change the principles around sentencing, which take into account the gravity of the offence and the proportion responsibility of an offender.

We are not lowering sentences. We are providing prosecutors with the necessary discretion they need to move forward in the appropriate way given the circumstances of the particular case.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are failing again. They are watering down sentences for crimes such as administering date rape drugs, abducting children, impaired driving causing bodily harm and selling young women and men into sexual slavery.

The Conservatives called for over 100 amendments to clean up the government's deeply flawed omnibus Bill C-75, but the Liberals were not listening.

Does the minister really believe Canadians want sex traffickers and kidnappers to have lesser sentences?

Criminal Code

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and speak to Bill C-375, an act to amend the Criminal Code, to require that a pre-sentence report contain information on any mental disorder that an offender may have.

I understand and am sympathetic to those who suffer from mental health disorders. I proudly supported the private member's bill of my colleague from Niagara Falls, Bill C-233, which sought to address the challenges of Alzheimer's and other dementias on a national level. However, I am deeply concerned about this bill. This bill, when taken together with other legislation introduced and passed by the current Liberal government, continues a long and disturbing pattern of favouring the protection of criminals over the protection of the victims of crime.

Just last week, I stood in this place and compared the record of the last Conservative government on crime with the record of the current Liberal government. They stand in stark contrast. From day one of their mandate, the Liberals have demonstrated both an appalling indifference to victims and a disquieting compassion for criminals. We have seen this time and again. This is the government that willingly gave a $10.5 million payout to unrepentant convicted terrorist Omar Khadr, who killed American medic Sergeant Christopher Speer in a firefight in Afghanistan in 2002. Further, Tabitha Speer, Sergeant Speer's widow, was awarded a judgment of $134 million by a court in Utah against Omar Khadr. The Liberals could have, and I would suggest should have, waited to allow the courts to rule on an injunction for Mrs. Speer. Instead, they rushed payment to Khadr, making enforcement of the judgment unlikely.

What of our Canadian veterans who need help? To them, the Prime Minister had one thing to say, that they were asking for more than he was willing to give. However, for ISIS fighters, it seems the cash never stops flowing. The Prime Minister pledged to use taxpayers' hard-earned money to de-radicalize terrorists through such tried and tested means as reading Canadian poetry.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs, for her part, refuses to use the term “ISIS terrorists”, instead choosing to use the vapid term “foreign fighters”. When pressed on her plan for these so-called foreign fighters, she offered this gem of an insight:

With respect to the foreign fighters, I think we need to remember why they are where they are right now.

We all remember why they are where they are. We remember that they left Canada to engage in horrific war crimes against innocent men, women, and children halfway around the world, crimes like beheading innocents, throwing gay people off buildings, and stoning women to death for the crime of being raped. According to the Prime Minister, these hardened terrorists can be “an extraordinarily powerful voice” in Canada. One wonders what those voices are saying.

The Conservatives have fought this disturbing hippyesque Kumbaya session with criminals and terrorists every step of the way. When Bill C-75 was introduced, it weakened the penalties for many crimes, including terrorism-related charges, to possibly as little as a fine. The Liberals spent months defending this decision before finally backing down and supporting Conservative amendments that ensured that terrorists would face the consequences of their actions. It took months of pressure and hard work to make this one obvious change. However, even now the bill remains deeply flawed.

Alleged Premature Disclosure of Immigration Levels Plan

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, in relation to the question of privilege I raised earlier today. I have some important additional information that I would like to put on the record.

I want to put on the record an email exchange I had with a reporter today. This exchange began at approximately 3:20 p.m. It is in regard to the immigration levels plan that was tabled by the minister at approximately 4 p.m. today.

The exchange began with, “Hi there, I'm hoping to connect with [the member for Calgary Nose Hill] this afternoon to get her reaction to the government's new levels plan numbers and also to the fact the CBSA has been asked to step up its removals. Could she give me a call.” I responded with “Were the levels tabled today? I must have missed it.”

The exchange said, “Sorry no, but they will be. It would have happened by now but for this point of order. Just looking to set up a quick interview for after they are tabled.” I responded with, “Do you have a copy? I am happy to comment, but it would help to see them first.”

In addition to this email exchange, there was a follow-up phone conversation between my staff and the reporter, which occurred at 3:45 p.m., and again the minister tabled the levels plan at 4:00 p.m. This is a first draft transcription.

The reporter said, “I did just did get a little bit of a heads-up on what they were so that I could have something ready to move on the wire when it is tabled just in case.” My assistant said, “Oh okay I see.” “So that's where I was expecting that it would have been tabled by now but there's a point of order that obviously is taking up more time than usual.” My assistant said, “Okay I guess I will have to flip on the House in a second here but I'm so—okay, do you have some of the information and we're just kind of waiting now to see when they'll table it I guess.” Then the reporter said, “It's just kind of a continuation of what they did last year, like a three-year plan and it will go up to 350,000 in 2021.” I will note that a story was published that included details on the levels plan at 4:30 p.m. today.

I am also happy to provide the Speaker with copies of this information, if he so requests.

As you know, Madam Speaker, there is no provision for information to be given to journalists ahead of a member of Parliament and there are numerous precedents, particularly in regard to legislation. I will give one example. On April 19, 2016, the Speaker found a prima facie case of privilege after the leader of the opposition pointed out that specific and detailed information contained in Bill C-14 was given to the media ahead of the House and members of Parliament.

During that discussion, Speaker Milliken's ruling was referenced of March 19, 2001, when he said, “To deny to members information concerning business that is about to come before the House, while at the same time providing such information to media that will likely be questioning members about that business, is a situation that the Chair cannot condone.” In that 2001 case, my former colleague, Vic Toews, was called by a reporter for comment on a bill not yet tabled. He was embarrassed by the exchange. The facts in that scenario are identical to this situation. Again I would point out that this was business that was put in front of the House this afternoon with regard to the levels plan.

My colleague, the member for Milton, was also recently questioned by a reporter over information the journalist was given, but she was denied. The Speaker is still deliberating on that matter. Today, I have been put in that same position.

We have had two other rulings by the Speaker recently that I believe are relevant. On March 20, following a complaint from the hon. member for Abbotsford that the media and stakeholders received a briefing five hours before members on Bill C-69, an omnibus bill of 377 pages, this was the Speaker's comment on the matter, “there is a rightful expectation that those responsible for the information should do their utmost to ensure members’ access to it. Not respecting this expectation does a disservice to all. It is particularly disconcerting when the government gives priority to the media over the members of Parliament.”

Only one month later, on April 17, the hon. member for Niagara Falls brought to the Speaker's attention evidence that the CBC received information on Bill C-75 ahead of members, allowing it to post an article online only eight minutes after the bill was introduced. What the government did to the member for Niagara Falls with Bill C-75 I believe I have evidence that it has done the same thing to me, but concrete evidence that this was done ahead of it being tabled in the House of Commons with respect to the information contained in the levels plan tabled by the minister today. In the Speaker's ruling on this matter on May 7, 2018, the Speaker indicated how troubled he was that some of the members had an experience of feeling disadvantaged in their ability to fulfill their duties and that members should never have to even so much as wonder if they were not the first to receive the information from the government.

I have one final point. Given this pattern of the government on this matter and given that leaking information to the media has become part of its routine communication strategy, there comes a time, particularly when a government persists in behaviour that has caught the attention of the Speaker much too often, as I have just laid out, that another warning will not be good enough. Sometimes members deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt when they feel that their privileges have been breached. In this situation, I am again happy to provide concrete proof of the information that I have put on the record today.

There are precedents for this that I would like to offer the Speaker. In Maingot, second edition, Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, page 227, he states:

In the final analysis, in areas of doubt, the Speaker asks simply:

Does the act complained of appear at first sight to be a breach of privilege...or to put it shortly, has the Member an arguable point? If the Speaker feels any doubt on the question, he should...leave it to the House.

In a ruling of October 24, 1966, at page 9005 of Debates, the Speaker said:

In considering this matter I ask myself, what is the duty of the Speaker in cases of doubt? If we take into consideration that at the moment the Speaker is not asked to render a decision as to whether or not the article complained of constitutes a breach of privilege...considering also the Speaker is the guardian of the rules, right and privileges of the house and of its members and that he cannot deprive them of such privileges when there is uncertainty in his mind...I think at this preliminary stage of the proceedings the doubt which I have in my mind should be interpreted to the benefit of the member.

I am not being critical of the journalists in this regard, because I believe they were just doing their job. The problem I have is the minister tabled this afternoon a 43-page document. I am the shadow minister for citizenship and immigration. Immigration is a topic of great concern and consternation in the public at this point of time. The minister tabled a 43-page document. The media was given an advance copy of the information contained in the document and then I was asked for comment.

I understand that some members of the media might feel like this is routine proceedings, that somehow they should be given information so they can put a story out and be newsy. I would argue that it is the opposite. It is the job of the media to respond to deliberations of Parliament and that my right as a parliamentarian with respect to being able to digest and critically evaluate information that is put in front of the House supersedes the government wanting to have a positive communications strategy or any journalist wanting to sell a paper.

This is also something journalists should be asking themselves in terms of standards. Is it right to be publishing stories on a 43-page document and asking for comments when clearly they have had the information and a member of Parliament whose task is critically evaluating it and providing comment on it does not? I would argue no.

However, going back to my point of privilege. There is no manner by which any of our rules give journalists the right to have information prior to a member of Parliament. Therefore, I ask you, Madam Speaker, to find a prima facie case of privilege. I would ask, in your ruling, to understand how one can provide comment on a 43-page document on detailed immigration policy that affects the number of people that Canada will allow into this country and under what assumption when the journalists already have this. Why should they be given the right to review that information when I am not? That is wrong.

Therefore, I ask you to find a prima facie case of privilege, Madam Speaker. I believe it is there. Should you find such, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-84. I would first like to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Markham—Unionville.

Bill C-84 seems to be another example of the government striking a valiant attempt to make a change, yet it is an incomplete attempt, much like most of the legislation we have seen coming forward from the government. Some of these previous shortcomings include Bill C-45, the cannabis bill, which just came into effect a few days ago. Even though that legislation was debated in the House and passed roughly a year ago, there still remain multiple enforcement agencies, municipalities, regional districts and first nations that agree it simply was not complete or ready. It did not give the provinces or municipalities time to prepare.

After that was Bill C-46, the bill that dealt with impaired driving, which was tied to Bill C-45. We have now heard that because of the way Bill C-46 was drafted, there is no proof that the systems in place and the science and technology around identifying impairment, which was fairly standardized when it came to alcohol, are going to be effective when it comes to drugs. Not only do we have another piece of flawed legislation out there, but we have communities and enforcement agencies trying to scramble to figure out how to deal with that.

The next piece of legislation I am familiar with is Bill C-71, the government's firearms legislation, which, in listening to its rhetoric, is aimed at reducing gun violence, gangs and so on. However, the bill does not mention gangs or gun violence at any point in time. All it talks about is registering firearms and making things worse for law-abiding firearms owners.

The most current is probably Bill C-75, an act to amend the Criminal Code. That is a bill the government introduced to bring modernization to the Criminal Code. That bill has been bantered back and forth many times, but it is now at committee stage. My colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton is currently on the committee studying that bill, and members are looking at stacks and stacks of amendments to another government bill. I experienced the same thing when I sat in on the discussion on Bill C-69, when I happened to be substituting on that committee. I believe there were 600 amendments to that government bill. The bill was 300 pages long, and I believe 300 or 350 of those amendments came from the government side.

I continuously see the government putting forward draft legislation for debate in this House that it has not thought through or consulted on properly, and it just ends up being hashed about at committee. We have seen the Senate return a number of bills to this House with amendments. Worst of all, we see communities, enforcement agencies and the public trying to figure out how they are going to manage or work around this poorly drafted legislation from the government.

Turning back to Bill C-84, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to bestiality and animal fighting, I praise the government for bringing forward legislation to deal with this. I agree we need to do what we can, as legislators, to bring in legislation to protect people, protect the innocent and protect animals from the abuses we have seen. Also, to protect them from the ways criminals have been able to skirt the laws through definitions, different interpretations in the courts and so on. On that point, I will give the government credit for at least attempting to do something right.

When I look at this bill, I also see where it comes up short in some cases. I compare it to an insurance policy. I think everyone here has had an insurance policy and has taken a close look at it. Some have possibly made a claim through that insurance policy only to find out that the claim is denied because in the fine print something was excluded.

We may get a chance to amend this bill in committee. Even though it is a short bill and one would not think it needs much amendment, I do not believe it is perfect and I will be talking to committee members about possible amendments going forward.

When I see that the bill includes a phrase that basically bans the fighting or baiting of animals or birds, I question whether that is going to impact our provincial hunting regulations. I have not yet been able to have full discussion with anyone to determine this. In some provinces, it is completely legal and within ethical standards to plant crops to attract wildlife, such as deer and elk, to certain areas for hunting purposes. Those are perfectly accepted standards that continue to this day. In fact, many of those standards actually improve the chances of correct and humane harvest of those animals because they are at a baiting station.

That is why I question the wording in this bill. I will be following through further on this to make sure that this bill, like many other bills the government has put forward, is not flawed after it gets through committee. I want to make sure we are protected in those ways.

Another thing that troubles me with this bill is why it took the government almost a year to introduce its own bill that is identical in most ways to a bill introduced by a member from our side of the House, the member for Calgary Nose Hill. Her bill was introduced in December 2017, and yet the government sat on it and did not move it forward for debate. The government could have had this process done by now and given credit where credit was due, to the person who brought the issue forward.

It seems to be a continuous mantra of the government to not do anything until it is caught not doing anything. We see it when we have witnesses appear at committee to give testimony. We see it in the Auditor General reports. It just seems to be a continuing theme.

In fact, I had the same experience myself. I introduced a private member's bill a couple of years ago to recognize volunteers in search and rescue situations. Just a few weeks later the government announced that it was going to create service medals for search and rescue volunteers. Again, it was not doing anything until it got caught not doing anything.

That is the case here. It is disappointing that the government has to be shown the way forward by members on our side. We see this quite often with the opposition day motions we bring forward. In fact, we had another one just last week. We put forward an opposition day motion that the Liberals could have easily acted on much sooner, but we had to force their hand by forcing the argument and putting it to them to make them step up to the plate. It is just another case of, as I said, not doing anything until they are caught not doing anything. Then they get caught in a bind and have to put out something that is not complete, not well-thought-out and not well-processed.

With that, I am finished my comments. I know I will be receiving questions on this.

Public Safety

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition on Bill C-75, a bill which proposes to lighten the sentences for some very serious crimes like forceable confinement of a minor, forced child marriage, impaired driving and advocating genocide.

The petitioners call upon the Prime Minister to defend the safety and security of all Canadians by withdrawing Bill C-75.

Justice

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Liberal government is soft on crime and way too focused on coddling criminals instead of supporting victims and ensuring the safety of Canadians.

In the last month, we have seen the Liberals proactively welcome convicted terrorists back to Canada, transfer Tori Stafford's murderer into a healing lodge where kids are present, punish law-abiding gun owners while making life easier for terrorists, gangsters and criminals and provide generous veteran's benefits to a cop killer who never served a day of his life in the military.

Now it is doubling down with Bill C-75, a deeply-flawed omnibus justice bill that reduces the penalties for serious crimes like human trafficking, utilizing date rape drugs and impaired driving causing bodily harm. This is just further proof that the Liberals are making Canadians less safe and cannot be trusted to look after the interests of victims.

Why are the Liberals always on the wrong side when it comes to criminal justice?

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be partaking in today's debate on Bill C-84. It touches some subject matter which is difficult to talk about, but that is often the case with the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code is a gigantic statute that has to cover everything that could possibly go wrong in society and figure out how we amend and correct that behaviour, but also how we dole out punishment.

Bill C-84 is specifically aimed at addressing gaps in the Criminal Code that exist with respect to animal bestiality and animal fighting. Supreme Court decision R. v. D.L.W., from 2016, was referenced by both the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

Specifically, Bill C-84 would update section 160 of the Criminal Code to include a broader and more comprehensive definition of “bestiality” and would amend paragraph 445.(1)(b) and subsection 447(1) to address animal fighting, specifically building facilities to harbour animal fighting and also promoting or making money from the event.

Canada's animal welfare laws have not been substantively changed since the 1890s, which has to say something to anyone listening to this debate.

I want to acknowledge the member for Calgary Nose Hill, who brought forward a private member's bill on this issue, Bill C-388. In her drafting of Bill C-84, the Minister of Justice lifted Bill C-388 and included it. Therefore, that is an acknowledgement of the work the member for Calgary Nose Hill has done.

I know the member for Calgary Nose Hill was recently in a bit of a tussle with an iPolitics columnist on an article he recently wrote. He was looking at some of the statistics that existed with this crime. There is the Supreme Court of Canada case I mentioned and there has been one case in federal court. Even in the province of Alberta, which is home to 4.3 million people, six people were charged with that offence between 2013 and 2017. Therefore, it is not a very wide ranging crime. It is certainly an abhorrent one and one we should we should rightfully close in the Criminal Code.

What I am concerned about is not really what is in Bill C-84, which I hope will receive unanimous consent in the House to have it sent to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I am mostly concerned about what is not in it. I also agree with the member for Calgary Nose Hill's assessment of the glacial pace of justice reform by the Liberal government.

The minister came to power with a mandate letter from the Prime Minister, signalling bold criminal justice reform. We had a series of four government bills, which I will not number. Every time a new justice bill was added, like an amoeba, it would swallow the components of the first one and progressively get bigger and bigger. However, they were all languishing at first reading. Finally, we arrived at Bill C-75 and there was action on that bill, which I believe is currently at the justice committee. However, it has been a pretty glacial pace.

I like and respect the Minister of Justice. I was our party's justice critic for the entire 2017 year. It is a complex subject matter and requires a lot of responsibility and maturity to approach it. However, I have to judge the minister on her performance and I would not really give her a passing mark on the legislative front with respect to the promises made within her mandate letter.

I want to now move to a story from my riding, a story of Teddy the dog. This really goes to the heart of what is not included in Bill C-84. I will give my support to the bill, but I know constituents in my riding will be sorely disappointed. Teddy the dog was one of the most brutal cases of animal abuse the BC SPCA has ever witnessed.

In February of this year, officers came onto a property and found an adult dog tethered by a few inches. It was standing out in the wet and the cold in a pile of its own feces. The officers found a collar imbedded in that dog's neck that had caused the dog's head to swell to three times its original size, because it had been left on the dog from the time it was a puppy. The collar had never been loosened. When the officers removed the poor animal named Teddy and brought it to the veterinarian, the vet had to surgically remove that collar, which exposed the dog's trachea and a mound of infected flesh. Unfortunately, that dog passed away from its injuries.

It is far too often in this country that we hear of cases like that. Changing our laws would not be the magic bullet to solve this problem, but it would be one key, critical component, especially when we have such obvious gaps in our system.

There was a rally in my riding in March, where, as I said earlier, we had people from across the political spectrum. We had supporters of the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, my party and the Green Party. They were all united, because they cared about animal welfare, and they cared that the state of our animal cruelty laws is not up to what it should be right now.

During that rally, I made a commitment that despite the defeat of Bill C-246, put forward by the member for Beaches—East York, I would continue pressuring the Minister of Justice to close these gaps and address the shortcomings of our current criminal law.

The unfortunate fallout from the case of Teddy the dog was that some people in the community felt that they could take the law into their own hands. A great deal of racism came out of it, because it involved a property on a first nation reserve. Therefore, I want to take this opportunity to remind constituents in my riding that racism and vigilantism have no place in our community. While we must always stand on guard for animal welfare, and certainly prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those who are found guilty, we have to let the law do its job. We have to believe in the rule of law. We cannot support or condone in any way people taking up a case for themselves. I want to make that very clear.

As I mentioned in my question to the Minister of Justice, not only this Parliament but previous Parliaments have wrestled with the idea of the inadequacy of the Criminal Code provisions with respect to animal cruelty. There have been a number of Liberal bills and New Democrat bills over previous Parliaments that have dealt with this issue.

I will get to the bill put forward by the member for Beaches—East York, but first I want to mention the bill put forward in a previous Parliament by the great Irwin Cotler, probably one of the most revered Liberals ever and a former minister of justice himself. He introduced Bill C-610. It only made it to first reading, but that particular bill tried to make some important updates, specifically with respect to failing to provide adequate care. Bill C-610 was introduced on June 6, 2014. I want to read into the record the speech Mr. Cotler gave at that time:

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and introduce this legislation, which amends the Criminal Code's provisions on animal cruelty. In particular, it creates a new offence of inadequate and negligent care of animals. The bill establishes an offence for anyone who negligently causes unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal or a bird, or, being the owner, wilfully or recklessly abandons it or fails to provide suitable and adequate food, water, air, shelter and care for it. It also punishes those who negligently injure an animal or bird while it is being conveyed.

He went on to say that “Canada's animal cruelty laws are woefully out of date.” He left it at that.

The former member for Parkdale—High Park, Peggy Nash, introduced Bill C-232 in the last Parliament. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre, in the previous Parliament, introduced Bill C-277. There has been multi-party support for these initiatives, but every time, they seem to have run into roadblocks.

Coming up to the most recent attempt in this Parliament, Bill C-246, which was introduced by the member for Beaches—East York, unfortunately I was not present for that second reading vote. I was travelling with the Special Committee on Electoral Reform at that time. I was substituting on it. We were hearing from the great people of Atlantic Canada about how great it would be to have some electoral reform. Unfortunately, the Liberals did not see it the same way. We will see how that conversation goes on in the future.

In any case, I think the member for Beaches—East York acknowledged that his particular private member's bill probably bit off more than it could chew, as it was trying to cover so many different angles. The more a private member's bill covers, the more areas people can find problems with and reasons to shut the whole thing down. I know that there were concerns raised by my Conservative colleagues, especially with respect to legal activities such as ranching, hunting, fishing, trapping, medical research and so on. I think there are ways to proceed with legislation that would address those concerns.

My wife and I have a small farming property. I come from a rural area of Vancouver Island. My constituents like to hunt and fish, and many of them are farmers. I would not support a piece of legislation unless there were specific provisions to protect those activities. I have some of the best salmon fishing in the world right off the west coast of Vancouver Island, which I enjoy. That is something that is a part of our heritage.

I raise animals. Most farmers will say that looking after the welfare of their animals is good for business. We do not want to have animals that are sickly or in poor health. I can attest to that. I have chickens, turkeys and lambs. When they are happy and well looked after, they do very well. It is in my interest not only from a moral point of view but from a commercial standpoint. There are always going to be those few bad apples who give everyone a bad name. However, that is specifically what this law has to be designed for, to weed out the bad apples and go after those who are the poor farmers who give everyone a bad name, and so on.

In 2016, when the member for Victoria, who was our party's justice critic and is now back to being the justice critic, rose to give our party's response to Bill C-246, he addressed those concerns. He said that we can insert clauses into the Criminal Code that start off with the phrase “For greater certainty” to make the necessary changes.

I heard concerns during that debate from Conservatives who wondered about jurisdictional and constitutional issues, because we know that the provinces have their own animal cruelty laws, as does the federal government. However, the supremacy of the criminal law power could easily override provincial legislation to ensure that we were not ending up with a patchwork quilt and that the law applied equally in each province, no matter where one lived. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that valid criminal law requires a prohibition, a penalty and a criminal law purpose, such as peace, order, security, morality and health. A change with respect to animal cruelty could easily satisfy all of those.

Here we are three years into the government's mandate, which I alluded to in my opening remarks. With respect to Bill C-84, there is so much more that could have been included in this bill. I said to the Minister of Justice during questions and comments that, with respect, the provisions in Bill C-84, which is not a very big bill, are very much the low-hanging fruit. I do not see how anyone in this place could raise any legitimate concerns about the bill, except for tinkering around the edges, such as whether some words could be modified. The general purpose of the bill is to broaden the definition of “bestiality” and to make sure that we have an all-encompassing law that goes against animal fighting. We are not going to find any significant objection to that.

However, the minister saying, after the defeat of Bill C-246, that the conversation would continue, that the Department of Justice would be having ongoing consultations with stakeholders, I think led many Canadians to believe that reform was actually coming. Therefore, when I announced to my constituents that we had Bill C-84 and what was missing, I had to convey a sense of disappointment.

Honestly, I think I and many constituents and many Canadians across this country were expecting a lot more, not only because it is three years into the government's mandate but because it is also two years after the defeat of Bill C-246. I know that the member for Beaches—East York has conveyed publicly that Bill C-84 is an obvious choice and is the low-hanging fruit. However, there is a sense of wondering what else is coming.

The Liberals are masters of the long promise. They say that they are continuing to engage with people, but I would not be surprised if we have to wait until the 43rd Parliament before we get some action. Who knows who will be in power at that point to deliver it?

My party has long supported animal cruelty measures. I have mentioned all the private members' bills. We could have included in this legislation, and I hope this is something the committee on justice and human rights will look at, some provisions for basic standards of care.

If I look at the case of Teddy the dog, in my riding, he was tethered with a chain just a few inches long and was having to stand in his own pile of feces. The B.C. SPCA has some specific recommendations the government could take note of. Basically, they want to see, for any dogs or animals that are tethered, five freedoms respected: freedom from hunger and thirst; freedom from pain, injury and disease; freedom from distress; freedom from discomfort and freedom to express behaviours that promote well-being. That is a starting point. There are lots of suggestions out there. There are many different stakeholders involved in this issue, and this is something the government could have taken note of.

As I referenced in my earlier questions and comments, I have written to the minister on this issue on behalf of constituents. Prior to Bill C-84 being introduced, I conveyed in my correspondence to the justice minister the concerns of my community about how many cases of animal cruelty exist across this country and that this particular case acted as a catalyst. People are demanding more action.

The minister did respond in June of this year. Again, it was not really anything concrete. She assured me that the government was intending to review all the options to improve any gaps in protection resulting from the existing Criminal Code provision, which is something that has not been done yet. The minister agreed publicly that animal cruelty is a significant social issue that needs to be addressed, and so on. There are many public comments that come from the government that signal an intent to do something, but when we actually get something concrete, like Bill C-84, we see that it has not amounted to much.

Just to highlight how important this particular issue is and why these gaps are so important, I want to speak about some of the statistics. It was reported, I think a couple of years ago, that there are approximately 45,000 animal cruelty complaints in Canada every year, but only one in 1,000 result in charges and far fewer in convictions. That is a significant difference between complaints and actual action in the court system. It says to me that there is definitely a need for this legislation.

I will conclude by saying that we support these gaps being addressed in the Criminal Code. Bill C-84 is an important first step. The Minister of Justice can be assured that we, as a caucus, will be supporting this bill going forward to committee, but we will remind Canadians that there was so much more that could have been done. It is a sad day that, after three years, we are still going to have to wait for those meaningful parts to be addressed.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-84, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bestiality and animal fighting), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure I speak to Bill C-84, an act to amend the Criminal Code, bestiality and animal fighting, which brings forward important updates to the Criminal Code. Our government remains steadfast in our commitment to ensure our laws protect our most vulnerable and reflect our commonly held values. The bill is exactly about that.

As a government, we have brought forward important amendments to the Criminal Code, including by increasing efficiencies in the criminal justice system, cleaning up outdated and unconstitutional provisions, clarifying sexual assault laws and strengthening the impaired driving regime. These changes, along with those proposed in Bill C-84, reflect my ongoing commitment to ensuring our criminal laws remain clear, comprehensible and contemporary.

I am proud of our efforts in this regard and will continue to pursue law reform that is evidence-based and ensures our criminal justice system extends the strongest protections to Canadians, especially the most vulnerable.

Before I begin to outline the details of the bill, I would like to acknowledge the advocacy of many honourable members in the House, including in particular the member for Beaches—East York for his leadership and for initiating a very important discussion on this issue in his private member's bill. I would also like to thank the several organizations and numerous Canadians who have written in and advocated for many years. The bill is a result of their hard work.

Bill C-84 focuses on filling gaps in the Criminal Code and preventing violence and cruelty toward animals. It reflects significant consultation with child and animal protection groups, as well as agricultural and animal use stakeholders, and brings forward changes that reflect a common ground approach to addressing these important issues.

Clause 1 would add a definition of “bestiality” in section 160 of the Criminal Code to include “any contact, for a sexual purpose, between a person and an animal.” This responds to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. D.L.W. in 2016, where the court held that the bestiality offences in section 160 of the Criminal Code were limited to sexual acts with animals that involved penetration. In arriving at that determination, the court examined the common law definition of bestiality, which originated in British law and was subsequently incorporated into our Criminal Code.

The broadened definition would increase protections for children, as well as other vulnerable individuals who may be compelled to engage in or witness bestiality, and animals, by ensuring the criminal law captures all sexual acts with animals, not just those involving penetration. By virtue of the definition's “sexual purpose” focus, legitimate animal husbandry and veterinary practices would continue to be excluded from the scope of the offence.

In its decision, the Supreme Court noted that courts must interpret the law, not change the elements of crimes in ways that seemed to them to better suit the circumstances of a particular case. Rather, it is Parliament's responsibility to expand the scope of criminal liability, should it elect to do so.

In the wake of this decision, child protection advocates as well as animal welfare groups expressed serious concern with the effect of the decision and called for law reform. I agree the gap identified by the Supreme Court requires a parliamentary response, and we are doing just that.

As mentioned, this bill responds to the Supreme Court's decision in D.L.W., by defining bestiality as “any contact, for a sexual purpose, with an animal.” This would ensure all contact between a human and an animal for sexual purpose would be prohibited. This would send a clear and unequivocal message to those who would wish to harm animals. This amendment would also provide increased protection to children who would be exposed to or coerced to participate in abusive conduct, as well as other vulnerable persons who may be compelled to engage in such conduct.

The proposed definition focuses on the broad term of contact for sexual purpose. The phrase “for a sexual purpose” has a well-established meaning in Canadian criminal law. It is used in a number of different instances in the Criminal Code, and I am confident the use of this consistent terminology will cover the offences in question.

In its entirety, the proposed definition is clearer and reflects Canadians' understanding of what this offence entails. It is also consistent with calls from animal welfare groups and agricultural stakeholders, including the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.

At the same time, this definition will ensure that those involved in legitimate animal husbandry activities, including breeding livestock and veterinary medicine, will not be captured by these offences.

Currently, the Criminal Code has three main offences related to bestiality. Bill C-84 does not change the nature of the penalties related to these offences which, on indictment, carry maximum sentences ranging from 10 to 14 years in jail.

I would also like to note that the changes proposed in my criminal justice reform legislation, Bill C-75, will increase the maximum penalty on summary conviction for both offences to two years less a day. Such changes will contribute to a more efficient criminal justice system by encouraging proceeding by way of summary conviction where it is appropriate to do so.

There is a strong public safety rationale for Parliament to expand the scope of these offences, particularly as it relates to enhancing protections for children and other vulnerable persons. Research continues to demonstrate a well-established link between animal sexual abuse and sexual abuse of children, as well as other forms of violence.

I would note that the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies organized a conference in 2017, the purpose of which was to look more closely at these issues. The final report provides an overview of these issues. I commend the federation for its important work to promote a greater understanding of the severity of these issues.

We also see these links in criminal cases. Canadian criminal law shows that when sexual abuse of a child involves an animal, the extent of this horrible behaviour is most often severe and frequently includes a pattern of vicious treatment of both the child and the animal. With this bill we are ensuring that those in law enforcement, including prosecutors, have the tools they need to achieve justice for the victims of these despicable acts.

I would also like to discuss a second set of reforms contained in Bill C-84, which marks an important step in providing comprehensive protections for all animals. These additional measures will strengthen protections for animals by broadening the scope of the animal fighting offences in the Criminal Code.

There are currently two offences in the Criminal Code that specifically address animal fighting. The first is paragraph 445.1(1)(b), which prohibits encouraging, aiding or assisting at the fighting or baiting of animals. This is a hybrid offence with a maximum penalty of five years on indictment or a maximum of 18 months' imprisonment and/or a fine, not exceeding $10,000. Bill C-75 will also increase the maximum penalty on summary conviction to two years less a day.

Presently, this offence fails to capture a number of other associated activities with participating in the deplorable activity of animal fighting. Accordingly, Bill C-84 proposes to broaden the scope of this offence to include a wider range of activities, including encouraging, promoting, arranging and assisting at, receiving money for, or taking part in the fighting or baiting of animals, including prohibiting any of these activities with respect to the training, transporting or breeding of animals for fighting or baiting.

These are important changes and will ensure that all aspects of animal fighting are prohibited, ensuring that all persons in the chain of this criminal behaviour can be held accountable. I note, in particular, that the proposed changes also target the financial incentives associated with this crime and, in so doing, will act to discourage those involved with this unacceptable behaviour.

The second existing offence prohibits keeping a cockpit, which is section 447, and carries the same penalties as animal fighting. It too will see its maximum penalty on summary conviction increase through Bill C-75. This offence, as it exists in the Criminal Code, is extremely narrow in scope, a reflection of its historical origins when cockfighting was the primary form of animal fighting.

However, we know that, unfortunately, dog fighting has grown in prominence today. Bill C-84 amends this offence to ensure it extends to building, keeping or maintaining any arena for the purposes of fighting any animal. The fact of the matter is that all forms of animal fighting are cruel and abhorrent, and so our laws should appropriately extend to all animals. Simply stated, there is no legitimate or reasonable societal purpose to engage in animal fighting. This behaviour is cruel and must be stopped.

This is another important step our government is taking to ensure our criminal laws are contemporary and address conduct that is deserving of criminal sanction. It is important to note that animal fighting has often been linked to organized crime, including illegal gambling and the illicit trafficking of drugs and weapons. The changes we are bringing forward in Bill C-84 will improve the ability of law enforcement to prosecute criminals, track cases of animal fighting and protect public safety. By broadening the offence to include additional activities, we are ensuring that law enforcement is equipped to detect and intercept the crime at whatever stage it is discovered.

I would like to take a few minutes to speak specifically about dog fighting. Given its clandestine nature, it is difficult to collect statistics on the prevalence of dog fighting in Canada. In fact, dog-fighting operations often go undetected until law enforcement officers discover them while investigating other crimes. That said, we know that in May and October 2015 and in March 2016, the Ontario SPCA major case management team, the Ontario Provincial Police and the Chatham-Kent Police Service partnered together to end suspected dog-fighting operations. These three joint investigations led to the execution of 11 search warrants on three properties in Lanark County, Tilbury and Kent Bridge, Ontario. This resulted in the seizure of 64 pit bull dogs, documents, pictures, veterinary supplies, electronic equipment and hundreds of items related to the training and fighting of dogs.

The Ontario SPCA reports that dog fighting is undeniably taking place in Ontario. The Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals reports that dog fights can last one to two hours and end only when one of the dogs is too injured to continue or has died. The dogs involved often suffer from deep puncture wounds, broken bones, and in many cases die from blood loss or infection.

As I mentioned, dog fighting, a terrible form of animal cruelty, is also linked to a wide range of other crimes, including illegal gambling and drugs and weapons offences. The primary motivation for dog fighting is gambling and participants often wager thousands of dollars, showing how lucrative it is for those involved.

I would also note that, according to the Ontario SPCA, when police raid dog-fighting events, they often find children present. Exposure to this type of abuse desensitizes children to violence and may itself be a form of child abuse. I am proud that we are taking important steps to limit and prevent this horrible abuse to animals and children. The proposed reforms to the offence, targeting arenas coupled with the changes to the animal-fighting offence, will target those who take part in training or receive money to train dogs to fight and who employ terrible techniques to increase the viciousness and ferocity of these animals. This so-called training can include abusively suspending a dog from a tree or a pole by its jaw and encouraging the dog to grab bait and hold on as long as possible in order to increase the lethality of its bite.

No animal should have to die as a form of human entertainment. It is unspeakably cruel and offends Canadians' values at the deepest level.

I am proud of these necessary changes we are bringing forward to protect animals from horrible situations of abuse. It is important for me to reiterate that this bill in no way interferes with any legitimate animal use. This bill seeks to protect public safety and ensures that we are doing more to prevent violence and cruelty toward animals.

We are focusing on aspects of protection that enjoy broad support and reflect our shared values. Again, the broadening of these offences will not interfere with legitimate animal uses, such as the training and work of service dogs, medical research, hunting, fishing or indigenous animal harvesting rights. Animal fighting and bestiality are in no way legitimate activities.

Before I conclude, I would like to reiterate that this bill is the result of significant consultation and there has been broad support expressed for these reforms. As mentioned earlier, the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture have called for these changes. The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association and many agricultural stakeholder groups have also advocated for these amendments to address animal fighting and bestiality.

As parliamentarians, many of us hear from concerned citizens who are urging action to modernize our animal cruelty offences. Similarly, in our consultations, a number of provinces have called upon Parliament to take action to address the gap identified by the Supreme Court in D.L.W. I am confident that this bill addresses these concerns.

I recognize that some would want the bill to go further by proposing additional reforms to animal cruelty laws. I believe it is critically important that we take steps now to address these particular issues, for which I believe there is broad support. Our government is committed to all of the appropriate protections that are extended to the most vulnerable, and we will continue to review this as part of our broad review of the criminal justice system.

There have already been some suggestions made, including by animal rights organizations, on the ways that we can strengthen this bill. As I have said with respect to other legislation, I welcome constructive suggestions that reflect the objectives of our proposed reforms and look forward to a fulsome and productive debate. I therefore urge all members to support this bill and help ensure its swift passage.

Justice

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.

The first petition is with respect to Bill C-75. This bill would reduce the penalty for serious crimes such as forceable confinement of a minor, polygamy, terrorist acts, etc. The petitioners are calling on the Prime Minister to defend the safety and security of all Canadians by withdrawing Bill C-75.

Record Suspension Program

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Motion No. 161, which seeks a review of the record suspension program as amended in Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, enacted by the previous Conservative government. I would like to thank the member for Saint John—Rothesay for introducing the motion and providing me the opportunity to recall some of the excellent work done in the realm of justice and law and order by the previous government.

The Safe Streets and Communities Act introduced many important and necessary changes to how our criminal justice system worked and focused on protecting victims of crime. The bill was thoroughly vetted, with over 200 hours of debate between committee and the House. By the time Bill C-10 was introduced, Conservatives had done much to reform the justice system. We passed mandatory minimum sentences for gang-related murders and drive-by shootings. We eliminated the shameful practice of giving two-for-one credit for time served in pretrial custody. We strengthened the national sex offender registry and passed legislation ensuring that drug dealers were not let out of prison after serving a mere one-sixth of their sentences, not to mention the outstanding track record our government had on crime prevention.

Bill C-10, as just one of the over 25 bills we passed to reform our Justice system, continued in the tradition of those Conservative measures to crack down on crime by legislating many new and improved measures. Some of those measures included increasing the penalties for sexual offences against children. lt targeted organized drug crime by toughening sentences for narcotics trafficking. lt protected foreign workers who were at risk of becoming victims of human trafficking or exploitation. Notably, Bill C-10 enacted the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, which allowed the victims of terror attacks to sue both the individual responsible and those who supported that individual. lt granted broader leeway for the Minister of Public Safety to decide if someone who committed crimes overseas, including acts of terror, should be allowed to come back to Canada.

These are points of particular interest now as a comparison to the Liberal government's record on terrorists, their victims and the victims of crime overall. The Liberal government has sought to bring ISIS fighters back into Canada. The Liberals willingly wrote a cheque for $10.5 million to convicted terrorist Omar Khadr. Where is the respect for the victims of terrorist attacks? Where is the respect for their families, for Tabitha Speer?

Compare and contrast the record of the previous Conservative government to the Liberal government on any of these issues and it quickly becomes clear that the previous Conservative government was focused squarely on protecting the rights of victims, while the Liberal government is focused on protecting the rights of criminals. I understand this is a bold statement to make, but I have a hard time seeing the changes the government is making to our justice system in any other way. While the previous Conservative government ensured that criminals faced the consequences of their actions, the Liberal government has introduced Bill C-75, a bill that opens the door to shockingly lenient sentences for crimes such as abducting children, advocating genocide, impaired driving causing bodily harm and even engaging in terrorist activities.

I am bringing these issues into focus in this debate today to make a point. The Liberal government has an appalling track record on this file. It has continually weakened the protections for victims of crime, while making life easier for criminals. I believe it is crucial to remember the government's record while discussing the question underlined in the motion.

There are certain individuals who would be greatly pleased to use this motion as an opportunity to call for the wholesale repeal of Bill C-10. Engaging in that discussion would be a mistake. I am always willing to discuss and debate the merits of particular and fine points of the legislative track record of our former government; however, Bill C-10 was clearly a step in the right direction in that it placed the emphasis on the role of the victim in our justice system and ensured that criminals faced the consequences for their actions.

Let me be clear. I believe it is important to review the impacts of changes to a law. ln fact, I welcome reviews of legislation, as too often governments of all stripes pass laws with the very best of intentions, which may result in an end very different than what the government had in mind.

Given the bill became law nearly six years ago, it may be a good idea to ensure that the changes made to the record suspension program are accomplishing that which they were intended to do. ln fact, my hon. colleague for Saint John—Rothesay states it very clearly in the early part of the motion before us today, which reads:

That the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security be instructed to undertake a study of the Record Suspension Program to: (a) examine the impact of a record suspension to help those with a criminal record reintegrate into society;

There is the line “reintegrate into society”.

The ideal outcome of a prison sentence is not merely for offenders to face the consequences of their bad actions, but for them to reform into productive members of society. However, there must be a clear litmus test to ensure offenders have indeed reformed their ways.

We have a system of criminal records to protect citizens from the possibility of becoming unwitting victims of a previous offender. However, in a just society, a society founded on Judeo-Christian principles, there ought to be an opportunity for redemption. This is why the record suspension program exists, to give another chance to those who have proven themselves reformed.

ln order to access this program, however, the litmus test I alluded to earlier must be met. Bill C-10 set the standard as 10 years lived crime-free for serious crimes or five years for summary offences. lt also disqualified those who proved themselves too dangerous, by including those convicted of sexual offences against children and those convicted of three indictable offences, from ever being eligible to apply. Bill C-10 ensured that offenders would pay their own way through this system and increased the record suspension application fee to reflect that belief.

ln crafting the bill, the previous government believed that this standard would best protect the community, respect the rights of victims and provide those who had proven themselves deserving a second opportunity. Now, perhaps enough time has passed for the results of the these changes to be reviewed.

I am sure that all of us in this place wish to ensure that the process of the record suspension program is not hindering long-rehabilitated individuals from becoming productive members of society. However, let me again state the importance of retaining the focus on this aspect of Bill C-10. The Safe Streets and Communities Act placed the focus squarely on the rights of victims.

Listening to those who wish to repeal the bill would be a step backward for our justice system. I remain cautiously optimistic that the motion before us today will provide the opportunity to further strengthen our justice system.

Justice

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this week is Access to Justice Week. Launched by The Action Group on Access to Justice, the goal is to ensure that our justice system addresses the needs of all Canadians, including the most vulnerable, who either exist on the periphery of our system or are victimized by it. We share this goal.

Our government is committed to improving access to justice. In Bill C-78, we are streamlining family justice to make things less complex and less costly for single parents seeking the financial support they are owed, the vast majority of whom are single women. In Bill C-75, we are improving criminal justice to end peremptory challenges and ensure that our juries actually represent our communities, which will directly impact indigenous persons and black Canadians, two groups overrepresented in the criminal justice system. We have overhauled our judicial appointments system, because we know that accessing justice improves when Canadians can see themselves reflected on a more diverse bench.

Access to justice is a priority for our government, not just this week but 52 weeks a year.

Firearms

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, git yer orange on, it's huntin' season in the Ottawa Valley. For Canadians who share a love of the great outdoors and the pursuit of traditional heritage activities, for Canadians who enjoy the camaraderie of a hunt camp with family and friends, fall is a favourite time of year. Anyone who has experienced a week in the bush, evenings spent by a campfire, stories shared, instinctively knows what I am talking about.

The millions of responsible, law-abiding firearms owners do not understand why the Liberal Party feels it must hate our independence. We do not understand why the Liberal Prime Minister encourages the mean and divisive policies that target law-abiding citizens, like Bill C-71, and how the current ploy is to promote a fake ban on firearms. It does this while pushing laws like Bill C-75, which will decrease criminal penalties.

Farmers, hunters and recreational shooters know they are not safe whenever there is a petty tyrant sitting on the throne. To all the hunters, be careful, be safe and have a good hunt.

Opposition Motion—Terrorism

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not need a copy of Bill C-59 because I have read it. What it does is water down our national security and RCMP and policing agencies' ability to do exactly that, which is to fight terrorism. It makes it a lot more difficult for police to share information from one agency to another agency in Canada on terrorists, on those returning, on those activities within the country.

Bill C-75 and other acts have made it a hybrid offence to participate in these sorts of activities. For anyone to suggest that Bill C-59 is an improvement across the board over Bill C-51 has missed the swing of the pendulum when it comes to protecting Canadians and national security.

Public Safety

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to dealing with terrorists, the Liberals' priorities are misplaced. In fact, they communicate with individuals who may have never been in Canada to try to bring them here.

It is not enough to support our motion. When will the Prime Minister submit a plan on how he intends to deal with terrorists, including the repeal of Bill C-75? This bill would remove the tools that law enforcement officers need to bring these people to justice.

Opposition Motion—Terrorism

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for bringing up Bill C-10 on victims of terrorism. He and I saw again this past weekend Maureen Basnicki, who was a victim of terrorism. Her husband died in 9/11. She lives in Collingwood, and she has no recourse against those criminals. She is one of the inspirations behind Bill C-10. We brought in Bill S-7 to allow more government tools and more tools for the RCMP and border services so we could get the job done.

What we see from the Liberals is Bill C-75, which would take joining a terrorist organization down to a fine rather than an indictable offence.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-83.

One of the things that I find truly remarkable about this bill is that specific measures were taken for the rehabilitation process of inmates with mental health problems.

Before becoming an MP, I promised myself to go see things that I could not see as a regular citizen. The first such thing was to visit a military base and meet the men and women who are committed to serving the country.

The second was to visit a prison. I knew that the reality in penitentiaries was quite different from that of ordinary Canadians. In December 2016, I had the privilege of visiting a penitentiary and that experience had a real impact on me. I saw the conditions that criminals are living in. There certainly are people who deserve to be there, but they will leave prison one day. It is important to provide all the necessary services to give them the best chances to reintegrate into civil society.

I visited two men's prisons. The inmates not only have trouble obeying the law, but also have mental health issues. I am very proud that this bill will give them access to services that can help them learn to deal with their mental illness. I think a holistic, comprehensive solution to all this is key to ensuring that people have a chance to deal with their problems. In many cases, mental illness is what led these people to break the law.

That is why I am very proud to participate in this debate and support this bill. The program will enable inmates to reintegrate thanks to better services that help them deal with their mental illness.

The second reason I am so proud to participate in developing this program is that it will give us an opportunity to take a close look at issues affecting indigenous populations. As we all know, 4% of Canada's population is indigenous. I went to Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, to visit the penitentiary, where the majority of the population is indigenous. In general, penitentiary populations are between 26% and 28% indigenous.

That is six to seven times higher than their demographic weight, which I think indicates a number of things. First, we need to do better with respect to many issues affecting indigenous communities. Second, systemic discrimination exists in our criminal justice system. We need to do everything we can to tackle these issues. I was very proud to hear the speech given by the Minister of Justice last June, I think, when she was introducing Bill C-75. She said that we are going to try to address this, because it is extremely important.

As a black Canadian, I am well aware that people in the black community are also victims. There were a lot of black inmates in the prison I visited in 2016, even though it was in a very remote area of Saskatchewan. This also indicates that there is a problem with systemic discrimination in our justice system. We need to address and resolve these issues. I am proud to say that the provisions of this bill will give us the opportunity to ensure that all services are provided, which is very important and can improve the chances that these individuals will be able to successfully integrate into society. That is the goal.

We are not like some people who believe that humans can be treated like animals, that you can put them in a cage, lock the door and throw away the key. That is not acceptable. That is inhumane. That view is not worthy of a civilized society such as ours. We must ensure that we properly address these issues. When people break the law, there definitely will be consequences. Those people deserve to be in jail, but we must plan for and consider the day that they will get out of jail.

We cannot just punish them. We also have to teach them how to be members of our civilized society and how to be good citizens. In order to do that, we have an obligation to ensure that they receive all services they need to better adapt and better reintegrate into our society. I encourage all my colleagues who have not yet done so to follow my lead and visit a penitentiary or a prison.

That will change their minds. That will encourage members to focus on finding solutions that will help these people to get out of jail, learn their lesson and learn to obey the laws and customs of a civil society. If they do not, there will be consequences. However, we want to ensure that these people are ultimately well reintegrated into our society. That is why I am delighted to learn that we will have services to try to help these people address their mental health issues.

Justice

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition about Bill C-75.

Bill C-75 proposes to lighten the sentences for some very serious crimes, such as belonging to a terrorist organization, forcible confinement of a minor, forcible marriage of a child, and a number of other very serious crimes. The petitioners are calling on the Prime Minister to defend the safety and security of all Canadians by withdrawing Bill C-75.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to Bill C-83 because I am concerned that the changes it would make may put in jeopardy the safety of our institutional staff and that of the inmates who are under our care and control.

I was confused when the government introduced the bill.

In February of this year, the government appealed a ruling by the B.C. Supreme Court that struck down Canada's law on indefinite solitary confinement, arguing that it needed clarity on the decision. Therefore, why is the government introducing legislation before receiving that clarity? Why are the Liberals fighting the court decision to strike down solitary confinement, while at the same time introducing legislation to do just that? Are they just changing the words and calling it a structural intervention unit?

I have a federal prison in my riding of Yellowhead, the Grande Cache Institution. It is a medium-security institution with approximately 300 employees and 240 offenders. I have a lot of respect for my constituents who work there. Working for Correctional Service Canada often means working with violent offenders. Proposed section 36 of the new act will deal with the obligations of service and the rights of prisoners in structural intervention areas. It states:

...The Service shall provide an inmate in a structured intervention unit

(a) an opportunity to spend a minimum of four hours a day outside the inmate’s cell; and

(b) an opportunity to interact, for a minimum of two hours a day, with others, through activities including, but not limited to,

(i) programs, interventions and services...

(ii) leisure time.

Proposed section 37 of the new act states that proposed section 36 does not apply if the inmate refuses or the inmate “does not comply with...instructions to ensure their safety or that of any other person or the security of the penitentiary.”

As part of their job, employees are responsible for providing a safe, secure and positive environment for offenders, which is an essential element in helping offenders reintegrate into society. However, is the government fostering a safe and secure environment for our prison guards to work within these institutions?

Solitary confinement is a common safety measure many western countries take to protect guards from dangerous and volatile prisoners. I wonder if any of our front-line workers have been consulted on taking this tool away from them. Are we properly training our guards who deal with the most dangerous of offenders, offenders with possible mental conditions and psychological problems? Are these guards being given the necessary tools and knowledge to recognize, work with, protect and, for their own safety, help reintegrate these prisoners?

I am concerned that the bill does not mention new training programs to assist prison guards in these changes or in the current programs. It is paramount that the guards dealing with the most dangerous of our offenders have the knowledge and expertise to deal with them. This is for everyone's protection and safety.

I have heard concerns from prison staff members that more training should be given to them when they are dealing with high-risk offenders, such as murderers, compared to someone serving six months for theft. We need to ensure they feel prepared and comfortable, instead of taking away the tools they use to manage inmates.

Instead of solitary confinement, the government would create structural intervention units, SIUs. Let us be fair: This is just white-washing with some finely tuned words.

Under the new SIU model, inmates who misbehave and cannot be safely managed in the mainstream population will get personal programs tailored to their own needs. Are we forgetting the protection and safety of other inmates and prison staff in order to meet the new guidelines as outlined under the SIU? The segregation of certain prisoners in some cases has been done to protect those persons from internal conflicts with other inmates because of their character or mental disposition. In other cases, it is done for legal reasons that could cause interference with an investigation that could lead to criminal charges or a charge relating to serious disciplinary offences within the institution.

Under the new act, prisoners segregated for their own safety may spend up to four hours outside their cells each day. This is where I am concerned. This will require more resources and will create longer periods for the chance of an incident to occur. The replacement of solitary confinement strips the ability of guards to use segregation for disciplinary purposes. This change will make prisons more dangerous for the guards as they deal with the worst and most volatile prisoners.

Because the guards are dealing with the most violent criminals and those who do not care to follow the prison rules, when an incident does occur, it is going to be a lot more serious and require more force. Why are we putting our front line workers at risk?

I am also concerned that these prisoners who are segregated for their own safety may demand equal opportunities under the new act. This may open up an opportunity for their safety to be jeopardized and also put the safety of our guards in question.

This is just another example of the Liberals going soft on criminals and showing indifference to everyone else. Once again, the Liberals are prioritizing the rights of Canada's most violent and dangerous criminals.

Let me remind everyone of Bill C-75, which proposes sweeping changes to the Criminal Code and reduces the penalties of crimes to fines. Through Bill C-75, the Liberals are reducing penalties for terrorism, gang members, prison breaches, human trafficking, and the list goes on and on. It is not a surprise to me that the Liberal government is now prioritizing the rights of convicted and violent criminals inside our prison system.

Another aspect of the bill that I find deeply concerning is the new provision that would allow the commissioner to sub-designate parts of institutions to be a different level of security. It reads:

The Commissioner may assign the security classification of “minimum security”, “medium security”, “maximum security” or “multi-level security”, or any other prescribed security classification, to each penitentiary or to any area in a penitentiary.

Theoretically, could the commissioner authorize that a room, say in a healing lodge, to be designated as maximum or medium security by adding an extra lock on the door? There needs to be clarification on whether this is to be used as a temporary measure or if this is a declaration that can be made indefinitely of an area. If so, what is the security protocol that would be put in place to change an “area” to a higher designation than the rest of the facility? Under what circumstances would it be used?

This provision will lead to more cases where higher security prisoners are allowed into lower security spaces, all based on technicalities. Why are we allowing prisoners who should be in maximum or medium-security facilities into lower designated facilities?

I agree with one part of the bill, and that is body scanners. Already in use in the provinces of British Columbia and Ontario, body scanners should be used to scan prisoners in federal institutions. The more effective we can be in our searches, the better. That means fewer drugs, weapons and other contraband entering our prison systems.

I wonder why the government decided to stop there, though. Why only scan prisoners? In 2014, the CBC broadcast an article on the statistics of contraband entering prisons. The data obtained by CBC showed that corrections seized almost 9,000 unauthorized and contraband items, up almost 2,000 from a few years earlier. That was an increase of 20%. The article noted:

CSC spokesman Jonathan Schofield said the spike is due to enhanced security measures brought in to stem the flow of drugs and other contraband into institutions, including increased searches, random urine tests, and tools such as metal detectors, X-rays, drug-detecting ion scanners and dogs.

Howard Sapers, the former correctional investigator of Canada, said that likely sources of contraband included other people coming in to the prison and sometimes even trusted personnel.

Maybe we should be using body scanners to scan everyone, not just the prisoners, entering our institutions. This will help ensure that everyone inside the institution, prisoners, staff and visitors, all have a safe and secure environment in which to live and work. There are different types of body scanners, some detect drugs, others detect metal. We use them in our airports, and there is no reason we cannot use the most sophisticated equipment in our jail system.

I am not in favour of the recently announced needle exchange program and a good scanning system would eliminate the need for such a program.

We must remember that any legislation brought in that changes how we manage our prisons must take into consideration the safety of our government employees and the safety of other inmates within our institutions. This to me is paramount over catering to the needs of convicted criminals. We must remember they are there because they have committed crimes and are being punished for those crimes. Yes, they have rights to a certain extent, but our institutions are not summer camps or recreational retreats.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of concerns.

The member mentioned in her speech that extensive consultations were done, but my understanding is that the government did not consult with the union of correctional officers, who certainly will be impacted.

In addition to that, I am concerned about the Liberal direction of making life easier for criminals, beginning with Bill C-51 and then Bill C-75, where penalties for very serious crimes, such as forcible confinement of a minor and terrorism, were dropped. The government has brought ISIS terrorists back and now is trying to make life easier for criminals.

Why are the Liberals doing that as a priority?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with my remarkable colleague from Cariboo—Prince George. I use the word “remarkable” because the word “incredible” has been overused for him recently.

I am proud to speak today to Bill C-83, which amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. This is also known as another case of Liberals putting interests of criminals ahead of everyone else, with little thought put into it. It should not be confused with Liberal Bill C-71, or Bill C-75, or Bill C-28, or any other myriad number of bills in which they have put criminal rights ahead of those of regular citizens.

We all know the horrific story of the case of Ashley Smith and her unfortunate death. That never should have happened within our prison system, and the government should make moves to prevent situations like that from recurring. However, it should not impose a poorly thought-out, outright ban on segregation.

There are some good parts to the bill and I congratulate the government on it. I support the idea of body scans to prevent contraband and drugs coming into prisons, but it should be extended to everyone entering the prison, not just certain people. I also like that it gives more consideration to indigenous offenders.

But, and it is a big but, there are a few key points in the bill that would directly impact the safety and security of our corrections officers and those who need segregation for their own safety. This is another example of the government's obsession with making criminals' lives easier while making our front-line officers' jobs more dangerous.

I want to talk about the reality of the most common use of segregation. Inmates who commit crimes in prison do not always get the segregation. Very often, it is the victims who are segregated to protect them from those inmates. It is often used as a means of ensuring the safety of the targeted inmate from further assault, often because the target does not want to name the inmate who assaulted them. This means the assaults continue and the inmate who went into a segregation unit has to eventually reintegrate somewhere else in another unit or institution, or even in another region in the country.

It is relatively uncommon that segregation is ordered as a disciplinary sanction. In fact, most inmates view segregation time as a holiday rather than a consequence, especially since they must receive all their possessions, such as a television and their other belongings on their property card, within 24 hours of admission.

A report from CBC that came out last April quoted the Ontario Public Service Employees Union as saying that segregation isn't the deterrent it once was, because the maximum time inmates can spend in segregation has been halved and increased privileges for those in segregation mean that inmates are no longer as skittish about being sent there. It also confirmed that in fact there are not enough segregation units, at least in Ontario, because most are being used by inmates who have mental health issues.

That is the provincial system, but it correlates to the federal system as well. It leaves violent inmates out in the general population, where they can continue to commit assaults against other inmates and corrections officers themselves.

Another CBC report quotes an officer as saying, “Where [the more violent inmates] used to be in separate containers, now they're all in one bag, and we're just waiting for one to go off. And that sets the rest of them off and you end up with murders, stabbings, slashing, and officer injuries higher than ever.”

Another officer is quoted as saying, “The inmates, they can get away with a lot more than they used to in the past, and that contributes to the growing violence and the crisis in corrections.”

As I mentioned, with previous changes to segregation policies the maximum time in segregation has already been cut in half. Also, the increase in privileges available to those in segregation means it is not as strong a deterrent as it used to be. All removing segregation does, especially disciplinary segregation, is soften reprisals for bad behaviour. Inmates know there is one less tool for correctional officers to use to maintain order and ensure their own safety and that of other inmates.

A CBC report from September 2017 indicated that the stricter limits on segregation have led to a massive upswing in inmate assaults. Between 2012 and 2017, the number of violent repeat offences after leaving segregation increased 50%.

Statistics released recently for corrections in Ontario show close to 800 reported incidents in 2016. By halfway through 2017, the last time we had the numbers available, there were almost as many violent incidents in our prisons. The report quotes Jason Godin, president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, who pointed out that segregation is a tool for a reason and that restrictive policies only transfer the problem of violence.

The creation and integration of structured intervention units makes violent and non-violent inmates equal, regardless of the quality of their conduct while they serve their time. They get access to four hours per day outside their cells from the structured units, and they also get two hours of “significant human contact”. This is going to require significant increases in resources for the officers, but there is no money set aside for this.

Now, every time someone is moved into segregation, or out of segregation for their two hours out in the open, it requires two officers to accompany them. That is for the safety of the officers, to ensure they always have enough manpower to protect themselves. Where is this money going to come from?

If we look at the government's departmental plan signed by the Minister of Public Safety, allowing for inflation it is actually cutting 8.8% of the funding to Correctional Service Canada over the next four years. Where is this money coming from?

I am sure the minister did not even look at the plan before he signed off on it, and I am sure my colleagues across the way have not read the plan either. It actually calls for a reduction in officers in Correctional Service Canada over the next years, but it is going to increase the workload and the costs of these units with what money? We do not know.

The officers themselves are left with one less tool that allows them to deter assaults and violence from taking place in the cellblocks. Corrections officers already face a host of challenges. Even though it is their choice to work in these jobs, keep in mind that these men and women are still in a prison themselves. They are subjected to the same environment that the inmates are.

Statistics from a 2018 report prepared for the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers show that between 60% and 65% of correctional officers report their work has a negative impact on their life away from work. A substantial proportion of correctional officers, about 75%, report that the psychological demands of their job have increased in the last five years. Nearly 55% of long-serving officers report that their physical ability to properly do their work is worse or much worse in the last few years. The report summarizes:

[T]here is a particularly poor fit between interest in work and the psychological and mental disposition of [the] officers...on the one hand, and the environment and working conditions set out and maintained by CSC, on the other. Such a poor fit cannot go on forever, nor be ignored, other than to the detriment of both the correctional officers...as well as public interest as embodied in CSC's mandate and social mission.

I want to look at an another area where the government has failed our corrections officers. They are one of the main victims of the Liberal Phoenix fiasco. Roughly 85% of corrections officers across the country have been affected by Phoenix. This is because many of them are shift workers with irregular schedules that require manual entry into the system, something the government could have prevented had it not botched the entire rollout.

In fact, the Treasury Board was specifically told this was a failure in the Phoenix system when it was doing the pre-testing, yet the government chose to ignore it, just like the President of the Treasury Board ignored the Gartner report when it advised not to proceed with Phoenix.

I find it very amusing that the President of the Treasury Board justifies his meddling in the Davie supply ship contract on behalf of Irving as part of his job, but apparently it was not part of his job to act on the Gartner report on Phoenix, which, by the way, he commissioned himself.

The UCCO president has already called for help for its members because, like many public servants, they are renegotiating their mortgages and taking out loans to ensure they can keep a roof over their heads because of the pay problems. Unfortunately, we do not see an end in sight for those suffering from the Phoenix pay problems.

I want to talk about the government's priorities. I mentioned before that its priorities seems to be on criminals, not on average Canadians. Page 210 of last year's budget proposes $21.4 million for the mental health needs of RCMP officers and the same amount for the mental health needs of federal inmates. There are a lot more RCMP officers than there are inmates. For the average RCMP officer, the people putting their lives on the line every day and fighting for us, we have from the government $1,100 per officer for mental health. For prisoners, it is $1,400. Where is the justice?

Of 1,400 words in the CSC's much-ballyhooed mandate letter, the first time a corrections services lead has had a mandate letter, there were 24 words on victims and 52 on the workers. Those 52 words on the workers included such gems as, “I encourage you to instill within CSC a culture of ongoing self-reflection.”

There are the government's priorities in a nutshell: more money for criminals, less for the RCMP and for our valued officers in the prisons. Perhaps it is time for self-reflection on the issue.

Justice

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition about Bill C-75, which proposes to lighten the sentences on some very serious crimes.

The petitioners are calling on the Prime Minister to defend the safety and security of all Canadians, and to withdraw Bill C-75.

Canada Labour Code

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I am honoured to have the opportunity to talk about Bill C-65, which deals with workplace harassment and violence.

Violence against women is not new. While I would like to believe that in a predominantly rural riding like mine in eastern Ontario violence against women is an urban problem, we know that is not the case. Violence against women continues to be a fact of life in Canada and in rural Renfrew County.

Carol Culleton, Nathalie Warmerdam, and Anastasia Kuzyk were killed on September 22, 2015. Their killer was known to all of the women and to police for a long history of violence. He had been released from prison just shortly before the murders. The system failed these women.

On average in Canada, one woman is killed by her intimate partner every five days. The man arrested and accused of their murders had a long criminal history, including charges involving two of the three women. I am not prepared to let Carol, Nathalie, Anastasia and all the other women who have been murdered by their intimate partners die in vain. My memory of their senseless murders pushes me to speak out in this debate.

When I was first elected in 2000, I immediately recognized the transient and precarious nature of politics in general, and Parliament Hill in particular. For a female in a new political party with an evolving political culture, my position was even more precarious. Uncertainty after each election, and with the change in assignments in the ebb and flow of duties, was compounded by the hierarchical nature of Canadian politics and the fact that we serve at pleasure.

To quote one of my colleagues:

At any moment, everyone here weighs the opportunity cost of making a complaint or committing an non-acquiescent action with the threat of quiet dismissal, being overlooked for a promotion, being shuffled out of a spot, having a nomination candidate quietly run against us, or not having our nomination papers signed at all.

She went on to say:

To say that there is a power imbalance here is an understatement. Further, for all the talk of feminism and pursual of women's rights, there is not gender equality in the broader context of Parliament Hill. Women are still used as photo-op props, included for quotas or optics without having the authority of real decision-making automatically attached to their perceived utility. For that, women have to fight, and fight hard, and put up with being accused of not being a team player, or being an “insert choice of gender expletive here” when they do. That is only for those of us who are lucky enough to have built a platform and a profile that allows us to do that without those in the top tiers of power having to take a bit of damage in order to suppress our voices.

When this legislation was debated in the House of Commons previously, I did not have an opportunity to be part of this discussion. I was successfully defending my right to represent my party in the next federal election.

Bill C-65 is being supported by the Conservative Party. Today we are discussing amendments made by the other place, which allows for a re-examination of the legislation and the context in which it has been brought forward. At the time the legislation was previously in this chamber, it was presented by the government as partisan politics being set aside for a common purpose. All parliamentarians were prepared, or so I thought, to stand together and send a strong message to all Canadians that workplace harassment and sexual violence are unacceptable and that they will not be tolerated any longer, period.

It was that implied spirit of co-operation that encouraged my party to support Bill C-65. As a long-standing female member of Parliament, I am very cognizant of my position as a role model. I am reminded of my responsibility as a positive role model by the Daughters of the Vote program.

Young women are smart enough to spot a hypocrite when they see one. All parliamentarians have a responsibility to be a positive role model, starting with the Prime Minister.

I was hopeful that Bill C-65 would not be just another example of virtue signalling by the Liberal Party, where the Prime Minister directs his attack dog Gerald Butts to throw social media mud from the political ditch he occupies while claiming to take the high road. Subsequent events have proven me wrong.

Sexual violence and harassment in the workplace are nothing new.

I was particularly encouraged by the comments made by newly elected members of Parliament on the government side, such as the member for Oakville North—Burlington, who talked about taking a stand together. She shared her personal experience of harassment and bullying on Parliament Hill when she worked as a staffer prior to seeking elected office. She made reference to the #MeToo movement, #AfterMeToo and Time's Up and to having the courage and the strength to speak out and be a positive role model. In that context, her brave words in the House of Commons and her subsequent total capitulation to the Gerald Butts, “Kokanee grope” talking points were all the greater disappointment.

The greatest disappointment in this entire discussion has been the deafening silence from the female caucus on the government benches, who have quietly condoned the Prime Minister's behaviour with their silence. Not one female Liberal MP rose to defend the female reporter who was subjected to an unwanted sexual advance by the Prime Minister in her workplace. Not one government MP rose to demand a coherent explanation of what the Prime Minister admitted to doing when he belatedly provided an apology to the young female reporter who was the subject of his unwanted advance.

Enabling bad behaviour almost guarantees that it will continue. After all, is that not the subject of Bill C-65, which is what we are discussing here today? Silence is tacit approval.

Certainly in my career as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, spanning six elections over 18 years, I have experienced sexual harassment and bullying. It would be impossible to find a woman in politics who is not expected to put up with misogynist fools like Dan Leger or the tiresome Dick Mercer, let alone similar dinosaur attitudes in their own parties.

From the time Bill C-65 passed third reading and returned from the other place with amendments, something has changed. Canadians learned something about the leader of the Liberal Party. Canadians learned that the Prime Minister admitted to groping a young woman reporter at a music festival before he sought elected office. This is a very important discovery.

Unlike the recent events in the United States during the confirmation hearings for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh about alleged events before he started his professional career, the Prime Minister has avoided a rigorous examination of his inappropriate behaviour.

South of the border, the Prime Minister has been referred to as the Bill Clinton of the great white north.

The Prime Minister had an opportunity. Rather than making up one answer, the Prime Minister chose to come up with a series of tortured explanations for the groping allegation against him. Constantly changing his story, he had an opportunity to come clean with Canadians.

In the process, the Prime Minister dodged questions about the need to call an investigation on his own conduct, the way he did with Liberal MPs Scott Andrews and Massimo Pacetti in his caucus, who faced similar allegations in the past and were removed from the Liberal Party.

The Prime Minister has single-handedly “terribly set back”, to quote Kathleen Finlay, founder of the Zero Now campaign to fight sexual misconduct in the workplace, progress on women's issues.

Ms. Finlay said:

He went from saying he had a good day and sort of smiling about it, and dismissing it that way...and then he went on to explain it, in a tortured explanation about different perceptions, how men and women can perceive things differently. And from where I was sitting, that just re-opened the whole “he said, she said” kind of explanation...which is something women who have suffered incidents of sexual misconduct do not want to hear.

The incident was first published in an editorial in the Creston Valley Advance, a community newspaper in British Columbia. The Prime Minister, who was in Creston to attend the Kokanee Summit festival, put on by the Columbia Brewery, admitted later to inappropriately groping the reporter while she was on assignment.

In addition to being on assignment for the Creston Valley Advance, the female reporter was also on assignment for the National Post and the Vancouver Sun. While her connection to the big city newspapers may have prompted remorse after the fact, that is a topic for a proper investigation.

The incident resurfaced online, including in a scandal magazine earlier this year. The allegation came into wider circulation the first week of June, when photos of the Creston Valley Advance editorial were widely shared on social media, and it received further comments when prominent online media outlets reported on it that same week.

The now former female reporter for the Creston Valley Advance community newspaper, the Vancouver Sun and the National Post confirmed that the Prime Minister groped her, or in his words, “inappropriately handling”, while she was on assignment at the festival.

After the incident, she wrote an unsigned editorial blasting the Prime Minister for his misconduct. The editorial did say that the Prime Minister told the female reporter that had he known the reporter was working for a national paper, he never would have been so forward.

The reporter wrote this about the Prime Minister:

...shouldn't the son of a former prime minister be aware of the rights and wrongs that go along with public socializing? Didn't he learn, through his vast experiences in public life, that groping a strange young woman isn't in the handbook of proper etiquette, regardless of who she is, what her business is or where they are?

After the incident, the female reporter, who is not in journalism anymore, held meetings with Valerie Bourne, the then publisher, and Brian Bell, the then editor of the newspaper, and communicated her displeasure about the Prime Minister's conduct. In a statement, the female reporter said she reluctantly went public to identify herself and to confirm the incident because of numerous media requests. She would not offer any comment or take part in any discussion on the subject, she said, adding that the incident happened as reported.

This is what the Prime Minister stated on CBC Radio, on January 30, 2018, before details of the groping incident were reported in the national and international media. He stated:

I've been very, very careful all my life to be thoughtful, to be respectful of people's space and people's headspace as well. This is something that I'm not new to. I've been working on issues around sexual assault for over 25 years.

My first activism and engagement was at the sexual assault centre at McGill students' society where I was one of the first male facilitators in their outreach program leading conversations—sometimes very difficult ones—on the issues of consent, communications, accountability, power dynamics.

To connect the dots, it was after the Prime Minister left university in Quebec when the groping incident occurred.

The following is from the newspaper editorial following the groping incident. It states:

It’s not a rare incident to have a young reporter, especially a female who is working for a small community newspaper, be considered an underling to their ‘more predominant’ associates and blatantly disrespected because of it. But shouldn’t the son of a former prime minister be aware of the rights and wrongs that go along with public socializing? Didn’t he learn through his vast experiences in public life, that groping a strange young woman isn’t in the handbook of proper etiquette, regardless of who she is, what her business is, or where they are?

And what makes the fact that she was working for the Post of any relevance? Big stories break first in community newspapers after all.

It may not have been an earth-shattering find, but one thing could have been learned from the experience. Like father, like son?

That was from the Creston Valley Advance, Monday, August 14, 2000.

What are Canadians expected to take away from this incident of groping that took place between the Prime Minister and a young female reporter? First and foremost, this incident is about hypocrisy, saying one thing and applying a different set of rules to one's own behaviour. It is about believing women, until it happens, then it is deny and hope that the clock runs out on the media cycle.

It has been noted by the CBC that there is no dispute that this incident happened. In 2018, the excuse “I did not think I was doing anything wrong” does not pass the smell test. Worst of all, the Prime Minister has shown no ability to grow with the job and learn from his mistake. Women in Canada deserve better from a Prime Minister who claims to be a feminist.

What this incident has also taught Canadians is that they cannot trust the Prime Minister, when he tells the public he is doing one thing but legislatively does another. It was finally figured out by the temporary socialist government of Alberta that the current government has no intention of seeing any pipelines built, let alone the Trans Mountain pipeline. In response, the NDP in Alberta pulled its support for the scam carbon tax, which is all about getting the provinces to take the blame for raising taxes while using the environment as an excuse to raise taxes.

If dragging the government's feet on this issue somehow does not work, Bill C-69 will be sure to suffocate any resource project from going forward.

There are ethics rules for parliamentarians, versus the Prime Minister's trip to a tropical island. When the Ethics Commissioner rules that opposition members are in violation of the rules, charges are laid by the RCMP. Where are the charges against the Prime Minister for his breaches of the code of ethics for parliamentarians?

In public, the Prime Minister claims that his government is going to crack down on guns and gangs but it cranks out Bill C-71 instead, which cracks down on law-abiding citizens who are already obeying the law. Then there is Bill C-75, which would soften the penalties for gang violence, among other atrocities.

The biggest lie of all is the Prime Minister's betrayal of veterans. It was announced by the government that no Canadian Armed Forces personnel would be medically released until their benefits were in place, yet last week, not only was it confirmed that soldiers are being released without their pension amounts and benefits confirmed but that soldiers should be told to wait longer.

In the last election, the Prime Minister claimed that the problem was that there were not enough offices open to service veterans. The government went ahead and spent funds intended for veterans to open offices in government ridings, and it now tells veterans that it has just doubled the official wait time, if they even qualify.

How much is the political decision to direct shipbuilding contracts going to cost Canadians?

I had high hopes for Bill C-65. It now appears that Canadians will be disappointed, as they have been disappointed with everything else this Prime Minister has touched.

National Defence Act

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is true that the record of the current government has not been a particularly positive one when it comes to standing up for victims. The fact that we have now waited three years for this bill to be introduced is instructive.

We see another bill before the House right now, Bill C-75, which would water down sentences for serious indictable offences. We saw the government defeat a private member's bill, introduced by the hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, Bill C-343, which would have made the victims ombudsman truly independent by making the position an independent officer of parliament rather than one housed within the Department of Justice. Finally, we saw the failure of the current government to fill the victims ombudsman position for nearly a year.

Contrast that with the prisoners ombudsman. It took the government a matter of two weeks to fill the position of the prisoners ombudsman. It was two weeks for the prisoners ombudsman and one year for the victims ombudsman. It speaks to the priorities of the government.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour for me to rise in the House to debate Bill C-77.

I would like to begin by thanking the previous Conservative government for its excellent work on the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, which was an important first step in advancing victims' rights in Canada. Next, I would like to thank the former minister of justice in the Conservative government, Peter MacKay, for his excellent work on the act that enacted the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Finally, I would also like to thank the previous minister of national defence, Jason Kenney, for his work on the Victims Rights in the Military Justice System Act.

Unfortunately, this last bill did not reach second reading stage. These two bills prove that the previous Conservative government has always been committed to defending victims, and that the Conservative Party will always uphold this principle in its justice policies. Unfortunately, that is not the case for the Liberal government.

The current government introduced Bill C-75, which reduces penalties for offences such as membership in a criminal organization and administering a noxious thing. This government is also the one that refused to send Terri-Lynne McClintic, a child murderer, back to prison. It was also this government that awarded benefits intended for veterans to the man who killed Constable Campbell. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister was telling veterans that they were asking for too much. This government always seems to side with criminals, even when the right thing to do, morally speaking, seems obvious.

This bill is very important to victims' rights in Canada. It provides victims with very important protections. For instance, the bill guarantees victims' privacy in crimes of a sexual nature. It also provides additional protections for victims under the age of 18. Thus, the bill will protect the rights of vulnerable witnesses by allowing them to testify using a pseudonym and providing them with other supports.

These are important reforms, because they provide victims with the resources they need to understand the legal process and feel safe as the process unfolds. It is also important to show victims that they are not alone and that people are available to help them through this extraordinarily difficult time.

Looking at Bill C-77, it is quite clear that the Liberals took inspiration from the previous Conservative government. The wording of the bill is identical to that of the bill introduced by the previous Conservative government. I am very pleased that the Liberals have decided to copy the Conservative bill. That was the right thing to do, and it would be nice if they did more of that.

Obviously, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party are not the same, so the two bills do have some differences, although they share the same objectives. That is why I would like to see this bill referred to committee, so we can look at how to improve it and come to an agreement between the Liberals and Conservatives.

This bill is a good start, and I would like it to go to committee so it can be improved.

The committee should also study this bill carefully to ensure that each provision complies with the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and to ensure that there are no deficiencies in this bill.

I hope that the committee will make substantive amendments to improve the bill.

I will vote in favour of this bill, so that it can be sent to committee for a more thorough review.

We have a bill here, Bill C-77, that adopts in many respects the work done in the previous Parliament by the then defence minister and future premier of Alberta, Jason Kenney. The bill began a process, and it is good to see that occasionally the Liberal government sees the wisdom of continuing the good work Conservatives have done. The Liberals have often been reluctant to recognize the heritage they bring forward in these cases, but nonetheless, we will accept that even if they need to engage in some reinvention of the record about the trajectory of this issue, we see some progress being made on initiatives that were carried out previously.

The unfortunate thing about the current government is that this one bill dealing with the rights of victims is so out of step with the vast majority of the Liberals' agenda. It is curious to hear members of the government talk about victims, because in so many other debates on so many other bills we deal with in the House—sometimes on opposition day motions that we put forward, as well as legislative initiatives—we hardly hear the Liberals talk about the rights of victims.

There are many issues where we need to recognize the problems specifically created by the current government when it comes to the rights of victims. We see legislation coming forward to weaken sentencing. We see perverse outcomes and the failure of the government to intervene. I note in particular the opposition day motion that we put forward that no members of the government had the courage to vote in favour of, even though I am sure they were hearing from their constituents about it. Coming off a constituency work week, that is one of the things I was hearing about again and again from different constituents. Many people were very engaged with the particulars of that issue, because they understood that having a convicted murderer in a facility where there is no fence and children are present is obviously inappropriate. I think Canadians of all backgrounds and all political persuasions understood that, but unfortunately our colleagues across the way do not seem to share in it. We did not see a single Liberal stand up for the protection of society and for victims in that case. They could have done much better; unfortunately, they did not.

There are other areas where we see a lack of regard for the protection of victims, namely the backlogs that the Liberals have allowed to emerge in our justice system. My colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton raised this issue right at the beginning of this Parliament, the fact of court delays and the lack of a government response to actually do its job of ensuring that we have judges in place so that cases can move through in a timely way and that people who have committed a crime actually pay the consequences. We have seen this problem exacerbated by the continued lack of effective response by the government. This is important to Canadians and to victims. Of course, we have the failure of the government to effectively respond to the issue of ISIS or Daesh fighters who are coming back to Canada. Again, the government has not responded by taking seriously the needs of society and potential victims, and so forth.

While I am pleased to support Bill C-77 through to committee, I wish that the Liberals would adopt more of our Conservative legislation and more of our respect for victims. I will not hold my breath, but here is hoping.

Public Safety

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition in regards to Bill C-75, an enormous 302-page omnibus bill, which proposes lightening sentences on such things as obstructing or violence to or arrest of officiating clergymen participating in terrorist activities, impaired driving causing bodily harm, polygamy, marriage under the age of 15 years and forcible confinement of minors.

The petitioners call on the Prime Minister to defend the safety and security of all Canadians as well as the rights of victims by withdrawing Bill C-75.

Justice

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, without question, our hearts go out to the family of Constable Beckett in this tragedy.

I will say that our government is incredibly proud to have introduced and passed legislation that is among the toughest impaired driving laws in the world. I will say, with respect to Bill C-75, that it does not in any way, shape or form change the principles of sentencing, which are proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the grave responsibility of the offender.

What Bill C-75 does is that it gives prosecutors the necessary discretion to determine—

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Constable Sarah Beckett paid the ultimate sacrifice when she was killed in the line of duty by an impaired driver.

This week her husband, Brad Aschenbrenner, spoke out against Bill C-75, which waters down sentences for impaired driving causing bodily harm.

Will the Liberals listen to Sarah's husband and other victims, and remove from Bill C-75 the watering down of sentences for this serious crime?

Divorce Act

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments regarding Bill C-75.

in the course of the member's speech, he talked about the fact that in most circumstances it is in the best interests of the child to have both parents involved in the child's development and for there to be ongoing contact and support with both parents. One of the criticisms some have put forward with respect to Bill C-78 is it would not provide for a presumption of shared parenting. As the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek noted, sometimes shared parenting is not in the interests of the child. Would the member agree that perhaps one flaw of the bill is that it does not contain a provision for a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting?

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said about the bill, it is largely laudable. The unified court is a good thing.

Again, we have to hold the interests of the child at heart. That is the best part of the bill. Divorces can absolutely ruin children for life. I think we are on the right track, but we should also be consistent. If we are looking out for the interests of the child, let us look out for the interests of the child not just in this bill but also in Bill C-75.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that divorce is a very terrible thing. It can be a traumatic experience for families, children and parents. However, when it does occur, it really is imperative that the best interests of children should be at the heart of any divorce proceeding they may be caught up in.

According to the 2016 census, more than two million Canadian children are now living in separated or divorced families and 38% of the five million separations and divorces in Canada between 1991 and 2011 involved a child. Therefore, divorce has, sadly, become a regular part of the lives of everyday Canadians. With this legislation, we really have a duty to try to minimize the trauma of divorce as much as possible, especially on children.

Overall, the intention of Bill C-78 is good. I am especially glad to hear the legislation will be centred on the child. Too often, children become pawns in bitter divorces. We have all heard those heart-wrenching horror stories.

A woman near and dear to my heart has been going through a living hell, battling to get what is best for her daughter for years after her divorce. Under shared custody, the daughter was succeeding in school and attending regularly, especially when she was at her mother's home. However, at subsequent family court appearances, the daughter's dad managed to convince the family court it would be in the best interest to have the daughter spend all of her time at his residence. After that happened, the teenage daughter's marks plummeted. She missed a ridiculous amount of school and got into trouble with police. It is a very sad story.

Despite fighting tirelessly in family court, this woman's daughter is now hopelessly alienated because one parent wanted to punish the other. This child was used as a weapon and essentially brainwashed by one parent to punish the other parent. This daughter will now no longer speak to her mother, her grandmother, her aunts, uncles or young nieces and nephews, who absolutely adore her.

Alienation is one of the most terrible things that can be inflicted upon a child. It is something that can literally ruin a person's life and could take years of psychological help to overcome.

Part of the problem I have witnessed in family court is people who appear there do not even testify under oath. Remarkably, there is no requirement to actually tell the truth. Therefore, how can a judge truly make a correct decision in the best interests of the child if there is little or no ability to compel people to tell the truth? It is really quite ludicrous and it is no wonder that some people criticize family courts as kangaroo courts.

That is also why subsection 16(10) of the act is an important first step and states the principle that children should have as much contact with each parent within the confines of their best interest. It also takes into account the willingness of the parent to facilitate visitation as a consideration in custody disputes. It is a move that will penalize parents who, for petty reasons, try to limit visitation and access of the child or children to the other parent. It is a positive first step to ensure that even in acrimonious divorces, the best interests of the child are always first and foremost, and that is as it should be.

Promoting the use of alternative dispute resolutions, such as divorce mediation, to settle divorce cases is also an encouraging move. It should help make divorce proceedings as amicable as possible in very bitter situations at times.

Being caught up in the middle of an acrimonious divorce is never in the best interests of children. Therefore, taking steps to create a valuable alternative to litigation in family court is a sensible idea. It obviously would not solve the worst of cases, like the case I mentioned, but it is a start. If done correctly, it could have a meaningful impact for millions of Canadians.

Ultimately, Canadian children are best served when the custody and divorce proceedings are as harmonious as possible, with both parents having a meaningful relationship with their children.

A third important part of the legislation is the introduction of measures on combatting domestic violence and child abuse. That is a laudable goal. Having dispute mechanisms and courts taking into consideration domestic violence and child abuse is imperative, considering the move to a more dual parenting framework.

As I stated before, it is always in the best interests of the child to have both of their parents having meaningful relationships. That, however, is definitely not the case in situations where one of the parents is violent, neglectful or abusive. I see the government is committed to creating 39 new judicial positions in Alberta, Ontario, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. That is another positive step, especially considering the extraordinarily slow pace the current government has taken in appointing badly needed new justices and judges. Let us certainly hope they appoint them a lot faster than they have been filling other judicial vacancies.

Unfortunately, my colleagues across the aisle's support of the best interests of children rings somewhat hollow. Let us talk about another case from the headlines about which everybody is talking.

It is the case of Terri-Lynn McClintic, a convicted child murderer who is now living at a healing lodge. Canadians are saying, loudly and clearly, that she should be back behind bars. The Liberals are refusing to act on that, saying that the Conservatives are ambulance chasers, that we are just creating this whole controversy and that it is very low of us. However, all we are doing is reflecting on what the father wants. He has spoken about it very clearly on CBC and other media.

For instance, I just am not sure how it can be said that promoting the best interests of the child is best served. She was murdered. The Liberals talk about promoting the best interests of the child in this legislation, yet her murderer is not even behind bars. She is in a healing lodge. Would Tori's best interests not be ensured by her murderer being held behind bars?

I also do not see how having a child murderer at a healing lodge is in the best interests of the children who are often present there, yet this is the position the members across the way supported in votes. It is really enraging Canadians. One day there is what seems to be a flippant disregard for what is Tori Stafford's best interests and the best interests of children at that healing lodge. Then on the next day we hear the Liberals' talking points about this bill and how much they care about children. It is rather shameful, to be honest.

This is also the case with Bill C-75, the government's new crime bill. Again, l am not sure how many parts of that bill mesh with the priority of the best interests of the child, which my colleagues across the aisle seem to believe today. How is giving a mere fine in the best interests of children who are forced into marriage, or marriage under the age of 16 or the abduction of a child under the age of 16? How does that act in the best interests of the child? I fail to see that.

How do any of these reforms put the interests of the child first? Very simply put, I do not believe they do and that it is not the government's position. If the minister would like to truly put children first, as she should, I recommend she do so in a consistent manner and go forward from there.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course. I would like to salute my colleague, as I have not yet had a chance to say hello to her since we returned from the summer break. I think my colleague is doing a great job.

I can certainly imagine that, much like the Conservatives, New Democrats recognize the fact that the Liberals are putting child protection at the centre of their bill, along with the needs of the child and the repercussions children can suffer during a nasty divorce. The Liberals want to put the protection and well-being of children at the centre of their bill. That is great, and all members of the House of Commons agree on that.

We also look forward to seeing how this all unfolds at committee. As they say, the devil is in the details. I never thought I would say that here. This is a lengthy bill, which we will study in committee. I look forward to hearing what our expert witnesses have to say. This is a very important bill that amends the Civil Marriage Act, which has not been amended for 20 years.

We have some concerns regarding clauses 54 and 101. As I said, I am a little apprehensive. As I emphasized a few times during my speech, with all due respect, the Prime Minister has not honoured his commitment, his marriage to the people of Canada. He has broken most of the promises he made to Canadians when he married them, so to speak, in 2015, at the time of his election. There is a parallel here; it is a parable.

I agree with my colleague that the child must absolutely be front and centre. That is not what we see in Liberal Bill C-75, which seeks to reduce sentences for offences committed against children. We think that is unfortunate.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand my colleague's concern. I did have a point I was getting at. I want to talk about clauses 54 and 101 of Bill C-78 and how they contradict Bill C-75.

However, I was talking about something that is very important to me. I will use a different analogy. Let us leave NAFTA behind for a different analogy.

We have a Prime Minister who introduced Bill C-78, telling Canadians that after 20 years, he is proposing important amendments, some fundamental and others more technical, that will strengthen the legislation and the institution of marriage in Canada.

Notwithstanding the fact that we Conservative members plan to support this bill, following the committee studies, we feel it is hard to trust the Prime Minister when he says he wants to strengthen marriage, considering his behaviour as the head of government.

For example, when Mr. Trudeau was elected in 2015, we might say that it was a marriage between him and the people of Canada. However, after everything that the Prime Minister has done in the past three years, a marriage would not have lasted a year since he broke three major promises. I would even say that these are promises that break up the very core of his marriage with Canada. I will get to the clauses in this bill that have me concerned, but I want to draw a parallel. How can we trust the Prime Minister when it comes to this divorce bill, when he himself does not keep his promises to Canadians?

He made three fundamental promises. The first was to run deficits of only $10 billion for the first three years and then cut back on that. He broke that promise. The deficits have been $30 billion every year.

The second fundamental broken promise of his marriage with the people of Canada was to achieve a balanced budget by 2020-21. Now we are talking about 2045, my goodness. Is there anything more important than finances in a marriage? Yes, there is love. I get it.

However, budgets are essential in a home. Finances are essential for a couple to remain together. I can attest to that. Love has its limits in a home. Bills have to get paid and children have to eat. Budgets need to be balanced, something that Canadian families do all the time. Our Prime Minister is unable to keep that promise.

The other promise has to do with our voting system, how we are going to run our home, our political system. Just before they got married, the Prime Minister promised Canadians that he would reform the voting system. That was a key promise and he broke it. In fact it was one of the first promises he broke and it is a serious broken promise in his marriage with Canadians in my opinion. It is a broken promise to every young person who trusted him.

Personally, I completely disagree with reforming the voting system because I believe that the first past the post system is the best guarantee for a parliamentary democracy. That said, it was a key promise that he made to youth and the leftists of Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, who view proportional representation as being better for them, their future and their concerns. However, he broke his promise. The marriage has been on the verge of breaking up for a long time now. I predict that it will only last one more year.

I have one last point to make in my analogy and then I will discuss the bill. I want to talk about his infrastructure promise. The Prime Minister said that he would invest $183 billion in infrastructure over the next 14 years. It was the largest program in the history of Canada because, according to the Liberals, their programs are always the largest in the history of Canada. I would remind members that ours was incredible as well, with $80 billion invested between 2008 and 2015.

I will ask my colleagues a question they are sure to know the answer to. How many billions of the $183 billion have been spent after four years? The answer is $7 billion, if I am not mistaken. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer mentioned it in one of his reports.

Therefore, how can we have confidence in the Prime Minister, the member for Papineau, who is introducing a bill to strengthen the institution of marriage and the protection of children in extremely contentious divorces when he himself, in his solemn marriage with the Canadian people, has broken the major promises of his 2015 election platform?

The bond of trust has been broken and divorce between the Liberals and the people of Canada is imminent. It is set to happen on October 19, 2019.

Bill C-78 seeks to address some rather astonishing statistics. According to the 2016 census, more than two million children were living in a separated or divorced family. Five million Canadians separated or divorced between 1991 and 2011. Of that number, 38% had a child at the time of their separation or divorce. I imagine that is why the focus of Bill C-78 is protection of the child.

However, we have some concerns. Clause 101 introduces the idea that Her Majesty ranks in priority over the party that instituted the garnishment proceedings if the debtor is indebted or has any moneys to pay. That has us concerned. We will certainly call witnesses to our parliamentary committee to find out what they think and to see if we can amend this.

We also believe that clause 54 is flawed. It extends Her Majesty's binding period from five to 12 years. That is another aspect of the bill that could be problematic in our view.

I do not like to end on a negative note, but I absolutely have to mention a major contradiction pertaining to Bill C-78. Today, the Liberals enthusiastically shared with us, through this bill, their desire to make the protection of children, rather than parents, a priority in cases of divorce. However, when we look closely at Bill C-75, which, with its 300 pages, is a mammoth bill if ever there was one, we see that it seeks to rescind all of the great measures to strengthen crime legislation that our dear prime minister, Mr. Harper, implemented during his 10 years in office, a fantastic decade in Canada.

We are distressed to see that this bill lessens sentences for crimes committed against children. The Liberals are not content with just saying that they are good and the Conservatives are bad. They, who profess to believe in universal love, want to lessen the sentences for criminals who committed terrible, deplorable crimes against children. Then they tell us that the purpose of their bill is to help children.

We see these contradictions and we are concerned. I do not think that my constituents would let their spouses break promises as important as the ones the Prime Minister has broken since 2015. They would not want to stay in a relationship like that.

Canadians need to realize that their divorce from the Liberal government is imminent.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no argument to a question like that. I think throughout the history of our country it has been the responsibility of all governments to look after our children to make sure that we have a safe and secure environment for not only them but families, understanding that we need to make sure that there is a responsibility on the part of parents to be looking after their children. Not all of that responsibility lies on the part of the government. At least that is a fundamental belief that I have. We need to encourage parents to accept the responsibility of parenthood.

I will say in contrast to that that there are some difficulties and some hypocrisy on the part of the government, specifically as it relates to Bill C-75 where it has made some changes that directly impact crimes against children. However, I do not want to get into the weeds on Bill C-75.

Absolutely governments across this country, and throughout the history of this country, have always believed in the rights of children while making sure that we have a safe and secure environment for children and families as well.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

A lot of numbers have been thrown around. I agree that people who owe payments must make them, but incentives are needed. Personally, I think Bill C-78 is a pretty good bill. However, it does have two points that contradict one another, and I wonder whether my colleague is aware of this.

Bill C-78 is really about children. It puts them first. However, Bill C-75 flies in the face of Bill C-78.

That bill proposes reducing sentences in cases of very serious crimes, such as kidnapping a child under the age of 16 and concealing the body of a child.

When proposing a bill pertaining to divorce, it is important to remember that, in some cases, parents commit serious acts of violence. That is a fact, and it happens everywhere. There was Dr. Turcotte's case in Quebec, for example.

How can we have both Bill C-78, which puts children first, and Bill C-75, which reduces sentences for people who use violence against those same children?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I confess I find the member's comments quite puzzling. To draw an analogy between this legislation and the Titanic is preposterous, because we had widespread consultations and have since received vociferous support from coast to coast to coast for this legislation. The Conservative government in Alberta is the very government that initiated the concept of changing the terminology from “custody and access” to “contact and parenting” orders.

The member raised Bill C-75 and some of the provisions in it that she finds logically inconsistent with what we are doing in Bill C-78. It is quite the contrary. In Bill C-75, we are doing exactly the same as we are doing in Bill C-78 in two important respects. One, intimate partner violence is at the heart of what we are doing in Bill C-75. We are addressing it and would make it a prerequisite to deal with that as a condition on bail. What we are doing here is making family violence something that a judge would have to consider, including criminal orders or proceedings, in determining the best interests of the child.

The other conceptual component that is exactly the same between the two pieces of legislation is that in each instance we are trying to reduce the very backlog in our court system that my friend opposite laments, our over-reliance on the court system, the over-litigiousness of Canadian society. We would be reducing that with Bill C-75, and exactly what we would be doing here with this provision. Two cases in point are the ADR mechanisms for calculating support.

Could I have the member opposite's comments on how improving ADR mechanisms addresses the very problem she has identified?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Banff—Airdrie.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-78. I do not come at this from a legal perspective—I am not a lawyer—and I do not come at it from the perspective of actually having experienced this directly. I was raised in a home with six children, a very happy, very busy home, and then when my parents were much older in life and I was a grown woman myself, they faced a difficult time when they came very close to divorcing. I have to say that even then, as an adult and with my own children, it was extremely unnerving and disturbing to me, which just raises the realization of how important it is that we have systems in place to assist children. I cannot imagine what it would have been like to actually be dealing with those circumstances as a young child in my home. Fortunately, things worked out well.

That being said, in regard to Bill C-78, I appreciate the four key objectives that are listed: to promote the best interests of the child; to address family violence; to help reduce child poverty; and to streamline various definitions and processes but, more important, to require legal professionals to encourage clients to use alternative ways to resolve disputes.

The Conservative Party has always had this perspective that we believe that in the event of a marital breakdown, the Divorce Act should grant joint custody and/or shared parenting, unless it is clearly demonstrated not to be in the best interests of the child. Both parents and all grandparents should be allowed to maintain a meaningful relationship with their children and grandchildren, unless it is demonstrated not to be in the best interests of the child. In every case where it is possible, the influence of both parents, and grandparents as well and siblings, is so key to making sure that the family unit is able to survive as best as it can through these difficult circumstances. We understand very well how traumatic divorces are on families.

We are overall pleased with the intentions of Bill C-78, especially the promotion of child welfare and the measures to combat family violence. We have always stood up for and believed in the safety and well-being of children and of families.

However, where this goes off the tracks for me is in the fact that the counterintuitive implementation of Bill C-75 is here as well. I know that Canadians' heads are spinning quite often when trying to determine, if this is a whole-of-government approach to things, how it is on the one hand we can be saying we are so concerned about children and then on the other hand be bringing in Bill C-75, which would reduce sentences for very serious crimes, including abduction of a child under the age of 14, participating in activities of a criminal organization, forced marriages, marriage under the age of 16, and concealing the body of a child. These are very serious crimes and impact children, yet the government seems prepared to bring in something that seems so contrary to me.

I want to quote something from the Lawyer's Daily, written by David Frenkel:

The impetus in the fights between parents does not begin when spouses read the terms “custody” and “access” in the Divorce Act. Therefore, unless there are additional provisions added to the proposed amendments, the family conflicts will likely continue even with the replacement of the terms “custody and access” with “parenting” as introduced by Bill C-78.

I appreciate what is being attempted there with the terminology being changed, but at the same time that is a good point, that simply changing the terminology will not in the end make a huge difference. Mr. Frenkel continues:

[A] “parenting order” will replace the traditionally named “custody and access” order.

That needs to be done, but actually it has already been taking place. He says:

The significant change in wording likely arose to answer the concerns from the courts over the years that awarding one parent the status of “custody” and the other “access” created unnecessary winners and losers.... [A]s early as 1975 Justice Robert Furlong...wrote as follows: “The time is long past when the Courts disposed of the custody of a child as a reward to a well-behaved parent or as a punishment to one who misbehaved. The custody of their children is not a prize to be contended for by parents as an award for their good behaviour.”

He continues:

In 1986, the Manitoba Court of Appeal upheld a decision to refrain from using the words “custody” and “access” because the trial judge thought “those are destructive to a child”.

He also states that perhaps the more important focus of this discussion should be the issue of “control”, as that, unfortunately, quite often is what the fights are about in these circumstances.

He continues:

Litigants, in time, will become sophisticated in understanding the effect of a future “parenting order” and couples that previously fought incessantly over the term custody will now fight over who will have “decision-making responsibility.”

In other words, although that is part of it, how can we come to a point where the extreme difficulties in making these decisions are not fought out in such a confrontational way?

He goes on to say:

Therapy and assessment orders for litigants will not solve all the problems in custody battles, but they may expose the underlying factors contributing to unreasonable positions taken by them. Therefore, in addition to a change in language to the Divorce Act, it may be necessary for a court to have the jurisdiction to order trained professionals to determine and opine whether a parent's desire for custody or a ”parenting” order is based on healthy motives or not. And if such information cannot be readily available when needed, then simply repealing the terms “custody” and “access” may not achieve the intended consequences we all have been waiting for with Bill C-78's introduction.

In other words, efforts need to be made to ensure that the individuals who are involved in these circumstances have the necessary tools at their disposal to assist them in the process more effectively. There is no question that this is probably one of the most trying and difficult circumstances to be in for a couple who at one point married because of their desire to see their life as a long-term commitment and to have children. Yes, sometimes there are very violent circumstances. Other times there is an inability to communicate. However, there needs to be a process in place to assist them.

Further to that, I read an article by Robert Harvie, a family lawyer, mediator and arbitrator with Huckvale LLP, an advisory board member for the national self-represented litigants project, and a past Law Society of Alberta bencher. Harvie comes at this from a very well-rounded perspective. He states:

The unveiling of Bill C-78 received almost uniform praise from the media and legal profession as the “first major amendment of the Divorce Act in 20 years.”

Indeed, it is.

He continues:

My opinion is less effusive. Perhaps it's the cynicism of a lawyer who has been working in family law for 32 years. Having sat as a bencher with the Law Society of Alberta, and in fact, chaired their Access to Justice Committee for two years, I have seen much promise and very little delivery in improving access to justice. As a result, I opened up the 190 pages of Bill C-78 with less optimism than many of my colleagues.

He says it is “similar to the excitement over the maiden voyage of the Titanic”, which piqued my interest. With respect to the Titanic, he talked about all of its amazing additions to improve its amenities and necessities, such as squash racquets courts, baths, a gymnasium, a swimming pool, electric passenger lifts, all these of different services, including more deck chairs, to make the trip better. However, the reality was that they did not have what they truly needed.

He indicates that, at its core, Bill C-78 is devoid of change to the overall resolution process, that lawyers charge too much money, that law societies appear focused on reducing complaints rather than caring for them, that litigation is antiquated and cumbersome, and that we need to fund and support more alternative forms of resolution.

I have a good friend who settled many divorce and custody cases for his law firm out of court and without expensive litigation. However, he lost his job. Why? It was because he did not have enough billables and was not productive enough for the firm. In other words, he did not make enough money for the firm. He was encouraged to work for legal aid, because that was where he belonged.

Our legal system needs to change so that firms invest in litigating these cases through mediation and arbitration. Yes, we can tell people that they should go and do this, that they should make this choice, but they usually first find themselves at a law firm. I would like to see this concern addressed within the legal profession in Canada, where we make this a priority and prepare our lawyers, who are clearly willing to take on this type of roll to serve Canada, and especially to serve children.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Willowdale, who happens to be an old high school classmate, gave us a very comprehensive overview of Bill C-78. He touched on many different facets, so I would ask if he could zoom out a bit and provide us with his insight on how the bill fits in with some of the broader initiatives our government is pursuing. There are two I would ask him about.

We heard about how the bill impacts on child poverty. How does that fit with some of the government's broader objectives of addressing child poverty in Canada? We heard about how the bill would address family violence in a more direct way. How does that work with Bill C-75, which is before the justice committee, which my colleague is a member of, and the provisions that are being put in place in that bill to deal with intimate partner violence in the context of things such as bail conditions? Perhaps he could elaborate on the broader impact of what we are doing as a government.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a connection between Bill C-78 and Bill C-75 with respect to the hybridization of offences to the degree that we are talking about the best interests of the child in Bill C-78. Bill C-75 would be a step in exactly the wrong direction from that standpoint. when we talk about potentially reducing sentences from a maximum of 10 years to two years less a day.

In the case of Bill C-75, the reclassification of those offences would not only not put the best interests of the child first, it would not achieve the government's objective of trying to deal with the backlog in our courts. Indeed, 99.6% of criminal cases in Canada are before provincial courts. The reclassification of offences would simply download more cases onto our already overburdened and overstretched provincial courts.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that question is out of order. We are debating Bill C-78. The matter of Bill C-75 was raised in a response made by my friend opposite in the context of the back-and-forth interplay on the dialogue. However, this question is only referencing Bill C-75, not Bill C-78.

I would ask for a ruling as to whether that question is in order when we are discussing at second reading Bill C-78.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in one of his answers just a few minutes ago, the member mentioned Bill C-75. I am still concerned about Bill C-75. It would reduce sentences for very serious crimes, including the abduction of a child under the age of 14, participating in activities of criminal organizations, forced marriages, marriages under the age of 16 and concealing the body of a child. These policies are very alarming to me. Would he like to comment on them?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments, both in his speech and in his most recent responses to the question. However, what I would say is that we see strong statements in Bill C-78 with respect to defining family violence for the first time in a much more expansive way. It would give judges tools to use in interpreting family violence. I find a strong thematic consistency in Bill C-75, which he just mentioned, with respect to intimate partner violence. I would also say that, thematically, what both bills are trying to do is reduce reliance upon lawyers like me, and many in this House, who are involved in part of the overly litigious nature of the family law system. By encouraging people and giving them the tools to remove themselves from the court system, we would be reducing some of the backlog that characterizes that system, which is a goal that I think the member opposite and those on this side of the House share. I would put to him that those two are in fact compatible goals and that the legislation is moving in the same direction.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the comments of my colleague from North Okanagan—Shuswap. I certainly agree with him on the importance of the matter he has raised. However, seeing that my time is nearly expiring, on a slightly more partisan note, I want to say this. It is a bit ironic that paramount in Bill C-78 are the best interests of the child, among other things, and rightfully so. What a contrast to Bill C-75, which is currently before the justice committee, which would water down sentences for a whole host of serious offences that directly impact children, including kidnapping a minor and forced marriage under the age of 16, and I could go on. The government is downgrading those offences that directly impact children from serious indictable offences to hybrid offences that could be punishable with a mere fine. Therefore, while it is encouraging that we are focused on the best interests of the child in this bill, I only wish the government would have the best interests of the child in all bills, including Bill C-75.

Opposition Motion—Justice

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, imagine a place surrounded by trees and greenery. Imagine a place where individuals live in units with kitchenettes, fine linen, nice tables, and beds and playrooms for their children. Imagine a place where there is actually a playground where children can unite and engage in fun activities together.

Now imagine a place where there are people who have committed heinous crimes who also occupy this space. Imagine further that this space has no fences and no visible security. This is the place where McClintic, a child killer, currently resides. This is a woman who killed an eight-year-old girl on her way home from school one day. This is a woman who committed an incredibly heinous crime, and she resides in this place. It is called a healing lodge, in Saskatchewan.

To better understand just how troubling this is, we have to take the opportunity to understand the gravity of what happened to Tori Stafford, the eight-year-old girl of whom I speak. We must familiarize ourselves with the uncomfortable facts. This is where the Liberals and the NDP members among us get uncomfortable. They do not like to look at the facts of this story. They do not like to consider what happened to Tori Stafford on that dreadful day on her way home from school. They do not like to enter the courtroom and the hearing that took place in 2012, when the convicted murderer recounted the grisly details.

However, if we were to enter that courtroom and listen to some of those details, here is what we would hear. We would hear the story of a little girl who was eight years old who headed home from school one day. She was asked by an adult to come and see a puppy, a shih tzu puppy, as McClintic recalled. This little girl, eager and excited to visit this puppy, made her way over to the car. At that time, Tori Stafford was shoved into the car and driven to an undisclosed location. On the way, garbage bags were picked up at the Home Hardware store. Tori was then taken to the middle of nowhere, where she was raped multiple times and then beaten to death with a hammer. Tori's body was put into garbage bags and then disposed of in the woods.

I have spared this room the most gruesome details, but in this room, the Liberals and NDP members are incredibly uncomfortable with even what I just shared, because they would like to pretend that these details did not actually happen to an eight-year-old girl by the name of Tori. They would like to attack us on this side of the House for bringing these details up, as if we are somehow engaging in poor decorum, but these are the details that were disclosed in the courtroom by the killer, McClintic. That day in that courtroom, McClintic was sentenced, for first degree murder, to life without parole.

Today is about standing with the Stafford family, Victoria's loved ones. Today we have the opportunity to take a stand for justice for Tori. Today we have the opportunity to insist that the right thing be done, so Conservative members on this side of the House have put forward a motion to show our solidarity in standing with the Stafford family.

We call upon the House to support this motion, and that is this:

That, given Terri-Lynne McClintic was convicted of first-degree murder in the horrific abduction, rape and murder of eight-year-old Tori Stafford, and was moved from a secure facility to a healing lodge without fences and where the government has confirmed the presence of children, the House condemn this decision and call upon the government to exercise its moral, legal and political authority to ensure this decision is reversed and cannot happen again in other cases.

That is a very important line. Today we stand with the Stafford family. Today we call for justice for Tori. We do it for the present, but we also do it for the future. We look to those who are to come. We look to our justice system. We have to defend the victims that do exist and that will exist. We have to insist that this place, the House of Commons, the Parliament of Canada, where 338 elected representatives sit, does the right thing. In this case, that is reversing the decision to move McClintic to a healing lodge.

Why is this important? It is important that we have this discussion today for a few reasons. First is that the government would like to abdicate its authority, and second is that the Minister of Public Safety called the actions of child killer McClintic “bad practices”. Those were not “bad practices”. There is a reason this room does not like it when I stand up here and describe what happened to that little girl. It is because they were more than bad practices. This was a little eight-year-old girl whose life was taken. Canadians from coast to coast are rightfully outraged about this. They have every right to be, and I stand with them.

This summer, the Prime Minister said this about Canadians:“We are there for each other in times of difficulty..., we lean on each other and we stand strong”. I wonder where he is in that picture. Where is he? Where is he when Rodney Stafford needs to lean on someone for justice? Where is he when Rodney Stafford needs people to surround him and support him in his gravest need? Where is the Prime Minister? Where is the government when there is an opportunity to take a stand for justice? It is silent, absent and abdicating authority.

This injustice saw an eight-year-old lose her life and a mom and dad be forever robbed of their little girl. The Prime Minister and his government are trying to shirk responsibility and place blame elsewhere, but the fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister has the ability to reverse this decision. The government has the ability to put McClintic back in the facility where she belongs.

Tori's father recently wrote to the Prime Minister and said that not all issues are political. “Some are moral”, he said. The Liberals have accused us of being political, but I would ask them to heed the words of Rodney Stafford, this little girl's dad, because he has said to the Prime Minister that not all issues are political. Some are just moral, and this is one of them. This is a moral issue. It is an issue of right and wrong. This in an issue where the Prime Minister has an opportunity to reverse a decision that never should have been made but unfortunately was. He has the opportunity to do the right thing now, to do the moral thing.

It is always right to do the right thing. It is always wrong to do the wrong thing. In fact, some acts are always wrong, because they go against a fundamental or basic human good that should never be compromised. We would all agree that some of those things include killing, torturing and raping an innocent human being. These things are just wrong, full stop.

The Liberal government's moral compass appears to be broken. Unfortunately, it is not able to hear these things. Instead of standing with victims, it is more comfortable finding itself on the side of criminals. For example, Bill C-75 is a piece of legislation the government has just introduced that would actually decrease sentences for things like genocide, terrorism and forced marriage. In addition, it gave $10 million to Omar Khadr, a convicted terrorist. For Chris Garnier, who murdered an off-duty cop, it gave him veterans benefits for the PTSD he acquired because of the murder. Now with McClintic, it is happy to see her go to a healing lodge, where she is not held accountable for the crime she committed.

Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” I am calling on this House today to do something. Do not allow evil to triumph. Do not allow this grave injustice to be committed against Tori and her family. This House has the opportunity to take a stand for righteousness, to do the right thing, to act morally, to stand with Rodney Stafford and to reverse the placement of McClintic in a healing lodge.

I am calling on all Canadians to participate with us, to call their MPs and to make their voices heard.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, today I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Lethbridge.

The motion before us is very simple. For anyone watching, it calls upon the House to condemn the decision to move Terri-Lynne McClintic, a convicted child rapist and murderer, from a facility where she was behind razor wire and bars to a facility that has kitchenettes and where children are present and there is no fence. This woman has served only a very short part of her life sentence. In 2012, moreover, she was convicted or pleaded guilty to violently assaulting another inmate.

What I want to do for everyone who is watching is to rebut all of the talking points being used by the Liberals and the NDP in the House today. That way when people phone Liberal and NDP MPs, they can rebut their talking points with some facts.

First of all, the Liberals are saying that Stephen Harper did this. They say that about everything. However, in this case, the transfer from a medium-security facility where this vile, disgusting woman was behind razor wire and bars to a healing lodge where there is no fence happened a few short months ago. As much as the Prime Minister would like to make this Stephen Harper's fault, this occurred recently. Things happen. That is what happens when a party is in government. How one should be judged is by one's response to it. The reality is that the Liberals have been hiding behind their bureaucrats on this. That is myth buster number one.

Number two is that the Liberals say we need a review. Why do we need a review in this case? This woman will likely never be allowed to be around children again. She murdered and violently defiled a young girl. She has assaulted prisoners. She should not be afforded a spot in a healing lodge, which is normally reserved for someone who is close to release. We do not need a review of this case. She should not be in this facility. We should just be doing the right thing.

Number three, this is about the role of healing lodges. Okay, let us make it about the role of healing lodges. Healing lodges are for aboriginal and first nations people. It has been reported in the media that family members have said this woman does not fall in that category. As well, I have seen experts in this area say that a program like this should be used for someone who is close to the end of their release. This woman is nowhere close to the end of her release, thank the Lord, and she is probably taking up the spot of a first nations person who needs this treatment. Members can push back against the Liberals on that. For the Conservative Party this is not about the role of healing lodges. We are not opposing them in general, but we are opposing one being used in the case of this disgusting woman.

Number four, this is about respecting the rule of law. Both the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, as well as the NDP, have said there is not enough information and that discussing this case is not the role of Parliament. I do note that the justice minister herself, after the Colton Boushie not-guilty verdict this year, stood up and tweeted that she was committed to ensuring justice for all Canadians. Thus, she commented on the verdict of a trial, implying that justice was not done. She did that and then she met with the family associated with the case. Then, she tabled legislation immediately to change the process by which juries are selected in this country in Bill C-75.

What I do not understand is how the Liberals can condemn a decision of a trial by jury, make changes in this place, and then stand up and embrace themselves in the warm fuzzy cloak of their bureaucrats. The reality is that the government has intervened and it should not be using a double standard. The Liberals either are doing this or they are not.

The next Liberal talking point is that they cannot do anything. They are patently wrong on that. For those who are listening and are about to call their Liberal MP, as they should, here is what they can say. Section 6 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act gives the Minister of Public Safety the power to issue directives in all areas relating to Corrections Canada, including what we are talking about today. Also, section 96 of the same act gives cabinet the authority to pass regulations determining eligibility for confinement.

To give concrete examples of where this authority has been used, the Minister of Agriculture, when he was the public safety minister in a previous government, reversed a decision to send a cop killer to a minimum security prison in B.C. using this authority. A Liberal government has already done this.

When Stockwell Day was the public safety minister, he issued a directive that all first degree murderers must spend a prescribed amount of time in a maximum security prison. The current Liberal government could issue a similar directive pertaining to child killers and this would be fixed. The Prime Minister could convene a cabinet meeting to specifically deal with this particular directive, and this could be fixed immediately.

This is not about a review. The facts are clear. The facts have been presented to the public. Everyone knows that this woman should be nowhere near a minimum-security prison. It is completely up to the government to choose to do the right thing, and it is refusing to do so.

The other reason I know that the Liberals recognize that something is wrong is that journalists have been reporting that the lodge employees themselves, when they are being called to answer questions, are now not releasing information they have released in the past. Clearly, the government is trying to intervene to make sure that this does not become a public relations disaster for it, when it should be focusing on the rights of the victim's family and ensuring they are not re-victimized.

Frankly, going back to the point on the healing lodge, where is the healing lodge for the victims of this family? I will be honest. I will not stand in this place on behalf of Canadians and defend the rights of this child killer, who has been convicted and needs to receive a significant penalty for her crimes. We should be focusing completely on the rights of Tori Stafford's family, for justice for this little girl. This woman should not be in this healing lodge.

The next thing I want to talk about is the Liberals' repeated point that having children in this lodge is normal, but the reality is that this particular healing lodge was under investigation by the public integrity commissioner as little as two years ago, because employees had been bringing their children to this facility. Therefore, there already are problems with this facility with children being brought there. McClintic should be nowhere near children.

The Liberals should not be normalizing this at all. This woman should be nowhere near children. She does not have children and does not need to reunited with her children. She should be kept away from children. There should be no children there. It is as simple as that. If someone phones their MP complaining about the issue, they should say, no, she should not be in this lodge, period.

The next point is that the Liberals are trying to spin this issue, as they did this weekend. I was on a panel with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, who said he was going to chastise me for using inappropriately graphic language. The Minister of Public Safety went on a national television program and called what Terri-Lynne McClintic did “bad practices”. We have given him opportunities to stand and apologize. What does this decision do? It normalizes this activity. It says that this is a bad practice. I feel we should be reminding the public safety minister over and over again about the disgusting things this woman did so that he can get into his head that this is not a bad practice, but something that needs to be fixed.

Those are the talking points, and I am now going to appeal to my Liberal colleagues. We can get angry with each other here, but I would ask them, in their heart of hearts, to put themselves in the shoes of this man when he was writing the Prime Minister this weekend and do the right thing.

Everyone who is watching today should call Liberal members of Parliament and respectfully and politely tell them to do the right thing. This is not about partisan politics; this is about right and wrong. All of the bureaucrats at Public Safety who might be sitting in the lobby today should give their heads a shake, too. This policy should be changed, this woman should not be in this lodge, and we should be supporting this motion to ensure that a policy reversing this decision is passed to make sure that this never happens again. We need to stand behind the rights of this family. That is what we are here to do and what the executive branch is here to do.

To everyone in the House today, this motion is a no-brainer. It was passed in the Ontario legislature unanimously. Let us just get this done. Let us not make Mr. Stafford and his family come to Ottawa to protest this. Let us not re-victimize him. Let us vote for this and do the right thing. Let us get this done.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has raised a good point. It is almost like asking why the sky is blue. Why do Liberal members continue on a course of conduct that totally defies common sense and the sense of justice that most Canadians feel?

We saw this in the case of the cop killer who was given veterans benefits until that was reviewed. I saw it in the justice committee when we were reviewing Bill C-75, the omnibus justice bill. Over 136 offences are going to have their sentences watered down because of a Liberal bill.

As sad and as bad as it is about Terri-Lynne McClintic, this is also about a course of conduct by the current Liberal government to water down and ignore the sense of justice Canadians feel. They have a tin ear when it comes to that sense of justice Canadians have. This is yet another example of that.

National Defence Act

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a matter of misplaced priorities. As I sat through this debate today, I heard members on the government side stand and say that they are defending victims, yet as an example of what my hon. colleague said, in the last couple of weeks, we have dealt with the Christopher Garnier situation and the Tori Stafford situation, where her killer is, effectively, in a minimum-security prison. What is interesting is how that relates to Bill C-71, currently in the Senate, the new Liberal gun registry and the contrast and hypocrisy with respect to Bill C-75, summary convictions. I know that my hon. colleague listed just a few of what those summary convictions are, but it speaks to the essence of the fact that the government has a judicial backlog, and its answer to that backlog of court cases is to reduce these sentences to summary convictions.

Does my hon. colleague not share the same hypocrisy Canadians are seeing with respect to the pieces of legislation and how hypocritical and contrary they are to each other in the overall Liberal narrative?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to debate Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

I find the comments coming from the Liberals somewhat interesting and rich about needing to ram this bill through all of a sudden. Here we are on October 1, and now it is time to ram this bill through when it took them three years to get to this point. When it was first introduced on May 10, we went through two months of sitting in May and June, had midnight sittings through most of the month of June, but yet the government did not see fit to bring it forward for debate then. Instead, the first day of debate for this bill was September 21, a Friday sitting, where just about two hours of debate can occur. Here we are on just our second day on the bill, and all of a sudden the Liberals are crying that we should be immediately ramming this through, before members have a chance to debate it.

In our former Conservative government, we placed victims at the centre of our criminal justice system. We thought it was important the victim of a crime be granted the right and privilege to participate in the criminal justice system. We did this in a number of different ways, but most importantly, through Bill C-32, which created the Victims Bill of Rights. We did that because we felt it was important the victim have a voice and the opportunity to fully participate in our criminal justice system.

It has been disappointing to hear from these Liberals the last couple of weeks, who would rather place criminals ahead of victims on so many different issues. In the past two weeks alone, we saw these Liberals defend granting veterans benefits to convicted murderer Chris Garnier, a convicted murderer who did not spend a single day in the military. He never once donned our nation's uniform, never once participated in Canada's Armed Forces, yet these Liberals stood in this very place and defended the right of that convicted murderer to receive veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder, that he, by his own admission, had because of the brutal murder he committed. These Liberals are defending his right to receive treatment paid for by veterans rather than that which is available through our Correctional Service of Canada.

Tomorrow we will be debating a motion in this very place brought forward by our leader, the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, about the tragic case of Tori Stafford's murderer being transferred from a prison with bars and razor wire to a healing lodge, where the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada admitted there are often children present. We heard the Liberals defending this once again today in question period, defending the murderer of an eight-year-old girl who was brutally murdered. The Liberals are defending the transfer of her killer from a prison to a healing lodge. It is wrong. Tomorrow, we will see where the Liberals truly stand on victims when they are called to account to stand in this place and defend that decision.

This follows a series of moves by these Liberals to place a greater emphasis on the criminal rather than the victim. Bill C-75 would actually reduce a sentence for a number of what we on this side consider serious crimes.

This would include participating in the activity of a terrorist group, infanticide, a couple of impaired driving offences causing bodily harm, abducting a person under the age of 14, forced marriage, advocating genocide, extortion by libel, arson for fraudulent purposes, and possession of property obtained by crime. They also want sentences reduced for participation in the activities of a criminal organization. With all of the challenges we are facing, these Liberals want to reduce sentence for those participating in gang activities. I know this is wrong and Canadians know it is wrong.

When the former Conservative government introduced the Victims Bill of Rights in 2014, our then justice minister saw fit to make this bill of rights a quasi-constitutional document, a document so important that it would take precedence over many other federal statutes. At the time, our minister of justice, the hon. Peter Mackay, stated on April 9, 2014:

In order to give meaningful effect to victims' rights by all players in our criminal justice system, our government is proposing that this bill have quasi-constitutional status. This would mean that the Canadian victims bill of rights would prevail over other federal statutes, with the exception of the Constitution Act, which includes the Charter of Rights and other quasi-constitutional statutes within our legal system, such as the Official Languages Act, the Privacy Act, and, of course, the Canadian Human Rights Act.

What does this bill do? It effectively reintroduces Bill C-71 from the previous Parliament, which our Conservative government introduced, and applies the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights to the military justice system. In particular, it provides for four key rights for victims: the right to information, the right to protection, the right to participation, and the right to restitution.

Many Canadians, whether they serve in the Canadian forces or not, often find the criminal justice system intimidating and confusing, and find it challenging to get information about the case being made about the crime perpetrated against them. The right to information is about their right to have information in the general sense of how the system works, and also specifically regarding their case so they know about its progress. It is also to know information about the investigation, and the prosecution and sentencing of the person who perpetrated the act against them.

Whether it comes to the criminal justice system or the military justice system, the second right is the right to protection. This is to ensure that victim safety and security is protected. Whether that is by having their identity protected from public disclosure or using other measures that would allow for their protection, we believe this is exceptionally important.

I do see that my time is running short, so I will not have a full opportunity to talk about the right to participation and right to restitution. However, I will say that those of us on the Conservative benches will always stand for the victims of crime. We will defend the victims of crime and ensure that they have a place in both our criminal justice and military justice systems so that their voices are heard. We will stand with victims.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today to speak to Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

While we know that Canada's military justice system operates separately from Canada's civilian justice system, it is nevertheless important that its system is also just and fair. Canadian Armed Forces members are held to a high standard of conduct. It is understood that Canada's separate military justice system exists to maintain discipline, efficiency and morale in the Canadian Armed Forces. The safety and well-being of all Canadians is dependent on the military's ability to deal with internal discipline effectively and efficiently. That is because our esteemed men and women serving in the military are often required to risk injury or death when they perform their duties. Nonetheless, when it comes to provisions to support victims, there is a gap in the National Defence Act. Victims' rights should be at the heart of every criminal justice system. The proposed legislation takes a step toward that goal. It extends victims' rights into the military justice system, which is certainly positive.

The legislation we are considering is in fact largely modelled after Bill C-71, which was introduced in the previous parliament by the former Conservative government. It builds on existing efforts to put victims of crime at the heart of Canada's criminal justice system. The Conservatives have a proud record of standing up for victims of crime and law-abiding citizens, and we remain committed to them. We have and will always work toward ensuring that victims of crime have an effective voice in the criminal justice system, and we will never accept having the rights of criminals ahead of those of victims of crime and law-abiding citizens. In fact, for far too many years in Canada the scales of justice tipped in favour of criminals. Our criminal justice system neglected those who had been affected by their crimes. It neglected the rights of victims of crime. I am proud of the hard work and the achievements of our former Conservative government. Our country is better off for it. It took significant steps to find a better balance in our criminal justice system, steps that gave victims of crime clear, enforceable rights and protections.

The principle that victims of crimes should be a priority in Canada's criminal justice system was reflected throughout the former Conservative government's policies, reforms, and even investments. Whether it was the creation of the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, the passing of the Safe Streets and Communities Act, or investments in child advocacy centres across the country, victims and law-abiding criminals were always the priority.

The landmark Canadian Victims Bill of Rights was the most notable forward step for victims taken by the former Conservative government. This historic legislation entrenched the rights of victims of crime into a single document at the federal level. The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights guarantees victims of crime the right to information, protection, participation and restitution. lt means that the rights of victims are considered at every stage of the criminal justice process, as they should be.

After entrenching the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights in Canada's criminal justice system, our former Conservative government tabled legislation to also give victims of service offences the same rights, that is, the right to information, protection, participation and restitution. Unfortunately, there was not enough time to study and pass this legislation before the dissolution of Parliament. However, I am pleased that the current Liberal government, through Bill C-77, has copied that legislation. lt is the right thing to do. As we work to protect and promote victims' rights, we are helping to ensure that both of Canada's criminal justice systems help those who truly deserve support.

Given that the legislation for the most part is a carbon copy of the legislation introduced by the former Conservative government, it is disappointing that it is being introduced so late in the Liberal government's mandate. I suppose this is perhaps a reflection of the Liberal government's record on victims' rights.

Unfortunately, it is way too easy to offer examples of the Liberal government's appalling record of putting the rights of dangerous criminals ahead of the rights of victims and their families. Just last week, the Liberals voted against our Conservative motion calling on their Minister of Veterans Affairs to revoke the Veterans Affairs-funded benefits of Chris Garnier, a convicted cop killer. Moreover, the Liberal government is still defending the transfer of Terri-Lynne McClintic to a healing lodge. McClintic was convicted of first-degree murder in the 2009 kidnapping and rape of eight-year-old Tori Stafford. Less than 10 years after the disgusting crimes she committed, she has no business being transferred to a healing lodge facility. That facility has no fences around it and often has children present. However, the Liberal public safety minister has defended this decision and downgraded her despicable crimes to “bad practices”. As a mother of two young children, I am livid by the Liberal government's refusal to exercise its moral, legal and political authority to reverse this decision, and my heart breaks for the family of Tori Stafford.

These are just two recent examples in the public eye of the Liberals' backward priorities. They have also tabled Bill C-75, which makes sweeping changes to Canada's Criminal Code. lt undoes a lot of the progress our former government made to put the rights of victims ahead of criminals.

While we are considering the legislation before us, I would point out that the Liberals are also pushing through legislation to reduce sentencing for serious crimes. These are serious crimes like human trafficking, participation in a terrorist group or the abduction of a child under the age of 14. The Liberal record of putting the rights of criminals ahead of victims is shameful. lt is not a record of restoring victim rights.

That said, I am pleased to see that a version of our Conservative legislation has been brought forward by this government. Victims' rights should never fall by the wayside in either of Canada's systems of justice. That is why passing this legislation is so important. Like the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, this legislation entrenches four key rights for victims of service offences. First, it provides the right to information. This includes the right to information on the military justice system, as well as services and programs available to victims. lt also gives victims the right to information about the progress of the case. The legislation gives victims the right to protection by giving consideration to their privacy and security through the military justice process. lt gives them the right to participate in the proceedings and creates an opportunity for a victim impact statement to be made. lt also gives the right to restitution when financial losses can reasonably be determined.

The addition of these rights to the military justice system through the Code of Service Discipline's declaration of victims' rights places these rights at the heart of the military justice system. That is exactly where they belong. The legislation has my support. I will be voting in favour of sending it to committee so it can be studied in detail.

Conservatives will always stand in support of victims. We will always be in favour of giving victims a stronger voice in Canada's criminal justice systems. I hope the legislation is referred to committee and that all victims of crime and law-abiding Canadians are given a greater priority by the Liberal government.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the issue at hand, it is no wonder that taxpayers and voters across this country get skeptical about politics when somebody, whether it is the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister or the Minister of Veterans Affairs, stands up every day and tries to pretend that something is exactly like something else when it is not. I am referring to what he just talked about on the minimum-security prison where this murderer, child killer, was moved to. She was behind bars in minimum security. She is not today and that is a huge difference. People get it, no matter how they try and spin it.

Before my blood boils much more, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-77, which will amend the National Defence Act to bring about some changes to the Canadian military justice system. For the most part, these changes are both needed and welcomed. The bill before us today is in fact very similar to a previous Conservative bill, Bill C-71. I do not want to confuse anyone. The Bill C-71 that I am referring to is a bill from a previous government. It is not the same Bill C-71 that the Liberals have passed through this House which is a direct attack on law-abiding firearms owners. That is most certainly a Bill C-71 that I will never be supporting. The Bill C-71 that I am referring to was put forward by our previous Conservative government in an attempt to accomplish many of the same goals that the bill before us here today seeks to accomplish.

The fundamental objectives of this legislation, that I believe are supported across party lines, are aligning the military justice system in Canada with the Criminal Code of Canada, enshrining the Victims Bill of Rights into the National Defence Act, putting a statute of limitations of six months on summary trial cases and clarifying what cases should be handled by a summary trial. These are all very positive steps forward that are contained within Bill C-77 and I am supportive of them moving forward.

I would like to take some time to focus on one of these central points, with respect to enacting the Victims Bill of Rights. It should be pointed out that it was the former Conservative government that brought forward the Victims Bill of Rights when we were in government. It was an incredible step forward to ensure that Canadians who are victims of crime are supported. That is our party's record when it comes to supporting survivors.

Unfortunately, time and time again we see the Liberals talking the talk but not walking the walk when it comes to support for victims in this country. In fact, they've adopted a “hug a thug” mentality when it comes to modernizing the Criminal Code. Through Bill C-75, the Liberals are actually making it possible for perpetrators of heinous criminal acts, some carrying sentences of 10 years in prison, to get off with only a ticket, fine or minor jail time. Bill C-75 introduces a number of measures that are intended to deal with delays in Canada's court system. However, as I have said, the massive 302-page bill will also end up reducing sentences for a number of dangerous crimes. This will be done by provisions in the bill that could reclassify indictable offences so that they may be punishable as summary offences, which would carry a maximum penalty of only two years.

A potential 10-year sentence lessened to two years is the Liberal solution to judicial delays. I sent a mailing out to my constituents that informed them of Bill C-75 and what it would do. I invited them to respond to me via a response card. The response card asked them if they agreed with Bill C-75. To be clear, there was literature that went with it to explain exactly what was there so that people understood what they were voting on.

In my entire time serving the riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, I have never had such an immense return to a mailing like this. I received nearly 1,600 responses to this question. Of the responses, 97% of respondents said that they disagreed with Bill C-75, while only 31 individuals out of that 1,600 agreed and 17 were unsure or needed more information. This was certainly a message heard loud and clear. Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound does not support Bill C-75.

Canadians are also having a hard time believing that this government supports the men and women who serve this country.

I rose in the House last week to make the Minister of Veterans Affairs aware of a veteran in Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound who cannot receive the important support he needs. He is 87 years old and is a veteran of the Korean War. His name is Barry Jackson. I know the family well. He served our country admirably and is now looking for any kind of help from Veterans Affairs. Unfortunately, it will not return his calls.

First I will provide a bit of history. It took years for Barry Jackson to be approved for a wheelchair ramp. Now he needs a scooter, and all he gets is silence from Veterans Affairs. His son Jonathon contacted my office after learning that the Liberals were paying for PTSD treatment for a convicted murderer who has never served in the military one single day in his life. It truly is shameful that a murderer and cop killer with not one day of military service is receiving benefits.

When Barry Jackson got the call from Canada in 1951, he answered that call and headed off to Korea, just like thousands of other young Canadian men did. However, years later, when Barry Jackson needed help and reached out to Canada, nada, nothing, zero. From Veterans Affairs, nothing; from the Prime Minister, nothing; from the Minister of Veterans Affairs, nothing. They should all be ashamed.

Christopher Garnier, meanwhile, committed unspeakable acts, but because his father served in the armed forces, he is getting support, while actual veterans like Barry Jackson wait and wait. It is unfair and, I would say, un-Canadian. What is really ironic, and we can use whatever word we want, is that with the money in Veterans Affairs and the services available, veterans like Barry Jackson, who laid their lives on the line to earn those services when they needed them, are the ones who cannot get them. However, a cop killer and rapist like Chris Garnier, one of the worst human beings one can imagine, has no problem getting them and did not serve one day. That is why people shake their heads and wonder why they even support or want government. It is things like this that give it all a dirty feeling.

When it comes to supporting victims and the men and women who serve this country, the Liberals do not have a great record.

Earlier in my remarks, I mentioned that Bill C-77 almost directly mirrors Bill C-71 from a previous Parliament. There are, however, a few differences I would like to highlight. Perhaps the most glaring difference between the two bills would be the addition of the Gladue decision in relation to subsection 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code of Canada to the National Defence Act.

This addition would mean that aboriginal members of the Canadian Armed Forces facing charges under the National Defence Act may face lighter punishment if convicted. There is absolutely no place in the Canadian Armed Forces, or in Canadian society, for that matter, for discrimination of any kind. No one should ever be discriminated against based upon race, gender, religion, culture or any other factor. That being said, the insertion of this principle has the potential to result in different considerations for offences committed by aboriginal CAF members than for those committed by non-aboriginal forces members. This could lead to sentences that are less harsh and could undermine operational discipline, morale in the forces and even anti-racism policies.

I want to point out, while I have the opportunity, that there are two reserves in my riding. Cape Croker, which is just north of my home town of Wiarton, has the distinction of having the highest percentage of young men who have served in wars. That is something I know they are proud of. Wilmer Nadjiwon, a former chief, just passed away a year or so ago at 96. I stand to be corrected, but I believe that he and seven of his brothers, the eight of them, were in the war, and some of them did not come home. They gave it all, so this is not a slam against aboriginal veterans across this country.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, actually, this is not theoretical. We can come back to Bill C-75, the reduction of sentences bill that aims to reduce 26 various criminal offences from indictable offences to summary conviction. One is the offence of belonging to a terrorist organization, or to a gang, and a whole host of others. There are 26 different offences it is saying we need to reduce the sentences for.

He would probably say the same thing here, that we have talked about this too much and let us just get on with it, but Canadians need to hear these things and understand that the Liberal government is committed to watering down any kind of protection that victims have in our country. We need to keep saying that again and again until it soaks into the Liberals' thick skulls that they need to start figuring out some way they can step forward and protect victims, instead of always taking the side of the offender against those people who have paid the price for these people's bad and illegal behaviour.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did not really answer my question or the question from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands but wants to talk about a completely different issue, which is Bill C-75. I will ask a question about that and hopefully get an answer.

The previous government, in power for 10 years, did nothing with a particular hybrid offence, which is sexual assault, which I think we would all agree is one of the worst offences in the Criminal Code. Why did the former government not do anything about that? That is question one.

If the member cannot answer that, is he opposed to the changes in Bill C-75 because he does not trust police officers or Crown prosecutors to give the right charge in the right circumstances?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a terrific question. All we have to do is look at the evidence of the government, via its actions. This is a government, and I have said this many times in this House, that loves governing by Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram and Facebook, because with those 140 characters, or 280 now, and the way it controls them, it can really manipulate the message.

However, the way the government actually conducts itself on issues of victims and supporting criminals, there is evidence after evidence, as has been going through the House over the last couple weeks, with the Tori Stafford situation, the Catherine Campbell situation in Truro, Nova Scotia, and Omar Khadr. The list goes on and on.

This weekend I was speaking to the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. We were talking specifically about Bill C-71, which is the government's new gun registry, its answer, supposedly, to solving the gangs and criminal activity situation. In fact, what the government is doing is actually going after law-abiding firearms owners in this country.

It gives the government and the Liberal MPs a chance to go to their municipalities and say that the government is doing something tough on crime, but in fact, what it is doing is penalizing the wrong people. It is not solving a problem that exists in this country.

Bill C-75 is another example of that, with the amendments to the Criminal Code and the summary convictions, taking some of the most egregious and heinous crimes in this country and reducing them to a slap on the wrist, because the government has an inability to put judges in place to deal with the backlogs in the courts. The government would rather see criminals go free than criminals go to jail. That is the way these Liberals operate.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak about Bill C-77, to enact military justice reforms. They say that imitation is the best form of flattery. The government of the day has taken into account many of the proposals that were in Bill C-71 from the previous government, with the exception of adding a couple of things. It has simply copied and pasted that legislation into Bill C-77.

I want to spend a couple of moments on some issues that have come up lately in the House. Throughout the debate this morning, we heard the government side talk about victims and victims' rights. On this side of the House, and in the previous government, I have strongly advocated for the rights of victims, as we did the previous government with the introduction of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. It is paramount that governments ensure that they put the rights of victims ahead of the rights of criminals.

Over the course of the last couple of weeks, we have seen some highly publicized situations come up that have gained the attention of Canadians, in large part because of the issues brought up in the House. I will note two cases in particular as examples.

There is the Christopher Garnier case in Nova Scotia. Christopher Garnier murdered police officer and volunteer firefighter Christine Campbell. It was a highly publicized case. Ahead of veterans, Mr. Garnier was receiving PTSD benefits from Veterans Affairs.

Of course over the last week, we have also seen the issue around Tori Stafford come up. Her murderer is now sitting in an aboriginal healing centre in northern Saskatchewan when she should be behind bars and razor wire, which is exactly where she was before.

On the issues of victims' rights, we have to ensure we put them ahead of the rights of criminals. We have not seen that, as an example in the case of the government, over the course of the last couple of weeks. Many of us heard the father of Tori Stafford over the weekend, pleading with the Prime Minister of our country to correct that situation.

Fortunately, tomorrow on opposition day, members of the government side will have the opportunity to stand and do what is right with respect to an opposition day motion we will be put forward. It calls on the Government of Canada, the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Public Safety to reverse the decision of Correctional Service Canada and ensure Tori Stafford's killer is put back behind bars and razor wire where she belongs, not surrounded by trees at a healing centre. The government and its members will have the opportunity tomorrow to do the right thing by standing in support of the opposition day motion.

On the issue of Bill C-71, as I said earlier, the Conservatives will always stand for victims and not criminals. Over the weekend, I had a robust discussion about this very issue as it related to criminals. It was more so about the current legislation, Bill C-71 and Bill C-75, as it relates to the new Liberal gun registry and changes to criminal justice acts, and in particular about the list of many otherwise serious criminal activities being reduced to summary convictions.

In some of the discussions I had around my riding this weekend, people were quite concerned not only with the gun registry and that it did little to tackle the real issue of gangs, gang violence and illegal gun activity, but also with the fact that many of these more heinous and serious crimes would be potentially reduced to summary convictions. The reason for that is the government's inability to fill judicial appointments on the bench and cases are getting backlogged. The government would simply rather slap criminals on the wrist with this potential summary conviction rather than looking after victims' rights and victims instead of criminals.

Part of this legislation, one of the important pieces of it, is the Gladue decision. For the most part, this is a copy and paste of the previous bill, Bill C-71, from the previous Conservative government. However, the main difference between the two would be the addition of the Gladue decision into the National Defence Act.

In effect, this addition would mean that aboriginal members of the CAF, who face charges under the National Defence Act, would face lighter punishments if convicted. That causes problems with respect to the fact that the special considerations for indigenous members could result in sentences that would be less harsh than those of other CAF members. In fact, it could undermine the operational discipline, morale and some of the anti-racism policies of the CAF. It is a concern.

We will support this legislation and get it to committee to ensure we hear from those various stakeholders, such as first nations communities and advocates.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I again would like to thank the hon. member for his commitment to our men and women in uniform. He is a passionate advocate.

In my previous comments, I asked a couple of questions. He answered the first but not the second, so I will go back to the second question. During his speech, he mentioned Bill C-75. The government is planning to make certain offences hybrid. Under the Criminal Code of Canada, sexual assault is a hybrid offence and is one of the worst things of which I can think. For 10 years, under Stephen Harper, why did the government not change that? Is it that the hon. member does not believe police officers and prosecutors should be trusted to charge individuals under the right offence?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to know that the hon. member sounds very supportive of the bill. He threw a bit of shade at the government for not getting it done, as we are into our final year.

It is good to see the government getting it done. We did not see it getting done under 10 years of Stephen Harper. However, he also went into a few barbs against the government, one in particular with respect to Bill C-75 and hybrid offences. One hybrid offence in the Criminal Code of Canada is sexual assault, which is one of the worst crimes of which I can think. Why did the Conservatives not change that from a hybrid offence to a straight indictable offence? If he cannot answer that, does he not trust police officers and prosecutors to lay the right charge once Bill C-75 passes?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-77, an act to enhance victims' rights in the military justice system, an act to amend the National Defence Act and other related acts.

First and foremost I have to thank those who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces. The men and women in uniform who serve in the regular forces, the reserve force in all the disciplines and all the different trades take on an important task in keeping us safe here in Canada in dealing with our foes abroad. As long as we have adversaries who want to do harm to us here in Canada as well as to our allies, we need to have a standing force to protect Canada.

It is because of the skills required to be a soldier, an airman, an airwoman, a sailor in the Royal Canadian Navy, our air force and the army, the people that we need to do that job need the support of the Government of Canada, and it does that through the National Defence Act.

A lot of people who might be hearing this debate today for the first time may not understand why we have a separate military justice system within the National Defence Act for the Canadian Armed Forces versus the court system that we have for civil society across this country.

People need to understand that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the hallmark piece of legislation, our Constitution, that even the National Defence Act is subordinate to and has to follow the laws as are written under our rights in the charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada has stated on numerous occasions, and most recently in the Moriarity decision, that the purpose of Canada's military justice system is “to maintain discipline, efficiency and morale in the military”.

By allowing commanding officers as well as non-commissioned officers to have the ability to have efficiency and discipline within the armed forces means stronger morale, a better-abled armed forces, so they can carry out the duties that are bestowed upon them from time to time in operations by the Government of Canada.

As I already mentioned to the minister, I am glad to see that the government has moved ahead with our old Bill C-71, which would put within the Code of Service Discipline a declaration of victims' rights, something that the previous Conservative government did, as constituted in law, and now is making sure that the military justice system and the Victims' Bill of Rights would be respected within the National Defence Act.

Some of those rights that we are talking about for victims are: the right to information, so that all victims would have general information about the military justice system; what types of victim services would be available through the Canadian Armed Forces and National Defence; and what type of information they would need. They would be able to hear about the progress of the case as it moves forward and also get all of the information relating to the investigation, prosecution and sentencing of the person who did the harm.

I talked earlier about Operation Honour. That information is critical in making sure that we respect the victims of sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces. This legislation would make sure that the armed forces provides those services.

There is the right to protection, the same thing that we have in civil society. All victims would have the right to security and privacy considered at all times through the military justice process. The armed forces would take reasonable and necessary measures to protect victims from intimidation and retaliation. A victim's identity would not be disclosed to the public.

The right to participation comes down to the victim having the right to have a victim impact statement put into the proceedings and read at the time of sentencing. Military justice professionals would have to consider these at all stages of the proceedings.

Finally, there is the right to restitution. In the event that there is the ability to provide some financial assistance to cover losses from the criminal activity that took place, the victim would have the right to restitution.

One thing that we would now see in the Canadian Armed Forces is the addition of the victim's liaison officer. This individual would proactively work with victims in their choice of jurisdiction for sexual misconduct matters. The liaison officer would help victims with the investigation and trial process, keep them informed, listen to them and get their views to determine how public interest is moving forward on that prosecution.

Witness preparation will be improved through this process because of the addition of the victims rights officer. They will make sure that the comfort and security of the victim are always taken into consideration. They will look at everything from the type of effort that prosecutors need for all of the information regarding the victim impact statement, and during sentencing in particular, to looking at maintaining the consistency of prosecutors throughout the court process. It is critical to make sure that prosecutors are using the same type of parameters in moving forward. That has to be paramount. Finally, these sexual misconduct cases would be expedited ahead of other trials that might be ongoing.

As Conservatives, we have always stood up for victims' rights. We believe that victims must have an effective voice in the criminal justice, which includes the military justice system. As I said, it was the previous Conservative government under Stephen Harper that brought forward the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, and now we would be enshrining those rights into the military justice system through Bill C-77. That is why we introduced Bill C-71 last Parliament in the last session.

We are going to be supportive of this process with the government, but are wondering why the Liberals took so long. We know they are copying our bill because it is the right thing to do. Everyone wants to stand up for the victims of crime, and of course we will want to study this further once it gets to committee.

Putting the rights of victims at the heart of our criminal justice system is important to ensure that victims have a more effective voice within the justice system, and that they are treated with courtesy, compassion and respect at every stage of the military criminal justice process, as well as in the civilian criminal justice process. This is about reversing the trend of criminals always getting breaks. We want to make sure that we keep our streets and communities safe, and that families of victims have an effective voice.

As Conservatives, we are very proud of our record with respect to the criminal justice system. It speaks for itself. We enacted the Safe Streets and Communities Act and reformed the not criminally responsible legislation. We also brought in laws against sexual exploitation, cyber-bullying and cyber-intimidation.

We believe that victims should always be placed at the forefront in the criminal justice system because they deserve and should have the right to information, the right to protection, the right participation, and where possible, the right to restitution. That is why we passed the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. It enshrines that in legislation. We are finally doing that through Bill C-77 in the military justice system.

Although we are all here talking about standing up for victims, I have been very disappointed over the last two weeks from seeing the government's response on the Tori Stafford case regarding Terri-Lynne McClintic. She has been put into a minimum-security healing lodge in Saskatchewan where there are other children. She is the child killer of Tori Stafford. If we really believed in supporting victims' rights, there is no way that Terri-Lynne McClintic should be in a healing lodge. She should be behind bars in at least a medium-security facility that has a fence, where she can be properly monitored and can receive the counselling she needs.

I will also note Chris Garnier, an individual who killed off-duty police officer Catherine Campbell, is sitting in prison and receiving Veterans Affairs benefits for PTSD that he got from killing Officer Campbell. There is no way that this individual should be given any veterans benefits, but the government refuses to rescind the services being offered to him. Garnier could get PTSD counselling through the Correctional Service of Canada. He does not need to be taking away benefits from veterans when he is not a veteran himself. He got ahead of the line of actual veterans trying to get help for their operational stress injuries.

Then of course we have Bill C-75, which I call the Liberal hug-a-thug bill. The Liberals have brought forward this legislation that reduces fines, penalties, and incarceration time for individuals for 26 different offences that right now are indictable and result in jail time, instead making them summary conviction offences. This could mean just getting a fine instead of jail time.

To get back to why we have a military justice system, I will read an old quote from Maurice de Saxe, who was a marshal general of France. He noted in a 1732 treatise he wrote on the science of warfare that “military discipline...is the soul of armies. If it is not established with wisdom and maintained with unshakeable resolution you will have no soldiers. Regiments and armies will only be contemptible, armed mobs, more dangerous to their own country than to the enemy.”

That is why we have a court martial system. It is also why we have summary hearings so that the chain of command is able to deal with disciplinary measures. We always have to remember that since the earliest of times, members of the Canadian Armed Forces have been given great responsibilities in exercising those duties to protect this country. When we go back to our British history and operations, they were always governed by articles of war that were proclaimed by the monarch. Articles about different military offences and punishments at that time included the death penalty, or someone would have their head shaven if they were not conducting themselves in a respectful manner. The military has that ethos and the code of service conduct that its members have to respect. It is critical that the military function under that very hard discipline. When people are going into battle, service members standing next to each other must be bound by that same code and conduct themselves in like manner and be able to trust each other with their lives.

It is because of that history, the operations we undertake, and the creation of the National Defence Act in 1950 that we have this two-tiered system.

Members of the Canadian Armed Forces are often required to risk injury or death in their daily performance of their duties inside and outside Canada. They often have to use lethal force in an operation. They are going to be commanded to be the aggressors at times and they all have to be responsible under the chain of command. Of course, those activities and operations are sanctioned by the Government of Canada. That is why there has to be a military justice system that is separate from the civilian system and that puts a premium on the necessity for discipline and cohesion of military units.

The operational reality of the military has specific implications holding military members to a higher standard than what is expected of civilians. That is why there are the summary hearings or summary trials, as they are currently called, that deal with those disciplinary matters. It builds morale within the Canadian Armed Forces when everyone is marching in the same direction.

The realities of military life were acknowledged by the Supreme Court of Canada in its 1992 decision in the Généreux case. It stated that:

The purpose of a separate system of military tribunals is to allow the Armed Forces to deal with matters that pertain directly to the discipline, efficiency and morale of the military. The safety and well-being of Canadians depends considerably on the willingness and readiness of a force of men and women to defend against threats to the nation's security. To maintain the Armed Forces in a state of readiness, the military must be in a position to enforce internal discipline effectively and efficiently. Breaches of military discipline must be dealt with speedily and, frequently, punished more severely than would be the case if a civilian engaged in such conduct. As a result, the military has its own Code of Service Discipline to allow it to meet its particular disciplinary needs. In addition, special service tribunals, rather than the ordinary courts, have been given jurisdiction to punish breaches of the Code of Service Discipline. Recourse to the ordinary criminal courts would, as a general rule, be inadequate to serve the particular disciplinary needs of the military. There is thus a need for separate tribunals to enforce special disciplinary standards in the military.

In light of that decision, I think it is key that a person must be punished severely, efficiently and with speed. In the current situation of civilian courts, that would not happen. We have murderers who are getting off from their crimes because their jurisprudence has not been respected under the courts and their cases have been thrown out because of the time it has taken to actually get them to a hearing.

The charter also recognizes the existence of the separate system of military justice within the Canadian legal system. If we look at section 11 of the charter that deals with the proceedings of criminal and penal matters, it talks extensively about the right to a fair trial. However, section 11(f) says:

Any person charged with an offence has the right...(f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;

Therefore, the charter specifically says that we have the right to have a separate and distinct military justice system. That has been upheld now in three separate decisions, most recently in 2015 in the Moriarity decision. In each case, the court has upheld the requirement for a separate justice system in the Canadian Armed Forces.

In Généreux, the Supreme Court found that the existence of a parallel system of military law and tribunals for the purpose of enforcement and discipline in the military “is deeply entrenched in our history and is supported by compelling principles.”

When we start looking at some of the decisions going forward, and of course the one just delivered by the Court Martial Appeal Court in the Beaudry case, I do not know if they have looked significantly at the decisions already made by the Supreme Court of Canada. The reality is that the Supreme of Court of Canada has decided that we need to have a separate military justice system, a court martial process, as well as a summary hearings proceedings to ensure that we have that discipline and that morale is there, so that we have an efficient armed forces that can deal with the threats of the day and that everyone is then working hand in hand.

In the MacKay case, there was a similar note when the National Defence Act was considered as a whole. it reads:

When the National Defence Act is considered as a whole it will be seen that it encompasses the rules of discipline necessary to the maintenance of morale and efficiency among troops in training and at the same time envisages conditions under which service offences may be committed outside of Canada by service personnel stationed abroad. […] In my view these are some of the factors which make it apparent that a separate code of discipline administered within the services is an essential ingredient of service life.

Again, that comes back to the fact that our troops are deployed in places like Iraq, Ukraine, Latvia, Mali, and in past in places like Korea and Afghanistan, and across Europe in World War I and World War II. The reason we have it is that if crimes are committed overseas, those military members will still be bound by the military processes and the military justice that we have under the National Defence Act.

Again, in the Moriarity decision, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of paragraph 131(1)(a) of the National Defence Act, which incorporates offences under the Criminal Code and other acts into the military justice system, because the court acknowledged that the behaviour of members of the military relates to discipline, efficiency and morale, even when they are not on duty, in uniform or on a military base. This comes back to Operation Honour, which we are engaged in right now and which has been carried out very effectively by the Canadian Armed Forces. It is not just when one is wearing the uniform and is on duty that it matters, but it is an ethos and code of conduct that Canadian Forces members have chosen to uphold at all times, whether on duty or off .The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that. Therefore, if there is any sexual misconduct, it can be dealt with.

In closing, I have to say that I am very concerned about the effect of the Beaudry ruling. I am glad that the government and the minister have appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, because it contradicts two other recent rulings of the Court Martial Appeal Court. Essentially what they are trying to do is to wipe out the military's ability to prosecute any civilian offences within the Canadian Forces.

To close, I will read the dissenting opinion of the chief justice of the Court Martial Appeal Court, the Hon. Richard Bell. He wrote that Parliament had intended to include the offences under paragraph 131(1)(a) of the National Defence Act as “offence[s] under military law tried before a military tribunal” when drafting subsection 11(f) of the charter. He noted that “Parliament was presumably aware of the legal consequences of the military exception set out in subsection 11(f) of the Charter, and there is every indication that it intended to exclude persons subject to the Code of Service Discipline from the right to a trial by jury when it conceived that exception”.

I have to agree with him. I hope we can put stronger language into Bill C-77 to respect that type of legal opinion.

Public Safety

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am here today with a petition that protests Bill C-75, an enormous 302-page omnibus bill that would lighten the sentences on serious crimes, like advocating genocide, polygamy, marriage under 16 years, forced confinement of a minor, etc.

The petitioners ask the Prime Minister to defend the security and safety of all Canadians by withdrawing Bill C-75.

National Defence Act

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with our hon. colleague from Edmonton West.

It is an honour to stand and speak to Bill C-77.

Today we are talking about Bill C-77 and the military justice reforms from the government. Essentially in the eleventh hour and pre-writ for the most part, the government has chosen to table a bill which it has said is going to be absolutely transformative and is so important. The Liberals believe very strongly in it, yet there are so many other pieces of legislation that came before this bill, such as changing the words to our national anthem and the cannabis piece of legislation, and now we have Bill C-77 which talks about enshrining victims' rights into our military justice system.

I will say right at the outset that the Conservatives always err on the side of victims and believe that victims' rights should always be there. As a matter of fact, it was our previous Conservative government that enacted the Victims Bill of Rights Act. We support enshrining victims' rights into the military justice system. It is why we introduced Bill C-71.

People who are listening to this debate should not get that bill confused with the backdoor registry Bill C-71 that has been talked about in the last couple of weeks, which the Liberal government is trying to bring through this House and unfairly punish law-abiding gun owners. I am talking about Bill C-71 which was brought forward by the previous Conservative government. The hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour actually thanked us. It will go down in Hansard that we actually had a Liberal thanking us for all the hard work that we did. We actually did the hard work on this file.

Bill C-71 and Bill C-77 are almost identical, with the exception of a couple of minor things. All the Liberals did was take the cover page off and change the name, which is what we see them do very often with a lot of the good pieces of legislation they have brought forward. They did change C-71 to C-77. They have to put their Liberal spin on it, and we will get into that in a bit.

Also, prior to getting into the depth of this, I will say that this is not my file. I do not profess to be proficient in all the legal terms and all the benefits that Bill C-77 would bring, but I will talk about victims' rights.

It is interesting that earlier during question period and throughout the week, we were talking about a gentleman who committed a heinous crime and through the course of committing that crime gave himself PTSD. He committed murder. He actually murdered an off-duty police officer, put her into a garbage bin and then rolled it out and like trash tossed her aside. Now he has actually stepped in line with veterans, stepped in line before the veterans, and is receiving mental health services.

I receive messages from veterans and first responders every day about mental health challenges. I also receive messages every day from victims of crime who felt that when the Liberal government came in and started its hug-a-thug programs, the process was rigged against them. I actually get calls and messages from law enforcement officers who say that the system is now rigged against them, that it is harder for them to do their job. We should be doing everything in our power to give those whom we trust to protect us, our silent sentinels, every tool to be able to do their job, to be able to do their mission and come home and remain healthy and productive.

We should be giving the victims every opportunity to be protected and to know that when their day in court comes, the focus will be on them and their rights and not on the person who committed the crime.

I sat through the debate on Bill C-75. This is a piece of legislation where the government is looking to speed up our judicial process. We should not be speeding up the process. We should be making it effective, making sure that those who come before the courts get the appropriate rights and freedoms that we all enjoy, but those who are found guilty, if they do the crime, they better do the time.

I will not get into that. I am not a lawyer, but there is a lawyer sitting in front of me. There are far too many lawyer jokes that I could insert here, but I will not do that.

It was interesting to sit through the debate on Bill C-75. I listened to the witnesses who came before committee. They were very articulate and they all said the same thing. They all had the same concerns. They said we should not weaken our system, that we should make sure that victims are not revictimized through the court process. They want to know that they will get their day in court, that every tool available will be there to make sure that the perpetrator of a crime, if found guilty, will serve the time.

Bill C-77 is almost a carbon copy of Bill C-71. There are a couple of changes which I will talk to right now.

The main difference between the two bills is the addition of the Gladue decision into the National Defence Act in Bill C-77. This addition would mean that aboriginal members of the Canadian Armed Forces who face charges under the National Defence Act may face lighter punishment if convicted. I will not say “will”. This document says “will”, but I would say “may”. I still believe in our judicial system. They may face lighter punishment if convicted.

It also would mean special consideration for indigenous members, taking in their background and perhaps what they went through. We have heard horrific stories over the years.

We need to make sure that there is a parallel system and the addition of special consideration for indigenous members that results in sentences that are perhaps less harsh versus their other CAF colleagues and comrades. The concern would be that perhaps that could undermine operational discipline, morale, and anti-racism policies. It may be well intended but it could have unintended negative consequences.

We support getting the bill to committee where we can study it further and hear from groups that come before us and offer their opinions. I look forward to that.

I want to go back to the couple of hours of discussions I sat through on Bill C-75. I am conscious of the short amount of time I have to speak, but I want to comment on this. My hon. colleague down the way mentioned this as well. First, we should do everything in our power to give those who are enforcing our laws every tool possible for them to complete their mission and to remain healthy. Second, we should be doing whatever we can to make sure that we institute mental health components within our legislation to make sure that they come home healthy. We should not be trying to speed up our judicial system. We should be finding ways to make it effective.

Firearms Act

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague said that the bill could be summarized in three words: enhancing public safety. I spent quite a bit of my summer talking to different people in my riding, many of them hunters, sport shooters and farmers, and to a person, they are concerned that the bill does absolutely zero in terms of enhancing public safety. It adds an administrative burden to their lives and it potentially criminalizes law-abiding citizens.

Here we have Bill C-71, which my colleague says could be summarized in three words, enhancing public safety. At the same time, we have Bill C-75, which proposes to reduce sentences for some very violent acts in this country.

How can my colleague stand and look anyone in the eye and say honestly that Bill C-71 is summarized by enhancing public safety?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to think that preventing violence against any Canadian is a goal that everyone in the House would share. It is laudable when we have debates about how to ensure that is the case. The unfortunate thing about Bill C-71 and its subsequent journey through committee and now at the stage of debate we are at is that the government would be very hard pressed to point out statistically any one part of the bill that would actually make Canadians safer.

There were a couple of articles published by Global News in the last month. One was entitled, “A fair gun control debate requires accurate firearms facts”. Another published on September 6 was entitled, “Data shows that Toronto's gun 'surge' never happened”. These two articles are really important because they underscore the fact that any member on the government side in this place would be hard pressed to stand in the House and take any part of the bill and show how it would materially reduce violence in Canada. That, to me, is a waste of parliamentary time.

I could stand here and talk about numerous ways that would demonstrably reduce violence in Canada. If we want to talk about firearms violence, it is very important that we set the parameters of what firearms violence looks like in Canada. According to Statistics Canada, only three per cent, and I want to preface this by saying this number should be zero, but only three per cent of violent crime in Canada is related to a firearm.

Considering that statistic, we need to look at some of the claims my colleagues have made about violence against women. As Statistics Canada indicated today, patterns in weapons used in injury largely reflect the fact that common assault was the predominant offence against intimate partners. In the majority of incidents, some 70% of them, the perpetrator used their own physical force rather than a weapon to threaten or cause injury to a victim. In another 13% of incidents, the perpetrator used a weapon, while in 17% of the incidents no weapon was used.

The following is going to be a very unpopular statistic, but I am going to read it verbatim from Statistics Canada:

Given the greater use of weapons against men and the higher tendency for injury among incidents involving weapons...male victims were slightly more likely than female victims to suffer physical injury (55% versus 52%). Minor injuries accounted for this gender difference, with 53% of male victims sustaining minor physical injuries and 50% of female victims. There was no gender difference in major injury or death, as male and female victims of intimate partner violence were equally as likely to either die or experience a physical injury requiring professional medical attention....

If we drill down into the statistics, we can start talking about the causes and how we address them. Our former Conservative government invested millions of dollars directly toward programs to work with men and other groups to prevent and identify the causes of violence. My former colleague, Rona Ambrose, was Status of Women minister at the time and this was one of her big passions. She spoke all the time and worked day after day to create programs to ensure that we were preventing violence. My colleagues who were with the Minister of Justice also put forward legislation to penalize those who perpetrated this type of violence so that it would become a deterrent to people engaging in these types of behaviour, so we are looking at both ends of the coin.

The bill does none of that. It does not do anything to reduce incidents of violence. Why? It is because we know that, first of all, Canada is not the United States. The government is desperately trying to import the American debate into Canada, and that is just not the case. I am a law-abiding firearms owner. I have both my standard possession and acquisition licence, as well as my restricted possession and acquisition licences. It took me over a year to do that, from the day I decided to become a firearms owner to the day I actually became one. I had to go through an exceptional amount of training, testing, and vetting as well. It was very detailed screening. Once I did become a firearms owner, it took a long time to transfer the firearm into my possession even after this licensing process. Today, I am subject to daily vetting by the RCMP. I am also subject to very strict laws on how I transport my firearms and for the purposes they are used.

Therefore, under that system in Canada, the statistics show that a law-abiding firearm owner, someone who owns a firearm under our legal system in Canada, is three times less likely than a member of the general population to commit a firearm-related offence. Those are the statistics, so if we look at the statistics we have to start looking at when firearms-related violence happens and how prevent it.

Going back to the articles I mentioned, especially the one entitled “Data shows that Toronto's gun 'surge' never happened”, there were statistics going around that 50% of the guns were from legal sources. That is not even close to the real statistic. It was debunked by the article.

I am going to back up. The RCMP does not even consistently track where guns come from, so we should have been looking first to get better data. However, the data we do have shows an overwhelming majority of firearms used in violence are illegally sourced, and most of those are smuggled from the United States. Therefore, I do not understand why the government would not have first sought to table legislation that would have shown how it planned to better detect firearms coming in from the United States, and then have stronger penalties for those who would seek to do so.

There is so much misinformation out here. It is already a significant offence to illegally obtain a handgun or a firearm of any sort and sell it to someone who does not have a licence. That is actually an offence at this point in time.

We could be talking about all sorts of things, like better enforcement and stronger penalties, but the government is just so concerned about making symbolic gestures. The parliamentary secretary to the House leader in his last question said something to the effect of why would we take something to our constituents if it were just not true?

With regard to the component in Bill C-71 dealing with the authorization to transport, I was reading some testimony from a Dr. Caillin Langmann. I asked if there been any firearm-related violence associated with how the current ATT system, the authorization to transport system, worked. This was his testimony in response:

There is currently no empirical evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of the ATT. The fact is that the vast majority of legitimate gun owners do not use their firearms for illegal purposes let alone to cause harm.

That is true. I understand the great responsibility I bear in handling my firearms responsibly and the penalties I would incur if I were not doing that correctly. There is no way I am going to break those rules. That is why the statistics show that people who own firearms legally, those who use them legally as tools on their farms and in rural communities for hunting, people who are sports shooters—and that is the only legal reason, for all intents and purposes, that people can own a handgun in Canada—are not the ones we need to worry about.

Someone in my city, an alleged gang leader, who had used an illegally obtained firearm to shoot people walked away from criminal penalties after doing so, scot-free, because the government had not appointed judges and Jordan's principle was applied to his case. Why is the government not appointing judges? Why did it put forward Bill C-75, a bill that waters down penalties for serious violent crime, and gang related crime? Why are we not increasing those penalties?

Furthermore, if we want to take a more liberal view, which I rarely do, the government put a lot of money into a consultation process in which it announced it was going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on preventing gang violence, and it has allocated virtually none of that, even though it has spent billions of dollars on other things that are completely useless.

I wish we could focus on facts, because all of this is cheap political tactics to import a debate from the United States into Canada. It is not going to keep anyone safe. It is highly unfortunate, because the government had an opportunity to do something, to effect change, and it failed. All the government wants to do is impose an ideological agenda on a country that already has some of the tightest firearms laws in the world. Our statistics show that our legal firearms owners are not the source of this violence. Why would we then not focus on those who are perpetrating these crimes?

Someone who has obtained a handgun illegally is not, by definition or by virtue, going subscribe to the penalties in Bill C-71. It just affects law-abiding firearms owners, and those are not the people we need to focus on, based on the statistics we have.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for pointing out the complete lack of integrity in this whole argument of trying to make it look like Canadians will be safer with this Bill C-71, while at the same time the government is putting forward Bill C-75, which would reduce sentences. However, she mentioned toward the end of her speech the idea of a ban on assault rifles, which, as she already pointed out, have been banned for many years.

I would just like to quote the member for Scarborough—Guildwood who said, “I don't think I speak out of turn when I say that there is no tolerance for people having guns in Toronto, period—long guns, short guns, in-between guns, fast guns, slow guns”. This statement by the chair of the committee that studied this legislation shows a complete lack of understanding of the issues.

Therefore, does my colleague think that the Liberals are actually on track to try to ban all guns in Canada?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Nose Hill.

As the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I rise today to defend my fellow Canadians' rights to own and enjoy private property, in this case firearms. I oppose any efforts by the Liberal Party that would lead to another useless, wasteful long-gun registry, and I do so on behalf of my constituents and the tens of thousands of Canadians who are without representation from their local MPs on this issue.

I spent the summer listening and hearing what citizens from across Canada had to say.

One of the myths perpetrated by the urban media is that there is uniform support for a gun registry in Quebec. That may be true in urban Montreal, but that is not true in rural Quebec. Rural Canadians, regardless of whether they are English or French speaking, are united in their opposition to a wasteful, useless gun registry.

The Upper Ottawa Valley enjoys a long and historic relationship with people on both sides of the river, Ontario and Quebec.

Hunters from Quebec tell me one of the reasons François Legault and the CAQ are polling so well in Quebec in that provincial election, particularly in rural ridings and among francophones, is because of the decision by the Quebec Liberal Party to bring in a provincial long-gun firearms registry.

In the Upper Ottawa Valley, opposition in the Pontiac to the return of a Liberal long-gun registry has brought attention to a very historic wrong that must now be addressed.

The Canada-Ontario Boundary Act, 1889, legislation that was subsequently enshrined in the Constitution of Canada when the Constitution was repatriated in 1982, clearly situates the Ottawa River Islands of Allumette and Calumet in the province of Ontario.

This fact was confirmed by the Minister of Natural Resources Surveyor General of Canada in the House on January 21, 2016, when he stated in response to a question I placed on the Order Paper:

As stated in the Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act, 1889, the middle of the main channel still delineates the boundary between Ontario and Quebec. The main channel of the Ottawa River today may be different than that shown on the map of the Ottawa Ship Canal Survey by Walter Shanly, C.E.; nevertheless, it does not change the interprovincial boundary.

The people who live on Calumet and Allumette Islands in the Ottawa River, according to the Constitution of Canada, are legally residents of Ontario. However, Quebec is claiming ownership and enforcing its laws on island residents. Firearm owners on those islands have a legal right to refuse to register their firearms with the Quebec provincial government.

The Government of Canada has a constitutional obligation to protect the rights of the citizens who live on those islands. They do not want to be subject to the Quebec gun registry just because no one has bothered to correct the mapping error.

This error has been magnified by Bill C-71, which is why it has now become an urgent and pressing issue. Lawful firearms owners know that the Quebec gun registry could be used by other provinces as a template. These efforts by the federal government to introduce a backdoor long-gun registry through a province must be stopped in its tracks.

This is a test.

If the Prime Minister is sincere about his respect for the Constitution, he will protect the rights of the Canadian citizens who live on Allumette and Calumet Islands. No more virtue signalling about the notwithstanding clause. Bill C-71 is his problem that he created with this border crisis. Now we have to deal with it.

How appropriate, after the Prime Minister's summer of failure, he would focus on a piece of divisive legislation to divert attention from his summer of failures, with the Gerald Butts culture wars policy of dividing Canadians rather than dealing with real issues.

Let us keep this simple.

Bill C-71 is a knee-jerk response to a problem that does not exist. Law-abiding farmers and hunters are not the problem; criminal behaviour is. Let us quit rewarding criminal behaviour with soft penalties and watch the crime rates drop in Toronto. Let us withdraw Bill C-75 along with Bill C-71. It is as simple as that.

A summer of failure is one spent listening, but not actually hearing constituents and what they were trying to tell members. They were trying to tell the Liberals that this was bad legislation. For one-term members of the House, like the members for Northumberland—Peterborough South and the Bay of Quinte, third reading of legislation, coming after report stage, is when parliamentarians, after listening to their constituents, make amendments to respond to their concerns.

Clearly, government members of the House, who will have to answer directly to voters on behalf of their party, have been too busy not listening to actually hear what the constituents in their ridings have to say about banning firearms. Banning firearms because they might look scary or misleading the public about banning assault weapons when the public has been prohibited from owning assault weapons for over 20 years will not solve Toronto's gun violence.

The members for Northumberland—Peterborough South, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, Thunder Bay, Kenora, Nipissing—Timiskaming, and Yukon should ask to speak to the Liberal MP I defeated. Maybe he will them what happens to MPs when they support a useless, wasteful gun registry or talk about banning firearms because they look scary.

I can confirm for the benefit of the one-term member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington that his constituents were given the now false impression that he would be proposing a whole series of amendments to Bill C-71, the act to harass law-abiding Canadians who happen to enjoy Canadian heritage activities like hunting.

The member for Thunder Bay—Superior North should know that her constituents, who contacted me, thought Bill C-71 would be withdrawn. After alienating a large segment of voters in her riding, penalizing people of faith by demanding a humiliating loyalty attestation oath and taking away funding for student summer jobs, I can assure her that people who enjoy outdoor activities in her riding are an even larger segment of the population to alienate as we enter this final year before a federal election is called.

I understand the Prime Minister is too preoccupied, in his summer of failure, giving 4.5 billion Canadian tax dollars to Texas billionaires to build pipelines in the U.S. and losing manufacturing jobs in the auto sector to listen to the concerns of average middle-class Canadians.

While Liberal MPs might have spent the summer hearing complaints about their government and Bill C-71, the fact this legislation is being rammed through the House demonstrates how ineffectual they are. We know individual Liberal MPs are being ignored by their own party, thanks to the insight provided by the newest member of the Conservative caucus. I take this opportunity to welcome the newest member of the Conservative caucus, the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill. The member's frustration that led her to cross the floor was not being listened to.

The arrogant, elitist party hierarchy led by technocrat Gerald Butts, whose extreme leftist experiments crashed the Toronto Liberal Party so hard, is no longer recognized as an official party in the Ontario legislature. I can assure the government members who I mentioned that their constituents shared their frustration with me over Bill C-71.

Unlike the members opposite, as I always do, I spent my summer listening to my constituents. I hear what they have to say, and I represent their interests in Parliament, as I am doing today.

I thank all the members of the Madawaska Valley Fish & Game Club; the Ottawa River Sportsman Club; the Eganville & District Sportsman's Club, which recently celebrated its 40th anniversary; and the Pembroke Outdoors Sports Club, which is celebrating its 60th anniversary. They shared their concerns, signed petitions, attended information sessions and educated their fellow citizens. They recognize that banning handguns is just one step away from banning hunting rifles.

A gun ban will be another costly failure to add to all the other costly failures of the government, like paying $4.5 billion for a pipeline that ends up giving wealthy Texas oilman Kinder Morgan chairman Richard Kinder a profit of 637% on that fire sale.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague stated that this is to deal with legal firearms, not the illegal ones, and yet over and over again the mantra behind this is that we are going to deal with gun violence, crime and gangs.

I do not understand. The bill in no way deals with organized crime and the vast majority of crimes committed with firearms in Canada, so it is ineffective here. I mentioned earlier it is like taking a fly swatter to the elephant in the room. When it comes to participating in organized crime, material benefits from human trafficking, abducting a person under the age of 14, these are serious crimes. The government has said that with Bill C-75, it is going to adjust the penalties for these serious crimes to where it can be as low as a fine.

There is mixed messaging here, and I am wondering if the member can explain to me why, when there is nothing in the bill about guns and gangs, the Liberals are choosing to focus, as she has said, on law-abiding gun owners rather than the criminals.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would invite my colleague to comment on the juxtaposition that takes place between Bill C-71 and Bill C-75.

Bill C-71 of course is a piece of legislation the Liberal government has brought forward that has to do with guns. Meanwhile, Bill C-75 has to do with decreasing sentences for a number of heinous crimes, including genocide. The Liberals are claiming that Bill C-71 would actually go after gangs and gun violence and that it would help make our communities safer. Meanwhile, Bill C-75 would appear to do the exact opposite by actually making life a whole lot easier for criminals.

I wonder if my colleague would comment on that.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-71,, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms.

I have many concerns with this piece of legislation, but as there is limited time, I would like to focus my remarks today on what I consider to be a shocking oversight. I believe that all of us in this place would agree that it must be the highest priority of a government to protect the lives and safety of its constituents, of the people they are serving. Of all our duties, this is the most profound.

In order to protect our citizens, to put effective solutions in place, it is vitally important that we understand the problem. In this case, it is to recognize who is committing the violent crimes within Canada. I believe there is a simple answer to that question, and it is gangs.

In 2016, one of every two firearms-related homicides was committed by organized crime, yet nowhere in this bill are the words “gang” or “organized crime” mentioned. At best, this is an unintentional oversight. At its worst, it is intentional. After all, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness himself spoke about this issue earlier this year, saying on March 18:

Criminal gun and gang violence is a grave threat to the safety of our communities. While overall crime rates in Canada are much lower than decades ago, homicides, gun crime and gang activity have all been steadily increasing. Gun homicides have almost doubled over the past four years—and more than half are linked to gangs.

Before continuing, I want to address one point about this statement. Statistics can provide a good basis for solid policy, but only if they are seen within their proper context. I believe the minister did not provide that proper context. The minister chose to use a particular timeline in the quote above, namely “four years”. As was made clear by his office, the year he is referencing is actually 2013.

Why is that significant? The minister claimed that gun homicides have almost doubled over the past four years. That statement is very misleading when placed in context. The year 2013 happened to have had the lowest number of firearms homicide ever recorded by Statistics Canada. The next closest year on record, 1998, had 13% more homicides.

The Liberals chose 2013 as the base year to make it appear as if gun homicides were growing at a shocking rate. Now the Liberals are using these statistics to justify punishing highly vetted, law-abiding gun owners by painting a picture of Canada as the wild west. However, an unbiased look at the numbers reveals a different story. If there is to be any comparison to the wild west, it would have to refer to our ongoing struggle with gang violence.

In 2016, gang members committed 114 firearms homicides compared with 134 total homicides in 2013, the year referenced by the minister. That is a shocking statistic, no matter how it is viewed. The minister noted that gang-related firearm homicides made up half of all firearms homicides in 2016. This is significantly above average and is a cause for concern.

How is it that after recognizing the central role of organized crime in firearms murders on March 8, the minister introduced a bill just days later that ignores organized crime?

Further, not only have the Liberals failed to meaningfully address gang violence in this bill, but in this bill's companion piece, Bill C-75, they are weakening the laws currently in place to combat gang violence. Bill C-75 amends the Criminal Code to lessen the sentences for serious and even violent crimes to as little as a fine. Among those crimes is participation in organized criminal activity, in other words, joining a gang.

What is the justification for lowering the legal penalties for gang members while punishing legal firearms owners? I cannot think of one. However, time and time again the Liberals have gone after legal firearms owners rather than the criminals who use firearms.

Gang members or other criminals are not going to be deterred by a law that further restricts legal firearms owners. They will only respond to laws that hold serious consequences for their illegal activities. The government had two opportunities to address the significant problem of gang violence, a problem the minister is very aware of, yet has failed to do so. The government has failed by weakening the punishment for gang activities, and again by not making changes to our firearms laws that would target gangs.

Not only does Bill C-71 do nothing to address gang violence, but it misses the mark on rural crime as well. My riding of Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek is a large and mostly rural riding. I have heard numerous concerns from constituents about the growing issue of rural crime. This place recognized the severity of that issue and passed unanimously the motion brought by my colleague from Lakeland, Motion No. 167. That motion will result in a committee study of rural crime. Every Liberal member who was present voted for the motion, including the Prime Minister. Surely that must mean the government understands there are unique problems faced by rural Canadians, yet nothing in this bill addresses rural crime.

Instead, Bill C-71 targets law-abiding firearms owners by, among other things, breaking the Liberals' election promise and reintroducing the wasteful and divisive long-gun registry through the backdoor. In this bill, the Liberals have introduced a backdoor registry by requiring firearms retailers to keep a registry of every firearm they sell for 20 years and by requiring private transfers to be verified by the registrar of firearms. This should come as no shock, but registrars keep registries. Firearms retailers would now be required to act as registrars themselves. They would be responsible for the cost of maintaining this information and for the security of that information. The private and personal information of millions of Canadians must by law be kept by a business for 20 years. These registries would be accessible by law enforcement and must be turned over to the government if the retailer goes out of business.

It is a registry by any other name, but the Liberals will now continue to refuse to use the term “registry” because they know how upset Canadians were about the last Liberal long-gun registry. They think that by not naming it and obscuring its location, Canadians will not notice. They are wrong. I have heard from hundreds of constituents who are frustrated that the Liberals have broken their campaign promise and reintroduced the firearms registry. They feel betrayed by the current government. They are disgusted that the Liberals would try to hide their broken promise behind technicalities and muddied language. They deserve better than to be treated like criminals.

In closing, I believe that we as parliamentarians have the responsibility to create laws that protect our citizens; that reflect real-world, objective data; that treat law-abiding Canadians fairly; and that address the concerns of Canadians regarding crime and gang violence. This bill does not meet any of those requirements. For this reason, I cannot and will not support Bill C-71.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an absolute honour to rise in the House today to stand up for law-abiding gun owners as I declare my opposition to Bill C-71.

I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

Today is my last opportunity to address the flaws in this failed legislation brought forward by the Liberal government. We all know the Liberals intend to ram it through the House of Commons without due process. They have already shown us that.

The Liberals shut down debate at second reading and at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, members of the committee asked that Bill C-71 be allowed a sufficient number of meetings and witnesses, but the Liberals decided to cut it short. They do not care about what law enforcement agents have to say. They do not want to give time to legislative experts. They certainly do not want to give voice to the Canadian public.

When those empowered turn a deaf ear to the people they represent, arrogance incapacitates any ability to exercise logic or common sense.

From the start, the government did not want to debate Bill C-71. It did not want to consult or listen; it wanted to just ram it through. The Liberals would rather push through this failed legislation that aims to deceive Canadians into believing that it actually would do something to protect them, when, in fact, it does nothing. In actuality, the Liberals are going after those who already follow the law. At the same time, the Liberals are putting legislation in place that would reward criminals.

Bill C-71 would create a backdoor long-gun registry. It calls for the confiscation of firearms that were legally purchased by Canadians and would allow the federal government to share firearms records with the province of Quebec. Furthermore, it would remove the ability of licensed firearms owners to transport their restricted firearms to a gunsmith or trade show.

Bill C-71 is flawed legislation that would crack down on responsible, law-abiding firearms owners and would do absolutely nothing to go after those who would engage in violent crime.

The Liberals are rushing through flawed legislation that would potentially criminalize tens of thousands of responsible citizens, while allowing a whole host of criminals to go free.

When I was in Nunavut this spring, I had many opportunities to speak with hunters. These Inuit hunters talked to me about the potential implications of the legislation and how upset they were by it. At the public safety committee, indigenous leaders said that the legislation actually threatened them and, therefore, they could take legal action against it, that it infringed upon their constitutional rights.

I am proud to live in the southern Alberta riding of Lethbridge. Many families there enjoy the heritage of hunting and sports shooting. These are peaceful individuals. They are peaceful gun owners, men, women and youth. They have the opportunity to use their firearms in a responsible manner and have gone through a rigorous vetting process in order to do so.

When I talk to my constituents, they are deeply concerned about Bill C-71. In fact, I recently sat down with my youth advisory board. It is a non-partisan group of individuals between the ages of 16 and 24. I had the opportunity to listen to their thoughts. This is what they wanted me to share with the Prime Minister on their behalf.

They asked me to remind the Prime Minister that he was the leader of a country and not a teacher in a high school drama classroom. They asked me to remind him that he needed to lead with honesty, that he needed to function with integrity and that he needed to stop attacking those who owned their firearms legally and used their guns responsibly. Instead, they asked him to put legislation in place that would go after the real criminals.

They called this legislation “absolute nonsense”. They said that this legislation was an emotionally charge response to a problem in the United States and unfairly punishes law-abiding Canadians. Furthermore, they begged the question, “Why is the Prime Minister skewing facts and telling mistruths in order to pass this legislation that punishes those who lawfully own a firearm?”

The fact that indigenous people across the country and the youth of my riding strongly oppose this bill should be some indication to the House that there are huge flaws. However, there is more.

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of standing in the House and presenting e-petition 1608. As the sponsor of this petition, which calls for the repeal of Bill C-71, I felt it was absolutely essential to provide Canadians with the opportunity to oppose the Liberals' reckless and nonsensical legislation.

This petition was started by a 15-year-old in my riding by the name of Ryan Slingerland. As an informed and engaged young Canadian, he was upset when he learned about the Liberals' failed legislation. To quote Ryan directly, he said, “law-abiding citizens are not the issue with gun violence”.

With more than 86,000 signatures, e-petition 1608 is the second most signed e-petition in Canadian history. It sends a strong message to the Liberal government, and that is to back off.

The e-petition has signatories from every single province and territory, which means this is an issue that impacts our country as a whole. There are voices standing up in unity from coast to coast, asking the government to do something about the real criminals and to stop going after those who are law-abiding citizens.

The government is clearly more interested in painting a picture of caring rather than actually caring about the safety of Canadians. That is wrong. That is not good governance. Canadians from coast to coast can tell this, and they are calling on the government to be honest and to put proper legislation in place.

Good governments rest on the principle of listening, followed by action. Therefore, on behalf of law-abiding gun owners, I am pleading with the government today to exercise wisdom, to do what is right and take a step back.

The irony in all of this is that while the Liberals are demonizing hunters and sports shooters, the Prime Minister is actually reducing penalties for a massive list of extremely serious crimes. I am talking about participating in a terrorist group, trafficking women and girls, committing violence against a clergy member, murdering a child within one year of his or her birth, abducting a child, forcing marriage, advocating for genocide or participating in organized crime. The list goes on and on. That is just a sample.

Under Bill C-75, the government is reducing the penalties for these crimes. Does that sound like a government that cares about taking criminals off the street? Does that sound like a government that cares about protecting the well-being of Canadians, about making sure that moms are safe at home with their kids, or that they are safe at the park, or that Canadians are safe to go and enjoy an ice-cream cone out on a patio on a public sidewalk? Does that speak of a government that actually cares about our general border safety and control and security of the country? No, absolutely not.

A government that cared about the well-being of Canadians would put laws in place that would combat gang violence and organized crime. That government would not go and reward those people.

The current government is saying that it wants to keep Canadians safe and prevent gun violence, but Bill C-71 does absolutely nothing to accomplish this end. It fails to address gang violence. It fails to address the issue of illegal firearms and it fails to address rural violence and crime. In fact, the Liberal government's failure is so severe that of the $327 million it earmarked to tackle gun and gang violence, not a single penny has gone out the door.

Again, I ask this. If the government were really concerned about the well-being of Canadians and wanting to tackle crime and go after perpetrators, should it not be rolling out the money it put in the budget to do so? However, it is not concerned about that at all. Instead, it is concerned about going after the women and men who properly own their firearms, who have been extensively researched, who have a licence and are able to possess their firearm legally and use it responsibly. Why is the government doing that?

Bill C-71 targets those people unfairly and it creates the failed long-gun registry that cost Canadians $1 billion to set up the very first time. I am proud to be part of a party that scrapped that wasteful legislation. We have vowed to do the same thing when we become government again.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the legislation before the House also unfairly turns thousands of Canadians into criminals overnight. It does this by reclassifying a number of firearms as prohibited. I am talking about firearms that are legally brought into Canada and that are legally possessed. This has been done for years. These individuals would, overnight, be in possession of something that would be illegal, thanks to the government.

Not a single one of the measures being put in place would take guns out of the hands of criminals. Criminals do not purchase their guns legally and they certainly do not register them.

In summary, Bill C-71 is yet again another failed piece of legislation from the government. It does absolutely nothing to protect our communities, to make them safer or to target those who are responsible for crime.

I am proud to say that a Conservative government will repeal and replace this legislation. We will replace it with a law that targets criminals, protects Canadians and respects those who lawfully own their firearms. That is a good government. That is the government that the House will see in 2019.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our colleague for her speech today, especially the part where she described a number of scenarios where people's lives were taken.

Any senseless gun violence is a terrible thing, as everyone in this House agrees. However, the unfortunate thing here is that this legislation is completely weak in dealing with that particular issue. We keep hearing the terms “gangs” and “crime with guns” coming from the mouths of the members here, but this legislation does nothing to deal with that. It is like taking a fly swatter to kill an elephant, and this elephant is huge in our society.

Therefore, we have deep concern on this side of the floor about dealing with gang violence and gun violence, which brings me to this point: If the member and her colleagues are truly concerned about this, why then are they prepared to remove penalties for serious crimes with Bill C-75, such as participating in an organized crime, or getting material benefits from human trafficking, or abducting a person under the age of 14?

These are serious crimes, often using guns and gangs, yet that members on that side of the floor appear prepared to remove serious penalties to the point where they could be as low as a fine. How can this be a reasonable behaviour when they are prepared to basically penalize law-abiding gun owners with more red tape?

Some of the smaller issues in this bill are good, but the majority of the bill is useless and would do nothing but create more bureaucracy in the form of a registry. It would do nothing about these issues, which they are prepared to turn a blind eye to.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise again today to speak about the logical absurdity at the heart of Bill C-71, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms. We on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security have read and worked on the text of the bill. The conclusion is inescapable: the Liberals are trying to look like they are fighting crime, but in reality, they seem to be favouring the rights of criminals over those of law-abiding citizens. This is nothing new. Canadians are all too familiar with the Prime Minister's track record. I do not need to persuade anyone that the Prime Minister has an overly liberal attitude towards terrorists and street gangs.

Bill C-71 proves my point. We have been debating this bill for some time in the House, but I can guarantee you that thousands of citizens have been continuing the discussions across Canada. Yesterday, my colleague from Lethbridge presented a petition signed by 86,000 law-abiding Canadians — certainly not criminals — calling for Bill C-71 to be scrapped.

The Prime Minister likes to brag every chance he gets about working for reconciliation with first nations. This has been yet another failure, since there have been no discussions with first nations. Maybe he thought it would be too difficult to have a conversation with them, so he did not bother.

Firearms are a way of life for many indigenous peoples. They hunt every day, as it is part of their ancient traditions, and we understand that. However, they were not able to share their views, except in committee, and only because the Conservatives requested that first nations witnesses appear. Those representatives said they did not deem that Bill C-71 applied to them and they had no need for it. They therefore have no intention of obeying it. That is a pretty serious problem.

As I said earlier, we have not debated Bill C-71 for quite some time. I would therefore like to remind Canadians what the bill is all about. Let me remind Canadians that this bill does nothing to fight street gangs and organized crime. I would also remind Canadians that the bill is an attempt by the Prime Minister to impose a gun registry and yet another burden on law-abiding citizens for no good reason.

Now I will go over some of the finer points of the bill to illustrate to what extent the Liberals have lost their way. The following are some of the gaps in Bill C-71: the proposed legislation would remove the reference to the five-year period that applies to background checks for permit applications, thereby eliminating any time restriction on those checks. What is more, every time there is a transfer of ownership of a non-restricted firearm, the purchaser and vendor will have to check whether the licence is valid. Retailers will also be required to keep records of their inventories and sales at their own expense. The current wording of the bill repeals parts of our former Bill C-42, an act to amend the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code and to make a related amendment and a consequential amendment to other acts, which gives parliamentarians, not the RCMP, the power to classify firearms. Under this bill, specific transport authorization would be required every time a restricted or non-restricted firearm is transported across communities, except when a firearm is transported between a residence and an approved shooting range, as the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness said.

In his speech, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness mentioned that the amendments of all the recognized parties had been accepted. However, we proposed 44 amendments and only one was accepted. The members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security worked extremely hard. We took off our jackets, rolled up our sleeves and worked for hours to make this bill more logical. We proposed 44 amendments to improve the bill. They were not ideological amendments. The Liberals rejected all of them except for one.

One of our amendments proposed that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness be the one to change the classification of firearms based on recommendations from the manufacturer and the RCMP. This amendment would have prevented the RCMP from having a complete monopoly over the classification of firearms and ensured that consultations would precede any reclassification. That would have ensured public accountability by forcing the minister to provide his reasons for the reclassification in the Canada Gazette. The Liberals rejected that amendment.

We also proposed an amendment that would have made it unnecessary to conduct background checks on people seeking to renew a firearm licence or firearm owners the year of the first background check since the continuous eligibility process involves daily checks. The amendment sought to simplify the process without reducing the number of checks. Of course, we all agree that background checks must be conducted.

We wanted to improve the bill so as to make it a little simpler, but we were rebuffed. We also proposed that people on indigenous reserves or in remote areas who live off hunting be exempt from the regulations on firearms transfers, but once again we were told no.

We are now at third reading stage, and I believe it is important to remind Canadians of the Conservative Party's position on this matter. Canada's Conservatives believe that Canadians' safety should be the top priority of any government. Talk is not enough; action and specific measures are needed. Unfortunately, this law does not have any new measures to tackle the gang violence in Surrey or Toronto and the increased crime rate in Canada's rural communities.

We cannot trust the Liberals when it comes to firearms legislation, because they are not cracking down on criminals who use weapons to commit violent crimes, and they are treating law-abiding gun owners like criminals.

The Conservatives will continue to advocate for real action to keep Canadians safe, and we will focus our efforts on the criminal causes of gun violence.

Our leader was very clear yesterday when he said that next year, in 2019, when the Conservatives form government, we will repeal Bill C-71 and replace it with a law that targets criminals and street gangs, not law-abiding Canadians.

We have concerns about Bill C-75, another bill introduced around the same time. The government claims that Bills C-71 and C-75, which were introduced in tandem, are meant to combat gun violence. However, as we have said, Bill C-71 will criminalize law-abiding gun owners. Bill C-75 is even worse. It will turn certain criminal offences, such as participating in an activity of a terrorist group, administering a noxious substance, like the date rape drug, advocating genocide, or participating in organized crime, into offences that could be punishable by a fine. It makes absolutely no sense for the government to do this.

Criminals are criminals. Unless the government stops trying to please and mollify interest groups every time it decides to do something, it will never be able to introduce meaningful, relevant measures that really tackle the problem.

Under Bill C-75, what are now certain criminal offences could become punishable by mere fines. They say their goal is to relieve pressure on the justice system. If the justice system is a problem, fix it. Criminal sanctions should not be downgraded just because the government has a problem.

We will take care of this next year.

In addition to making life difficult for law-abiding individuals, Bill C-71 is telling business owners, people who work hard for their money, to keep records about clients and firearms. They are being forced to keep those records for 20 years. They will have to have a computer system. The government is forcing them to do more, but they do not have the money to do it. Any costs associated with record-keeping will be their problem, unless there is something else we have not heard about.

I would now like to talk about the difference between the work of elected officials in the House of Commons and that of public servants or bureaucrats. Once again, the government is putting Canadians' safety in the hands of bureaucrats instead of allowing elected officials to decide what is important for Canadians. For example, the government is giving the RCMP total control over firearms reclassification. It is now up the RCMP to decide whether an individual is a criminal for owning a firearm that the RCMP now deems to be unacceptable.

We think we should be playing that role, even though it is true that no one here is an expert in the matter. We would need to get accurate information and advice from manufacturers and the RCMP. Then, the minister would make a decision based on the evidence. It is up to us to tell Canadians that after holding consultations or conducting checks, we decided to change the classification. Why would we not be able to do that?

Why let the RCMP make those decisions on our behalf? Once again, the government is giving power to bureaucrats who are not accountable to anyone, who can sit in their offices and decide to change the rules and prohibit a firearm without us having any say in the matter. What are we doing here? This is our job. We are not perfect, but that is why we would need to listen so that we could understand the situation properly and make an informed decision.

With regard to the registry, this is the second time that the Liberals have tried to punish law-abiding citizens. The first time was in 1993. Twenty-five years ago, the “little guy from Shawinigan” introduced a registry and told us not to worry because it would cost only $2 million. Shortly after that, we learned it would cost $2 billion, and we all know what happened next.

Now the Liberals are introducing a bill that requires retailers to collect data and send it to the government if their business shuts down, but they deny that this is a gun registry. That is what they want us to believe. As the saying goes, they are taking us for fools. They are trying to tell us in every possible way that this is not a gun registry. As soon as someone enters data on a computer, and businesses are required to send that data to the government if they shut down, what is that? It means that information on citizens and on guns is being shared. That is a kind of registry.

Getting back to indigenous peoples, I asked a question on that topic after the minister's speech. He replied simply that this pertains to section 35 of the Constitution. The minister just said directly that, from the standpoint of national security and harmonizing security across Canada, there is a constitutional problem. In its current form, Bill C-71 is unconstitutional if it applies to indigenous peoples. Indigenous representatives told us that themselves, and the minister just confirmed it. Now what is happening? The Liberals are pushing ahead, and once again, the first victims they go after are our law-abiding hunters and sport shooters. We have no shortage of laws in Canada. This is not the United States. It currently takes eight months to get a licence, and there are quite a few hoops to jump through.

I realize that the Constitution gives indigenous peoples certain rights. Still, as I said when I asked the minister my question, people who own guns are human beings, citizens, on an equal basis as other Canadians. Why would we impose a law on one group of individuals that would not apply to another group under the Constitution? That will not work.

I know this is complex, but I think law-abiding citizens are entitled to wonder why this bill is targeting them instead of criminals. The Liberals have yet to answer that question, and they cannot always claim it is because of the Constitution. When it comes to safety and security, that answer is not good enough. The government cannot just fool around with safety and security by simply saying that the Constitution protects its decision and that is that. That is not going to work.

The Conservatives are being told that we are all talk and no action. I just want to remind the House of what our government did to fight crime. When we were in government from 2006 to 2015, we fought tirelessly to keep Canadians safe. For example, we passed the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act. This act simplified the licensing system while strengthening firearms prohibitions for people who had been convicted of an offence involving domestic violence. We also passed the Tackling Violent Crime Act, which strengthened bail provisions for people accused of serious offences involving firearms.

The legislation we passed to tackle organized crime and ensure protection in the justice system provided police officers and justice officials with new tools that would go a long way in fighting organized crime. We supported the national crime prevention strategy. We funded initiatives across the country to advance Canada's crime prevention and community protection objectives under the national crime prevention strategy.

We created the northern and aboriginal crime prevention fund under the national crime prevention strategy in order to meet the needs of northern and aboriginal communities when it comes to crime and community safety.

We created the youth justice fund. In December 2006, the guns, gangs and drugs component of the youth justice fund was put in place to help rehabilitate young offenders.

We also created the youth gang prevention fund in 2006 to support community groups that work with troubled youth in order to prevent them from joining gangs by addressing the risk factors associated with gangs.

In other words, we kept our promises and worked for law-abiding citizens, not against them.

Let no one doubt our determination to fight crime. The Liberals, on the other hand, promised $327 million almost a year ago, but not a single penny has surfaced so far. The Liberals say they want to fight crime, they promise money, but we have yet to see a single penny.

Crime and gangs do not take time off. Gangs keep on committing crimes. The current government is spending a lot of money on a lot of silly things. They promised money to fight gangs and we agree with that, but now one year has gone by and we have yet to see a single red cent. That is outrageous. We need action now.

History is repeating itself. In 1993, the Liberals created the gun registry to make it look like they were fighting crime. Twenty-five years later, the Liberals are pulling out the same old strategy in the hope that Canadians will again be fooled by the smoke and mirrors of the Prime Minister and his team. They tell us that they are looking after us and will help up. In reality, Canadians are not fools. That was demonstrated by my colleague's petition this week. People understand that this is not the way to fight crime. We will deal with the problem next year.

Justice

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak on the issue of judicial appointments. I appreciate the question from my colleague opposite.

Since coming to power, our government has put important measures in place to ensure that the judicial appointment process is open and transparent for Canadians. These measures also seek to encourage greater diversity on the bench. At the same time, our government is aware of the challenges faced by the courts regarding the judicial delays pointed out by the member opposite, to which even more attention has been paid since the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in Jordan, which was already mentioned.

We proved that we are determined to meet these challenges when we introduced Bill C-75. This bill is now before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. It proposes a global reform that addresses the root causes of the delays while modernizing our criminal justice system.

Let me assure the member opposite that the minister is very mindful of the effect judicial vacancies can have on the effective operation of our courts in Canada. She has outlined a case in Alberta in particular and we have addressed the needs in Alberta, as well as in other parts of the country. The minister is absolutely committed to ensuring that the most meritorious candidates are appointed to the bench in order to meet the needs of all Canadians.

Since being elected, our government has appointed or elevated 212 judges to superior courts around this country, and today the diversity of our appointments is unprecedented. Allow me to underscore that diversity. Under our government, 56% of the appointed or elevated judges are women, compared to just 32% under the previous government.

Our government is committed to continuing to strengthen our judiciary.

Budget 2017 created funding for 28 new federally appointed judges. Using that great funding, the minister has appointed judges to new judicial positions in Alberta, 12 in particular, and I highlight Alberta because the case of Nick Chan stems from the province of Alberta. We have also appointed new positions in Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, with more such appointments to come. Through budget 2018, we are creating 46 new judicial positions. Under the current minister, there are now more federally appointed judges sitting in Alberta than under the previous government, a point that I think is very important to underscore.

Judicial advisory committees are fundamental to the judicial appointment process. They evaluate the applications of those who have put their names forward for judicial appointment and provide lists of highly recommended and recommended candidates to the Minister of Justice. As a result of the changes we introduced, the JACs are now more balanced and inclusive.

We also made changes to help achieve a more representative bench, with a broader diversity of backgrounds and experience, allowing candidates to speak to their own understanding and experience of Canada's diverse makeup. We likewise increased our ability to validate candidates' bilingual capacity, something the member opposite has been very strong and determined about, in raising again and again about the point about protecting bilingualism in this country and the French base throughout Canada. That is something she should take note of in terms of what we are doing to ensure that our courts can respond to the needs of Canada's minority official languages communities.

In addition to reforming the process and filling a large number of vacancies, 2017 was a record-breaking year. We made 100 appointments, more than any government in at least two decades, including more than the previous government in any one particular year. The minister is on pace to meet or exceed that very same number this year.

To conclude, we are very proud of what we have done to modernize our judicial appointments process, which is building a better judiciary that better reflects the country that it serves.

Firearms Act

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I am glad my colleagues across the way find releasing murderers very humorous. We on this side do not think it is a laughing matter.

We have had over 200 serious cases of criminals being released because the Liberals had not appointed judges. On top of this, look at Bill C-75 lowering the penalty for being involved in a gang, lowering the penalty for using date rape drugs. It is a disgrace. The government needs to set its priority at looking after Canadians and not being soft on crime.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today and the hon. member spoke about Bill C-75 in conjunction with Bill C-71 and the fact that the Liberals are limiting the ability of judges and giving the option of imposing lesser sentences for some of the most egregious crimes in this country. Can the member comment further on how that is going to impact Canadians?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet” is a popular reference to William Shakespeare's play Romeo and Juliet, in which Juliet seems to argue that it does matter that Romeo is from her family's rival house of Montague and that he is a Montague himself. The reference is often used to imply that the names of things do not affect what they really are. Juliet compares Romeo to a rose, saying that if he was not named Romeo, he would be just as handsome and would still be Juliet's love.

In the case of Bill C-71, a gun registry by any other name is, well, a gun registry.

At committee stage, the Liberals passed one of the CPC amendments, which has been often quoted. It stated, “For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to permit or require the registration of non-restricted firearms.”

When the Liberals adopted this amendment, we expected that they would also support changes that would remove the elements that essentially created a gun registry. Unfortunately, they did not. They kept the registrar tracking of the transfer of firearms, keeping a centralized government record, and that is a registry by another name.

It is very cynical and disingenuous of the Minister of Public Safety and other Liberals in the House to try to skew this as support for the language of the bill. It was much like watching the President of the Treasury Board the other day defending the Liberals' slush fund in vote 40 in the estimates by quoting the current and the past PBO, pretending these gentlemen were in support of the Liberal slush fund. However, Kevin Page, the former PBO, said that there is no way it is an improvement, and the current PBO said that their incomplete information will lead to weaker spending controls.

The bill before us would remove the reference to the five-year period that applies to background checks on licence applications, thereby eliminating any temporal restrictions on such checks. It would require that whenever a non-restricted firearm is transferred, the buyer must produce a licence, and the vendor must verify that it is valid, which would require a registrar to issue a reference number for such transactions. The bill would require commercial retailers to maintain records of their inventories and sales, and such records would be accessible to the police. It would put the power to classify weapons in the hands of the RCMP bureaucrats and take it out of the hands of parliamentarians, and it would amend the Long-gun Registry Act to allow a province to keep its gun registry records. It sounds like a registry.

What is missing from Bill C-71 is any reference to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and gangs.

What bill does mention gangs and organized crime? Bill C-75 does, but only in relation to lighter sentences. What does Bill C-75 do? It lessens sentences to as little as fines for those participating in the activity of a terrorist group, much like the returning ISIS terrorist wandering around the streets of Toronto. If the government ever gets around to having him arrested, maybe we will hit him with a fine.

The penalty for administering a noxious drug, such as a date rape drug, can now be reduced to a fine. The penalty for advocating genocide is now reduced. It is somewhat ironic that the Liberals would use the word “genocide” in Bill C-75 for reducing the penalty, when they could not bear to say the word in the House to describe what was happening to the Yazidis overseas. The penalty for participating in organized crime would also be reduced in Bill C-75.

To sum up, Bill C-71 would go after law-abiding gun owners, and Bill C-75 would go soft on crime. Maybe we will set out some tea cozies and ask returning ISIS fighters to sit around the campfire and sing Kumbaya together.

To make the streets safer, I have to ask why the Minister of Public Safety does not just get up from his seat, walk about seven benches down, and tell the Minister of Justice to do her job and appoint some judges to the judiciary. In the Jordan ruling, people have a right to a timely trial, but the Liberals have not appointed enough judges, so we are letting accused murderers go. I want to talk about some of them.

Nick Chan, from Calgary, walked free this week. Who is Nick Chan? He was charged with first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and instructing a criminal organization. If the Liberals want to get guns off the street, why do they not appoint judges so that we can keep people like Nick Chan in jail? He has also been accused in the past of murdering three other people and has been charged with firearm offences. Here we have Bill C-71 going after law-abiding gun owners, and we let someone like Nick Chan, who is charged with illegally possessing guns, go because we have not appointed judges.

James Coady, in Newfoundland, facing drug trafficking and weapons charges, was let go because there was no judge and he could not get a timely trial.

Van Son Nguyen was released in Quebec, the third accused murderer released in Quebec because he could not get a timely trial.

Lance Regan was released in Edmonton because, again, no judges.

However, let us focus on Bill C-71. Here is the worst one. A father was accused of breaking his two-week-old baby's ankles. He had his criminal charges stayed because he could not get a timely trial. The grandmother of the poor kid said, “We were angry, we were crying, we were outraged that he was able to get off with this (ruling).”

However, the Liberal government is tying us up with Bill C-71, going after law-abiding gun owners and ignoring its duty to appoint judges, letting murders go free, letting someone who breaks the ankles of a two-week-old baby go free. This is the priority.

In a television interview, the parliamentary secretary for justice said, “We border the largest handgun arsenal in the world.” I assume he means America. However, this bill would do nothing to address that issue.

The Minister of Public Safety says, “it's the drug trade, in particular, that is an intrinsic part of gang culture and gang-related violence and arguably causes the most harm in our communities” and that it is made worse by the “opioid crisis”. What do we have? Vote 40, the slush fund, which is supposed to get money out the door faster, has $1 million to address the opioid issue.

I want to talk about the departmental plans. Departmental plans are plans that every department has to put out. The departmental reports describe departmental priorities and expected results.

I will go to the Minister of Public Safety and see what his plan says, “If we can find a way to intervene early before tragedy strikes, we should.” Here is a hint for the Minister of Public Safety. He should walk down the row and tell the justice minister to appoint some judges and then maybe we can intervene before tragedy strikes.

He talks about safer communities being central to Public Safety Canada's mandate. He invites all Canadians to read the Public Safety Canada 2018-19 departmental plan to find out how it is keeping Canada and Canadians safe.

I have read the plans. I do not think anyone from the other side of the House has, and I am pretty sure the Minister of Public Safety has not read his own plans that he signed off on.

Under the section on national security and terrorism, it sets out four different targets. Departmental results indicate that the first one is Canada's ranking on global terrorism. I am surprised the government has not even set a target to compare things to. The next is Canada's ranking on cyber security, but there are no past areas to compare it to. Then the percentage of the population thinks the right mechanisms are in place for them to respond to terrorism. Once again, there is no target set. It goes on and on.

Under community public safety, and this is great, there are seven targets, three of them have no past targets to refer to. Therefore, the government is pulling a number out of the air as the target to achieve. For the percentage of stakeholders reported consulting public safety, the target is set at 60%. However, there is nothing in the past to compare it to. For stakeholders reporting good or very good results on projects funded through Public Safety, it is 80%. Compared to what? Nothing, everything is not applicable. Here is a great one. The crime severity index is going to go up. This measures, as it says, the severity of crime in Canada. This actually goes up over last year and up over the Harper era.

For the percentage of Canadians who think that crime in their neighbourhood has decreased, the goal for next year is to have it worse than it was in previous years. For crimes prevented in populations most at risk, it shows a drop in results. For the percentage of at-risk populations, there is no target. For the difference between police reporting in first nations communities, again, it shows a drop in results. The three-year plan actually shows 23% in funding cuts to community safety.

This shows the Liberal priorities. Instead of going after terrorists, instead of going after criminals, instead of going after gangs with guns, their priority is to prey on law-abiding gun owners and re-establishing a registry. It is a shame.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak to Bill C-71, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms.

This legislation would have an impact on many of my constituents who are law-abiding gun owners. In fact, this legislation would have a big impact on many Canadians.

Hunting is a big part of the livelihood, traditions, and recreational choices of a significant number of Canadians. Some Canadians also own firearms to protect their crops, livestock, or themselves from rabid animals, and animals like bears or coyotes. Others enjoy competing in recreational shooting sports and some are collectors. Whether they are hunters, farmers, sport shooters, or collectors, what these Canadians can be certain about is that Bill C-71 would result in greater unnecessary restrictions.

I do want to be clear that public safety should always be the priority of any government. Safe and sensible firearm policies are necessary to ensure public safety. Mandatory firearm safety courses, safe storage and transportation measures, and licensing are all common sense measures that contribute to public safety in Canada, measures law-abiding gun owners follow already. Under the guise of tackling gun violence and keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals, the Liberal government has brought forward Bill C-71.

The Liberal government's rhetoric is deceiving. A review of this legislation quickly reveals that the Liberals have completely missed the mark. This legislation would do nothing to address gangs, gun violence, and escalating crime rates in our rural communities. Instead, it would target law-abiding gun owners. It would treat Canadians who legally own firearms as criminals. In fact, a measure in this legislation has the potential of inadvertently making criminals of Canadian men and women who have legally purchased a firearm.

The Liberals are repealing parts of the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act. Specifically, the bill would put the ability to classify weapons solely back in the hands of RCMP bureaucrats, meaning the legislation we have before us would allow the RCMP to prohibit a firearm without notice. That could result in the confiscation of a firearm that was legally purchased and the owner could then be subject to criminal charges.

In 2014, unelected bureaucrats decided to reclassify Swiss Arms rifles and CZ 858 rifles. They were reclassified as prohibited, making it illegal to import, buy, sell, or own them. These rifles had been legal in Canada for years and many responsible law-abiding gun owners had purchased these rifles legally, but the decision to prohibit them turned these lawful gun owners into criminals in possession of prohibited firearms.

Our former Conservative government enacted common sense legislation that restored the property rights to these individuals. It created an appropriate balance, where based on expert advice, the government makes the rules and the RCMP interprets and enforces them.

Another measure that this legislation repeals is the authorization to transport a firearm to specific routine and lawful activities. The Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act automatically gave individuals with a licence authorization to transport their firearm to a shooting range, a police station, a chief firearms officer, a gunsmith, a gun store, a gun show, a border point, and home from the place of purchase. As indicated in the act, this measure was common sense. It removed unnecessary red tape.

Bill C-71 would repeal these measures. It would only allow for a firearm to travel to a shooting range or home from a place of purchase. Any other of the aforementioned activities would require a specific authorization to transport, issued at the discretion of the province's chief firearms officer.

Issuing authorizations to transport firearms to routine locations, like a gunsmith for repair or to the chief firearms officer for verification or registration, is unnecessary. It in no way addresses the criminal element behind gun violence.

Let us talk about the real elephant in the room tonight. This legislation is a backdoor attempt to bring back the wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry. The long-gun registry introduced by Chrétien's Liberal government was costly. Canadians were told it would only cost them $2 million, but in the end it cost more than $2 billion, and for what purpose? It was ineffective. There is no evidence that the long-gun registry prevented any crime in Canada. It seems that criminals and gang members never took the time to fill out the necessary paperwork. And there is no evidence that the new registry would be any different.

I admit that the Liberals have said that this legislation does not reintroduce a firearms registry. At the committee stage, they even voted in favour of a Conservative amendment denouncing any effort to re-establish a registry of non-restricted firearms. However, by now we all know that what the Liberals say and what they do are often very different.

The Liberals are said to be tackling crime through this legislation, but words like “gang” or “criminal organization” are not found in the text of the bill. What we do find are words like “registrar”, “registration”, “records”, and “reference number”. That is because this legislation creates a registry of non-restricted firearms. Bill C-71 would require firearm retailers to create and manage a registry of licensed non-restricted firearms buyers, which is a registry they would need to surrender to the chief firearms officer upon request. People would also require permission from the RCMP registrar of firearms to buy, sell, give, or loan a non-restricted rifle.

This begs the question that I know many of my colleagues on this side of the House have asked. What does a registrar do? The answer is quite simple: a registrar keeps a registry. The Liberals are using a federal registrar to keep records on non-restricted firearms. This is the “2.0” version of a federal firearms registry.

Canadians want safe and sensible firearms legislation, but that is simply not what the Liberals have offered them. Instead, they are creating more unnecessary red tape for law-abiding Canadians. They are casting suspicion on law-abiding firearms owners, while doing nothing to address the criminal element behind gun violence. Their priorities are backwards.

This is made only more evident when we consider Bill C-75, another bill introduced by the government. Bill C-75 lessens the sentences for serious and violent crimes to sentences as little as a fine. Some of the crimes that would be eligible for lighter sentencing under this legislation include participating in a terrorist activity, activities relating to human trafficking, kidnapping, forced marriage, or impaired driving causing bodily harm. These are very serious crimes. The punishment should fit the crime. A fine is not the appropriate sentence for these crimes and it is insulting to victims.

The Liberals are weakening the Canadian criminal justice system and making light of serious crimes. At the same time, they are sending a strong message to law-abiding gun owners by treating them like criminals.

I cannot support legislation that does nothing to address gangs, gun violence, and the escalating crime rates in rural communities. I cannot support legislation that enacts a backdoor firearms registry, and unnecessarily burdens law-abiding Canadians with regulations.

Bill C-71 is flawed legislation because it does not take appropriate action to prevent or deter gun violence. It burdens law-abiding Canadian citizens with red tape and villainizes my constituents who are hunters, farmers, and sport shooters.

When it comes down to it, the Liberals have again proven that they cannot be trusted to bring forward sensible and effective firearms legislation.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand this evening to discuss Bill C-71. It is a bill that is going to change the Firearms Act, and Canadians do not trust the Liberals when it comes to firearms. That is abundantly clear.

One of the things I want to draw into this debate is Bill C-75, which is a bill the government is bringing in to change sentencing for a multitude of crimes in Canada. What are the Liberals doing in that bill? They are reducing the sentences for over 27 significant crimes. One of the crimes they are reducing them for is participation in a terrorist plot. They are reducing the sentence.

Why are the Liberals doing this? It is because they have a “hug a thug” theory that if we would just like terrorists better, they would not perpetrate terrorism against our country. We have seen this on display already. They have given $10.5 million to a terrorist named Omar Khadr. They are now reducing their crimes and have given citizenship back to terrorists.

Canadians do not trust the government when it comes to getting it right. When the Liberals come out with firearms legislation that they say is going to reduce crime, Canadians do not believe them. They say that their track record up to this point has been to reduce sentences, not to reduce crime. We have seen a dramatic increase in crime across Canada.

I was in Toronto earlier this month and met with people who said that break and enters were up in their community. In my community, we have seen rural crime up significantly across all parts of Alberta and Saskatchewan. When the Liberals introduced Bill C-71 and said that this was going to reduce violent crime and gun crime, Canadians looked at the government and said, “Really?” Nothing it has done up to this point has reduced crime whatsoever, and now we are supposed to expect that suddenly, with Bill C-71, the Liberals are going to reduce crime.

What would the bill do? Would it increase sentences for criminals? Would it ensure that if a firearm was used in a crime there would be more restrictions? If weapons were smuggled in from another country, would that change anything? Would it enhance border security? No, it would not do any of that.

What would it do? It would target the people who already have a firearms licence. People who have a firearms licence would now be required to go through an extra hurdle, an extra hoop to jump through, and call whenever they transferred a firearm.

Where I come from, firearms are a fact of life. Typically, every household has a number of firearms. It is just the way the world works where I come from. Firearms are exchanged on a regular basis. There are entire Facebook pages committed to exchanging firearms. Someone says, “I have a firearm. Come and check it out.”

The Liberals rolled out this legislation and said that we do not even have to show a firearms licence to get a firearm in Canada. That is news to me, a firearms owner who has a firearms licence. I need to show my possession acquisition licence, my PAL, every time. I have never gone to buy ammunition and forgotten my PAL and asked to have it sold to me. They have to see my licence before they sell me any ammunition.

The criminals who robbed my local firearms store certainly did not show their PAL. They just broke in and stole the firearms. That is what we are dealing with.

With this particular piece of legislation, I would have to make a phone call to ensure that my PAL was up to date. It says right on my PAL whether it has expired. That should be good enough. When I renew it, I have to fill out all the paperwork again. Once every five years, I have to fill out the paperwork again. They phone my wife to make sure that she is okay with me having firearms. Every time I renew, I have to fill out my wife's contact information, her email address, etc.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I would like to point out with Bill C-71 is the fact that when it comes to firearms and when it comes to dealing with crime, the Liberals have it all backwards. If we look at Bill C-75 and Bill C-71 at the same time, we see that law-abiding Canadians, Canadians who are jumping through all the hoops that the Liberals put in place, are being punished by Bill C-71. However, when we look at Bill C-75, the so-called enhancements of the judicial system, we see that the Liberals are downgrading all of the sentencing for a lot of the crimes across Canada.

What does my colleague have to say about the complete lack of clarity between the two pieces of legislation?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud as a licenced firearms owner to be speaking today against Bill C-71.

I have been listening to the debate, and I am quite amazed at the ridiculous comments coming from Liberal members.

For the member of Winnipeg North to claim that the amendment that was proposed by the Conservatives to ensure “with certainty” in the beginning of the bill that is not a registry and that this somehow changes the rest of the bill is ridiculous. That clause would put the rest of the act in conflict, and it is contrary to what it says. If Bill C-71 would no longer be a registry, then we should be striking out all the words in it that refers to “a registry” and “a registrar”.

As Conservatives, we will always support sound policy that ensures the safe storage and handling of firearms. All of us as licenced firearms owners have to take the proper courses to ensure that our firearms are stored kept under lock and key. We will support the proper screening of those who are applying to become firearms owners.

We want to ensure, as we go forward, that firearms are classified on function and not on visual looks. We also have to ensure that everyone who commits a crime using a firearm is properly treated under the Criminal Code. However, Bill C-75 would do none of that. Bill C-75 does not mention criminals, gangs, gun dealers, and is completely mute on the subject, and for that I am appalled.

Then, when we combine Bill C-71 with Bill C-75, the proposal coming from the Liberals to amend the Criminal Code, those guys want to look like they are getting tough on crime, but they are getting tough on legal firearms owners. When it comes down to the real criminals, the Liberals are going to take indictable offences that provide jail time and mandatory minimum sentences to criminal offenders and turn them into fines, a slap on the wrist. Those types of summary convictions are no way to treat real criminals, but that is the hug-a-thug, soft-on-crime Liberal mentality.

Here they are getting tough on firearms owners. They are going to make it more difficult for us to own and transport our firearms and transfer them to other people. However, if someone commits assault with a weapon, then that person can have a summary conviction, get a slap on the wrist and a fine. If people participate in a terrorist group or leave Canada to participate in a terrorist group, the Liberals are just going to slap them on the wrist and maybe put them on house arrest. There will be no mandatory minimums; it is going to be a summary conviction.

There are over 27 things. People could advocate for genocide, or abduct someone under the age of 16 or children under the age of 14 and get summary convictions. That soft-on-crime mentality is percolating through those Liberal benches, which is making Canada more dangerous. However, they are taking law-abiding firearms owners, the most law-abiding citizens in the country, and turning them into criminals. It is ridiculous. I find the mantra of the Liberals completely disgusting.

Nothing in Bill C-71 will fix the gang violence and the gun violence on our streets, whether it is in Toronto, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Montreal, or Vancouver. It will do nothing to stop it. Nor will it stop the crimes that we see in our rural communities and rural areas where there are more and more home invasions and properties being ransacked.

The member for Winnipeg North was saying that the bill had nothing to do with a registry. As has already been pointed out, in Bill C-71, subsection 29(1) says that we can provide a copy from the Canadian Firearms Registry to the Quebec government if the Quebec minister requests it. It is right here. The front-door gun registry, the actual registry that existed until 2015, is being moved over to the Quebec government.

The bill also talks about this issue of whether there is a registry. If there is no registry, why is there is a registrar in the bill? Bill C-71 keeps talking about the registrar. In section 23 paragraph (2) provides for reference numbers for the transfer of a firearm from one owner to another. We know that registrars keep reference numbers, because they have a registry.

Regardless of the rhetoric coming from across the way, we have a situation where the bill again establishes a backdoor gun registry on top of the front-door registry, with records being transferred to the province of Quebec.

We know that the registrar along with the chief firearms officers in each province will monitor the movement of our firearms from one area to the other. The only thing that will keep is that those of us who own firearms that are restricted in nature will be able to take them to our shooting clubs and ranges without having to get an authorization to transport that firearm.

However, if we want to take that firearm to a gun show, or a gunsmith to be fixed and maintained or even to return it to a peace officer, if we no longer wanted to have a firearm, or we did not want to pass it on to our family or sell it to a friend or a neighbour, we would have to get an authorization to transfer it. That is ridiculous, but that is the type of thing the Liberals believe in and that is what they have put in the bill. That is disturbing.

We can look at 2016 and look at what Gary Mauser at Simon Fraser University, who has done a lot of this work, had to say. Essentially he said that in 2016, out of the 223 gun murders that occurred, only 2% were committed by licenced firearms owners. Over half of them were committed by those involved in gangs. If the drug cartels, the biker gangs, the different gang organizations out there are committing most of the firearm offences, causing murders and criminality, then should we not be concentrating on them rather than giving them a pass in Bill C-75, rather than ignoring them completely in Bill C-71? Why are the Liberals always ready to turn a blind eye to crimes being committed by gangs.

We know criminals do not register their firearms. We know criminals do not buy their firearms from Cabela's or any other store that sells firearms. It is a ridiculous idea and an asinine policy to burden legal firearms owners, to burden our retail outlets that sell firearms with extra red tape and extra bureaucracy. They may not have to pay for a registration fee anymore, but we know all this data will be in the hands of the Government of Canada. We know that all this data, when it comes down to transferring firearms, when it comes down to transferring ownership between individuals, will be kept with a registrar. Registrars are the operators of registries.

Again, I am disappointed. It is almost 20 years since Allan Rock brought forward the first gun registry, which the Conservatives worked long and hard to get rid of it. I committed myself to that back in 1993. Here we are in 2018, talking about the Liberals bringing back an other gun registry. It is back to the future. It is the same old, same old when it comes to the tired Liberal governments. We cannot allow that to continue.

I call on all members of the House to vote against this poorly thought-out legislation, which would do absolutely nothing to protect Canadians. It would do absolutely nothing to enhance the screening of firearms ownership in the country. It would do absolutely nothing to help with our border services to stop illegal transport of firearms into the country.

This has been poorly thought out, but I am not surprised. It is coming from the Liberal government. It is an attack on law-abiding citizens, farmers, hunters, sports shooters, men and women who pass this culture on to their children and grandchildren, and I am proud to be part of that. I am ashamed to see the Liberals ramming this down our throats once again.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-71 was introduced on the premise that it was supposed to stop gun and gang violence, but Bill C-75 would taking out all of the minimum mandatory sentences for crimes committed using firearms. They are at cross-purposes. Bill C-71 would regulate law-abiding citizens even more, and Bill C-75 would let criminals off the hook, allowing them to get out of jail sooner and back on the streets committing crime.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, without a doubt, this is the backdoor long-gun registry. I think the words “registrar” or “register” were in the bill over 13 times.

This is a particularly interesting bill when you see it in light of Bill C-75, which I like to call the “hug-a-thug” bill. In Bill C-75, the government seems to be reducing the sentencing for all kinds of crimes.

Does my hon. colleague have an opinion on how this Liberal government is viewed by the general public in terms of Bill C-71 on the one hand, and Bill C-75 on the other?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting. We have Bill C-71 here. We have a good firearms registry in this country, because people who want to participate in firearms activities have to be licensed and get the proper certification. This bill just adds more bureaucracy. It is more of a process. It creates more difficulty for legitimate people to actually be involved in these kinds of hobbies.

I would like to have my colleague just comment on the difference between this bill, which reflects the attitude of the government on Bill C-71 and the fact that it is clamping down on legitimate, honest people across this country, and Bill C-75, which reduces the sentences for things like terrorism, genocide, criminal activity, organized municipal corruption, and those kinds of things.

Could she reflect on that a bit?

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-71, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms.

I have been a member of this place for nearly 13 years. I am proud that over that time I have played a part in legislation that ensures Parliament is reaching three important objectives: first, that laws are put in place to protect the public from violent crime; second, that we are standing up for victims of crime and their families; and third, that law-abiding Canadians are treated with respect.

In this case, Bill C-71 misses the mark on all three of these objectives.

I recognize, and indeed our previous Conservative government recognized, how important it is to ensure that violent offenders and those who intend on using weapons to commit crimes are taken off the streets. I am certainly an advocate for legislation that targets dangerous offenders, protects our public, and ensures justice for victims and their families. I am proud that over my time here, I have been able to do my part to do just that.

In 2013, I introduced Bill C-479, an act to bring fairness for the victims of violent offenders. This legislation, which received all-party support, made certain that violent offenders who were clearly not remorseful or ready to be reintegrated into society could not drag their victims and their families before the Parole Board every year needlessly.

Indeed, any laws that aim to tackle violent crime must also seek to protect victims of violent offenders and their families from being re-victimized. They must also ensure that these offenders, those that are among the most likely to reoffend, do not get that opportunity.

By introducing legislation such as the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, and the Tackling Violent Crime Act, among many others, our Conservative government implemented productive, common-sense policies that treated firearms owners in the manner that any law-abiding citizen should be treated, while also cracking down on violent offenders and protecting the rights of victims.

The Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act took the power to reclassify firearms out of the hands of the RCMP and officials and put it in the hands of parliamentarians, who could be held accountable by the public. In doing so, our government sought to prevent any law-abiding citizen from being criminalized due to an unsubstantiated classification change.

The Tackling Violent Crime Act mandated jail time for serious gun crimes and made bail provisions stricter for those who had been accused of such crimes.

The Organized Crime and Protection of Justice System Participants Act provided police and justices with crucial new tools to fight against organized crime and to target reckless shootings by adding a new offence for the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime, regardless of whether the person caused or meant to cause bodily harm.

Of course, who could forget that we repealed the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry, which did absolutely nothing to reduce crime, but did waste millions in taxpayer dollars to treat law-abiding Canadians like criminals. In fact, I would challenge my Liberal colleagues to show me any data that would prove that there has been any increase in firearms crimes from legal firearms owners since the firearms registry was eliminated.

These are just a very small sample of the measures our previous Conservative government took to protect our communities and keep Canadians safe.

It is a shame now that the current Liberal government is trying to undo the progress we made. We have seen over the past two and a half years that the government cannot be trusted when it comes to protecting the public, while also protecting the rights of farmers and recreational and competitive firearms owners.

Bill C-71 proposes a myriad of changes that would potentially criminalize law-abiding Canadians, while doing nothing to target violent offenders or organized crime. The bill would put firearms classification powers back in the hands of unelected officials who Canadians cannot hold accountable, and risks unsubstantiated changes that would indeed create legal problems for people who have done nothing wrong. For my colleagues across the way, we experienced that in the last session when changes were made. Some members of Parliament who possessed firearms were criminalized by the changes.

What is worse is that the Liberals are pretending they are not trying to bring back the long-gun registry, which is nothing less than misleading. This bill would create a registrar to keep track of transfers of non-restricted firearms, yet the government insists it is not bringing back the long-gun registry.

I took the liberty of doing a quick Google search for the word “registrar”, and right at the top of the page was a definition that read, “an official responsible for keeping a register or official records.” That certainly sounds like a long-gun registry to me, and it sounds equally as wasteful and ineffective as the last one.

Originally, our caucus was optimistic about the government's intentions when it accepted our amendment at committee, which stated, “For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to permit or require the registration of non-restricted firearms.” However, much to our surprise, it rejected our additional amendments that would have ensured that the elements of Bill C-71 to bring in this new long-gun registry were taken out of the bill. The government can say that it is not bringing back the long-gun registry, and I have heard it say that many times, but that does not make it true.

Meanwhile, Bill C-75, the government's legislation that proposes to overhaul the Criminal Code, would reduce penalties for very serious crimes, in some cases down to simple fines. The penalties for crimes like participating in the activities of a terrorist group, advocating genocide, and participating in organized criminal activity are being reduced in one piece of legislation, while farmers are being potentially criminalized in another. That is absolutely shameful.

The riding I represent, Flamborough—Glanbrook, is home to many farmers, hunters and sport shooters. These are people who are legally and safely using their firearms to protect their livestock and their crops, and who are participating in recreational pastimes that are ingrained in our national heritage.

I have heard from a wide variety of firearms owners in my riding who are deeply concerned that the government is targeting them through this bill, while completely neglecting to address rising crime rates in rural communities across the country which are particularly derived from illegal imported firearms.

I personally enjoy going down to the range for recreational purposes, and I completely understand the concerns of my constituents. They are concerned that they could be randomly criminalized by bureaucrats who they would be wholly unable to hold to account. They are concerned that the government is increasing red tape and treating them like criminals when they have done absolutely nothing wrong.

As has already been pointed out by our Conservative caucus several times throughout debate on this bill, this new long-gun registry that the Liberals are bringing in through the back door is treating law-abiding Canadians like suspects, and that is just not right.

The tandem of Bill C-71 and Bill C-75 is symbolic of much of the last two and a half years, where the government has been terribly ineffective on numerous files. The Liberals introduced these two pieces of legislation with the notion that they wished to tackle gun violence. However, they are doing nothing of the sort. What these bills would do is potentially criminalize law-abiding farmers, hunters, and sport shooters, and reduce the penalties for very serious and violent crimes. What they would not do is make our communities safer.

Canadians want to feel safe in their communities and their homes. They want a government that ensures that those who pose a threat to them and their families are taken off the streets. Bill C-71, and Bill C-75 for that matter, would do nothing of the sort.

This legislation is not only deeply flawed, but wasteful, and quite frankly offensive to the thousands of law-abiding Canadians who it will affect. Our Conservative caucus is determined to ensure that the laws we produce in this place protect our communities and respect the rights of law-abiding Canadians. Anything less is not good enough.

Bill C-71—Time Allocation Motion

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is quite clear this is the backdoor gun registry coming back. Under Bill C-71, if a firearms owner sells a firearm to another individual, he or she would have to call a registrar and that purchase would now be registered. Even though both individuals have a valid possession and acquisition licence and show that they are valid, they would still have to call the registrar to have that purchase registered.

It is quite clear from the research done on the old Liberal firearms registry that law-abiding citizens complied with it. I certainly did. However, at the same time, there was zero evidence it reduced crime. On the other hand, we have Bill C-75, where the Liberals would be making punishment for violent crimes and criminals more lenient, while at the same time, under Bill C-71, they would be punishing law-abiding citizens. In the Liberal world, it is far easier to punish law-abiding citizens because they obey the law and the criminals do not. Why this dichotomy? Why are criminals treated better than law-abiding citizens under the Liberal government?

Firearms Act

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions I want to ask tonight to kind of wrap this up.

One of the main questions, as I sat here and listened tonight, is that I fail to understand why the Liberals do not even seem to know the basics of what this proposed law is about. I heard a number of things this evening that are concerning. They do not seem to know what the past requirements were for background checks. I heard a number of people talking about that. They do not seem to understand that they have been adequate in the past. There has been a good system in place for doing background checks, and it has worked well for Canadians. They do not seem to know that firearms owners have to be registered and be licensed themselves in order to own a firearm. Earlier we heard someone ask why we treat guns differently than some other things. Well, the reality with firearms is that one actually needs to be registered. One has to take the course and get the certification.

I was really concerned a little earlier about why the Liberals approach firearms owners in the way that they do. When the member for Oakville North—Burlington said that all gun owners are law-abiding until they are not, I wondered what she meant by that. There is some sort of attitude of superiority that the Liberals come with in regard to firearms owners, and we have seen this for 25 years. We saw it with Bill C-68 and the fact that they would never back down on that legislation. It cost them dozens of ridings across this country. Several elections later, they have come back with another piece of legislation. I think we are beginning to see both in Ontario, and with the results in Quebec tonight, that the attitude the Liberals have is starting to irritate Canadians. I think we are going to see a response to that, and an even better response from our perspective, in the next federal election.

Also, I do not think the Liberals understand that there is no right to firearms ownership in this country. I think everyone needs to be reminded of that. The only reason that we can own firearms is because the government gives us permission. When I talk to my friends with the Canadian Wildlife Federation on those kinds of things, they say that we need to help Canadians understand that. We do not have a right to own firearms. If we do not get licensed, we are criminals. They resent that, but they will accept the fact that we need to have a licensing regime in place.

Another concern is that I am wondering why those Liberals who have firearms owners in their ridings do not seem to be willing to listen to them. I want to point out that at the committee, the leader of the opposition in the Yukon legislature was not allowed to speak. I am told that there was not a single northern Canadian who was able to testify on how the bill would impact their way of life. I want to read a little from his briefing, which said, “unlike the provinces, Yukon only has one Member of Parliament. This leads to situations where the input of Northerners is often an afterthought and not taken into account. This is the case with this piece of firearms legislation..”.

I can tell members that there are others. I have another notice on this situation from members of the Yukon Fish and Game Association, who are very concerned that they cannot track down their MP and talk to him about this issue. This is a member who has been around on this issue before. He should be standing up for his constituents. Why is it that the Liberals in the rural ridings, the ones whose constituents depend on having access to firearms for much of their livelihood, are not speaking out?

As my colleague mentioned earlier, we heard about a few of the ridings where there was concern about this, but these Liberals need to speak out. We are getting to the end of the proposed legislation, and it is basically the re-establishment of a semi long-gun registry, where every transaction that takes place at a gun store is going to be recorded for 20 years. The firearm, serial number, the name of the person who bought it, along with their PAL number, will be recorded. That certainly has all the makings and all the components of a firearms registry, and we do not hear anything from the other side.

Another concern is why the Liberals always need to manipulate things on this file. I can go on about this for a long time. I found it very interesting that the public safety minister from Regina has appointed a number of people to the firearms advisory committee who are clearly against firearms in any way, shape, or form. It is interesting that one of them was appointed and ended up being in the vice-chair position. She was a lobbyist. She said she would step down from her lobbying activities. The agreement she signed said that she is not to “engage in lobbying activities or work as a registered lobbyist on behalf of an entity making submissions or representations to the Government of Canada on issues relating to the mandate of this committee”. However, 10 months after signing that, this person submitted a legislative demand to the Government of Canada under the letterhead of that organization, and with her signature on it.

I would go through it if I had more time, but many of the bill's provisions happen to be exactly as she has laid them out. Is she actually doing the government's bidding, or is the government doing the lobbyists' bidding, who have said they are not going to lobby the government and then turn around and do it?

I can give members another example in which the government has felt some sort of necessity to manipulate every piece of data it can on this issue. That is around the issue of statistics. As Mark Twain said, “Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable.” With the Liberal government, that is certainly more true than almost anything else we can say about it.

It was mentioned earlier that 2013 had one of the lowest rates ever for firearms crimes. It is interesting that even CBC recognized that the Liberals are playing games with this situation. It writes, “2013 saw Canada's lowest rate of criminal homicides in 50 years, and the lowest rate of fatal shootings ever recorded by Statistics Canada” and “every year since 1966 has been worse than 2013.” The Liberals use a year in which the stats are lower than they have ever been, and then use that to set their base, and compare it to today. Today is still below the 30-year average, but the Liberals' news releases completely mislead Canadians. When the government has to resort to that kind of manipulation and misinformation, we can see that it is not very comfortable with the legislation that it is bringing in.

The article goes on to say that the “homicide rate in 2018 will be similar to or lower than it was...in 2008...or in 1998”, and well below 1988 and 1978, and similar to what it was in 1968. We certainly did not get that from the Liberal press release we saw.

There are a number of other important issues we need to touch on. A member across the way was speaking tonight about the Assembly of First Nations. I wanted to ask him a question. The AFN has said that it was not consulted before Bill C-71 came forward. The AFN also said that the bill violates first nations treaty rights, and that it is going to launch a constitutional challenge. It is interesting to note that we have heard nothing about that, and there has been no response to it from the government. The Liberals claims to want to work with these communities, but when it comes to their legislation, they are very happy to set these communities aside, and ignore what they have to say about it and just go on.

We have heard comment tonight about Bill C-75 and Bill C-71 playing off each other. Bill C-75 has all kinds of penalties that are basically being written off for serious crimes. For things like terrorism, we are reducing the charges. Imagine there being a summary conviction for terrorism activity. The punishment for genocide is being reduced in Bill C-75. The penalties for organized criminal activity, municipal corruption, and so on are being reduced in Bill C-75, and Bill C-71 is making the lives of honest gun owners even more complicated and bureaucratic than ever. Why is the government doing that? Why are the Liberals ganging up on Canadian citizens, while they are happy to leave all of these other gangs to go through life the way they want?

There is another issue around mental health. We heard a member earlier tonight talk about how proud she was of her amendment. I am sure she had good intentions when she put it forward, but we are not just criminalizing activity anymore; we are criminalizing possible intent. She mentioned that CFOs will make the distinctions. How are the CFOs going to decide if someone is suicidal or not? What CFO wants to take on the responsibility for the entire province in trying to find every person with a mental health issue? It was pointed out earlier that there are police and veterans who have PTSD who want some help for their mental health issues. Are they going to come forward? Why would they do that with a bill like this when those kinds of things come into play in their lives and in their careers, and with a tool they use every day in their occupation?

We can be very proud of the record we have. We brought in a number of pieces of legislation, which have been criticized tonight. In terms of youth violence, we brought in the youth justice fund. The guns, gangs, and drugs component of the youth justice fund was launched to focus on the rehabilitation of youth. We created the youth gang prevention fund. We are very proud of that. We supported a national crime prevention strategy, and there is the northern and aboriginal crime prevention fund. We passed bills that dealt with organized crime and the protection of the justice system. We were always trying to protect the victims, while making sure criminals were the ones who paid the price for their crimes.

This bill is a long way from that. Why an entire bill that is supposed to deal with gun violence and gangs does not mention either of those things, and targets normal, law-abiding citizens, I will never understand.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a very interesting evening and an interesting debate, with a lot of information and emotion. I get to follow the last three, and they are tough to follow. Many of the things I might say will be related to things that have already been said, such as gang violence, illegal guns, illegal handguns, the penalties for those people who use those illegal weapons, and the consequences that follow.

I have heard from a lot of my constituents on this. There are a lot of unhappy constituents. I just heard a member across the aisle say that it is a registry, but I heard several members across the floor tonight saying it is not a registry. It was really nice to hear a member stand up and say it is a registry, but all the previous ones stood up and said it is not a registry. This bill targets law-abiding firearms owners in my riding. It does not actually prevent the crimes. They use firearms in legitimate and lawful ways. They use them to hunt, to work, and for sport shooting. Firearms are a big part of their rural life.

I remember a few years ago when I was the principal of a high school, there were issues about guns and gun violence with youth. I happened to be in a regional meeting of principals talking about guns and other issues, and I said there would be guns in vehicles in the parking lot of my school. There were other principals from urban areas who were astounded that I would admit there were guns in vehicles in my parking lot. I said, “You bet there are.” Those are farm trucks. Those are ranching vehicles. Those guns are tools. Those students know how to use those tools. They are trained how to use them, and they are there as a tool in their vehicle. They drive the vehicle to school and they drive it home. They may use that gun as a tool on the way to school or on the way home. It is part of rural life. They are responsible for those firearms. They do not like being targeted every time a Liberal government says that we need to have a registry or more gun control.

The opposition to this bill is not just in my riding. It is across Canada. E-petition 1608 which calls on the government to scrap this law had over 80,000 signatures the last time I checked. That is the second largest e-petition in history. I do not know why that number does not give the government pause. Regardless, I am happy to have the opportunity to convey some of my constituents' concerns about the bill.

The largest source of disappointment is it has nothing to do with gang violence, illegal handguns, and crime in rural areas. My constituents say they hear about the gang violence, the shootings in cities, and they experience rural crime, but where in the legislation does it do anything about that, other than make them do more red tape as legal gun owners?

There are a lot of obvious points about the bill, but criminals are generally not using legal firearms. What is driving gun violence is gangs and illegal handguns. The illegal use of handguns will not be impacted by this legislation. Only those who already follow the law will. Criminals do not register illegal weapons nor do those who have the number filed off those weapons.

Let me move to some obvious points suggesting this legislation is poorly designed. Given that we are at report stage of the legislation, it is worth looking at some of the testimony my colleagues heard in committee. They heard from Solomon Friedman, a criminal defence lawyer in Ottawa and expert in firearms. He had some interesting testimony. We all heard the Minister of Public Safety suggest the legislation is intended to combat increasing gun violence from 2013. Mr. Friedman noted, as some of my colleagues have already said, that the year 2013 as a starting point for the reported trend was not chosen at random. As we know, 2013 was a statistical aberration in terms of violent crime and homicide in Canada. The year 2013 saw the lowest rate of criminal homicide in Canada in 50 years. If we start at a point that was the lowest, the only place it probably will go is slightly up. It looks like the Liberal government has used statistics to justify targeting law-abiding firearm owners. This is a disappointing choice.

My colleagues at the public safety and national security committee also heard from Mr. Gary Mauser. He noted that 121 of the 141 firearms-related homicides that the minister cited were directly related to gangs in cities. Where in the legislation does it deal with gangs that are working with illegal handguns? It is not there.

We know what the real issues are out there. We agree that the safety of Canadians should be our priority. However, the government seems intent on distorting the evidence to suit its particular narrative. I think many of my colleagues have pointed out why it is doing this. The Liberals are pretending the legislation will do something to combat crime, but all it does is place more regulations on law-abiding firearms owners.

At the same time, the government has introduced Bill C-75, which makes all kinds of serious crimes punishable with a mere fine. That for rural crime is a real challenge. We have many people in western Canada, in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, where rural crime rates have increased in the last two or three years. People are using guns and violence, robbing properties, and are being slapped with fines. They will be right back on those properties. It should be the reverse. If people are using guns in crimes, there should be more severe penalties. This is not how we stop gun use in crimes by letting people off with fines.

The witness testimony I noted undermines a lot of rationale for this legislation. It supports what I have heard from so many law-abiding constituents, who use their firearms for sport, work, or hunting. They are not happy that the word '“gangs” never appears in this bill. “Illegal handguns” does not appear there. However, they are even more unhappy to see the word '“registrar” in the legislation. In fact, it looks like the words “registrar” or “reference number” are used 28 times. It is a registry. As the last member from across the aisle admitted, it is a registry.

It seems pretty clear that Bill C-71 would make it mandatory to register firearms and provide reference numbers. That information would be logged by a business and then passed onto the government. The government has been insistent that this is not a new gun registry.

Law-abiding gun owners will follow the law. They will do this because they are law-abiding gun owners. They will go through more red tape because they re law-abiding Canadian citizens. That is all it is doing is providing more red tape for those people.

I was happy at first to see that the Liberals supported one of our amendments, the one that stated “For greater certainty, nothing in this act shall be construed so as to permit or require the registration of non-restricted firearms.” I expected they would back up their support for this amendment by actually taking action. I assumed they would then support changes that removed the elements of the legislation that essentially created a new registry. However, they did no such thing.

It makes sense that the government does not want to remind Canadians of the wasteful $2 billion gun registry we dealt with before, but we do not know the cost of what they will do with this one. There will be a lot of bureaucracy, but there is no cost assigned to this. It is going to cost money, possibly a lot.

As I said, we want concrete measures that keep Canadians safe. I know the members opposite do not have bad intentions in supporting this legislation. However, they should understand that the bill would do nothing to fight the criminal elements that are behind gun violence. They should be focused on that. Instead they try to criminalize law-abiding citizens. I know there are members who are from rural communities and have misgivings about this legislation. Again, does this stop gun violence? Does this stop the illegal use of handguns? We need handguns to be out of the hands of criminals.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

My colleagues opposite just heckled me with “Annie Oakley”. That shows how they do not understand the community, the sport, or the respect for firearms. I tabled a petition in the House asking for the members of the committee that is supposed to inform the government, the subject matter experts on this, to at least have the licence that I have, that I understand how to use, but they refused. Why? Because this is all about ideology, not about keeping Canadians safe. The government does not give two hoots about keeping Canadians safe. The Liberals care about the politics of the Prime Minister's ego because that is what is keeping them in office. That is what Canadians rejected in Chicoutimi tonight, by the way. They care about changing the channel, but regardless of political stripe, Canadians are standing up and saying this makes no sense. If we want to keep Canadians safe from firearms, then deal with the people who are illegally bringing it in and using it illegally in gang violence.

The RCMP should have an oversight with regard to firearms reclassification. People who are on the committee advising the government on this should understand the basics of requiring a licence. If the government really cares about keeping Canadians safe, it should not be watering down sentences for major crimes in the omnibus justice bill, Bill C-75. The bill does nothing to protect Canadians. All it does is vilify people who play by the rules. On this side of the aisle, we stand up for law-abiding Canadians and we will keep Canadians safe.

National Security Act, 2017

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-59. As we know, it is the government's national security legislation. After months of debate, hearing from many witnesses, and reading expert briefs with respect to the bill, it is light on actions that will actually improve public safety and national security. I believe that Canada would be weaker because of this legislation, which hampers our agencies, cuts funding to intelligence and national security, and is more concerned about looking over the shoulder of those protecting us than watching those who seek to harm us. Let us be clear on this point. National security and intelligence officers and public servants are not a threat to public safety or privacy. They show dedication to protecting us and our country in a professional manner. However, Bill C-59 is more concerned with what someone might do in an effort to protect others than what criminals, extremists, and others might do to harm us.

In a world with growing international threats, instability, trade aggression, state-sponsored corporate cyber-espionage, and rising crime rates, Canada is weaker with the current Prime Minister and the Liberals in power. As I have said in the House before, public safety and national security should be the top priority of government and should be above politics so that the safety and security of Canadians are put ahead of political fortunes. This bill on national security fails to live up to its title.

Looking at the body of the Liberals' work, we see a continuous erosion of Canada's safety and security. Bill C-71, the recent gun legislation, ignores criminals who commit gun crimes. Bill C-75 softens sentences and rehabilitation for terrorists and violent crimes. The legalization of drugs is being done in a way that all but assures that organized crime will benefit and Canadians are put at risk.

As world hostility and hatred grows, we need stronger support for our way of life, not the erosion of it. That means empowering front-line national security and intelligence workers, stronger border protections, a better transfer of information between policing and security bodies, plus assured prosecution of criminals and threats to Canada. We need to be looking proactively at emerging technologies rather than reactively trying to put the genie back in the bottle, as we have done with cybersecurity.

What was the intent with this bill? Canadians and parliamentarians alike can tell a lot from the language used by the minister and the people who the Liberal majority called to testify. The bill was positioned by the Liberals as protecting Canadians from the public servants who work to protect Canada and our interests, and the majority of witnesses heard at committee were law professors, civil liberties groups, and privacy organizations. While they have important and valid views, they shared essentially one point: be scared of public servants. It is funny that after the many times the Prime Minister has used public servants as a political shield, stating that he “always trusts and respects them”, they are apparently more scary than threats of cyber-attacks from Chinese state-controlled hackers, ISIS extremists, white supremacists, and organized crime.

There is not much in this bill for security forces to do their work. With the Liberals' plan, there will now be four oversight bodies looking over the shoulder of our intelligence and security forces: first, a new parliamentary committee on security and intelligence oversight; second, the new national security and intelligence review agency; third, the expanded intelligence commissioner; and, finally, the existing oversights of Parliament and executive branches like the minister, the Prime Minister, and the national security advisor.

The Conservatives offered positive amendments. We asked the minister to tell us how these groups would work together to make it clear to Parliament, senior government officials, and those affected. This was turned down by the Liberals without any reason. It would seem reasonable that the minister would be happy to provide clarity to Canadians, and to those who need to work with the various boards, agencies, committees, and advisers, on how it will all work together. We also recommended that, as this new central intelligence and security agency would see information from a variety of departments and agencies, they play a role in identifying threats and providing a clear picture on the state of national security. The Liberals on the committee for some reason would prefer that the agency focus on only complaints and micromanaging our security professionals. If their goal had been to improve public safety, this suggestion would have been taken more seriously.

When we heard from security experts, they raised valid concerns. Dick Fadden, the former CSIS director, noted that the bill would send a message to security teams to be more restrictive with the information that they share. He said:

I haven't counted, but the number of times that the words “protection of privacy” are mentioned in this bill is really quite astounding. I'm as much in favour of privacy as everybody else, but I sometimes wonder whether we're placing so much emphasis on it that it's going to scare some people out of dealing with information relating to national security.

Information sharing between national security teams is essential to protecting Canadians and Canada. In fact, several inquiries, including one of the worst terrorism attacks in Canadian history, the Air India bombing, determined that information sharing was critical to stopping attacks.

Mr. Fadden stated that his worst nightmare scenario was an attack on Canada that was preventable; that being that information was withheld by one agency from other agencies. With Bill C-59, we would move toward more silos, less intelligence sharing, and more threats to Canadians. In his words, security professionals would have a clear message from the many repeated insertions of privacy and charter references, and, as he put it, to share less information lest they run afoul of their political masters.

The Conservatives offered a mild amendment that public servants be required to share information they thought was a threat to Canada with national security agencies. This was so all federal employees would have no fear of reprisal for sharing valid concerns with relevant authorities, like the new security review agency. This was turned down, again reaffirming that the Liberals on the committee were not focused on improving public safety and protecting Canadians.

Retired General Michael Day pointed out that there was nothing in the bill or in the government's policies to deal with emerging threats, real dangers today and tomorrow to our economic prosperity and our societal values. When he was asked by the Liberal MP from Mississauga—Lakeshore, “on the questions of artificial intelligence and potentially also quantum computing, how confident are you that Bill C-59,...is a flexible enough framework to address unknown unknowns that may come at us through the cyber domain in those two areas”, General Day replied, “Zero confidence”.

There continues to be clear threats, but dealing with current and emerging threats were not the focus of the government with this bill. We have already missed the emergence of cybersecurity threats and are playing catch-up at a cost of billions of dollars in government spending, lost economic opportunities through stolen commercial secrets, and personal losses through cybercrime. We have not looked forward at the next problem, so we are heading down the same path all over again.

We heard from Professor Leuprecht, a national security expert who teaches at the Royal Military College. He raised a number of concerns. The first was that the increased regulation and administrative work needed to report to new oversight groups would effectively be a cut to those agencies, shifting money away from protecting Canadians. We did find out eventually how much that cost would be. Nearly $100 million would be cut from national security in favour of red tape. Sadly, we only received this information a few weeks after the committee finished with the bill. The minister had knowingly withheld that information from my request for over six months. Once again, a lot of lip service to open and transparent government but very little actual transparency.

Dick Fadden, Professor Leuprecht, and Ray Boisvert, a former assistant director of CSIS and security expert with the Government of Ontario, also raised concerns of the overt hostility of China against Canada. When I asked him about our readiness for dealing with China's aggressions, he said:

I think that the answer is no. I don't think that we're oblivious to the threat...

I would argue that we do not really understand, in all of its complexity, how much China is different from Canada and how it aggressively uses all of the resources of the state against not just Canada but against any number of other countries in pursuit of its objectives.

At one meeting they noted that Chinese agents freely intimidated and threatened Canadians of Chinese descent, pushing them to support communist party initiatives. They or their families back in China could face the backlash of a highly oppressive regime and there was nothing that Canada did to protect them from such threats. China continues this trend, recently ordering Air Canada to call Taiwan part of China.

Mr. Boisvert said:

There's also the issue that China is now in the age of self-admitted “sharp power”, and they exercise that power with very little reservation anymore. There's no longer even a question of hiding their intentions. They are taking a very aggressive approach around resources and intellectual property, and they also are very clear in dealing with dissidents and academics. They've arrested some of them, and they punish others, including academic institutions in North America, at their will, so I think there's a value challenge that Canadians have to consider along with the economic opportunities discussion. The Cold War is over, but a new version is rapidly emerging, and I think our focus on counterterrorism is not always our best play.

We did not have the right people, the right information, and the right issues at committee to have a comprehensive law that would enhance national security. It appears that yet again the Liberals are bringing out legislation to deal with perceived threats at the expense of not dealing with actual threats.

If Canadians were being well served by the government, we would have dealt with serious questions ignored by the Liberals in this legislative process.

Canada has at least 60 returned ISIS terrorists in Canada. That number is likely low, as we have heard that as many as 180 or more Canadians have left our country to fight for ISIS. After the Liberals revoked Canada's ability to strip citizenship from such a heinous and despicable group as ISIS, Canada is now stuck simply welcoming them back with no repercussions and acting like nothing has gone wrong. We will likely never be able to prosecute them or extradite them because we cannot easily transfer intelligence; that is information gathered in other countries of these murders and rapists into evidence suitable for prosecutions in this country.

Canada needs to join the ranks of other modern countries in bringing known crimes conducted by Canadians abroad into our courts without compromising security agents and intelligence sharing agreements. We need to deal with the obvious intelligence to evidence gap that continues to exist in this legislation. This legislation has failed to do this, with Liberal MPs voting against Conservative amendments that tried to address this exact issue.

If we were serious about dealing with national security, we would have treated privacy and security as a single policy, not the competing interests that many civil groups suggested. Protecting Canadians includes protecting their privacy in addition to their economic opportunities, public safety, national security, and social values. These are a single policy, and for the most part those professionals who protect us know this.

Professor Leuprecht said:

We are not here because there's in any way some large-scale violation of the professionalism or the capabilities in which the community does its job....In the Five Eyes community, we have, by far, the most restrictive privacy regime. This is a choice that we have made as Canadians...other countries that have more rigorous parliamentary and other review mechanisms than Canada have also given their community more latitude in terms of how it can act, what it can do, and how it can do it.

Retired Lieutenant-General Michael Day stated:

...the trade-off between privacy and security, between the charter and the reasonable measures to protect Canadians. This is not, from my perspective obviously, a binary issue, or one that should be looked at as absolutes, but rather a dynamic relationship that should remain constantly under review. We should embrace that tension as opposed to pretending it doesn't exist, with a conversation being seen to have value in and of itself.

This is crystal clear when we look at the growing issue of cybercrime, such as identity theft, fraud, corporate espionage, and hacking. Privacy and other interests, social and financial, are one, and yet throughout this legislative process the Liberals presented this bill as a choice between one and the other.

The bill ignores the massive shift in issues with Canada's border security. Canada lacks the assets, people, and facilities to deal with the current threat to our borders. We know that an open border, which is internationally known as unprotected, is currently being exploited. It is being exploited not only by those who are shopping for a new home, but by human traffickers, smugglers, drug cartels, and other organized crime rings. While this issue is new, it is real and needs to be managed better than just hoping everything will sort itself out.

If we were serious about national security, we would be dealing more seriously with Canada's most important law enforcement agency, the RCMP. Beyond a glaring gap in personnel, failing equipment, and an increased lack of faith in its leadership, the RCMP is headed toward a crisis level of challenges: a growing opioid crisis; legalized marijuana; influx of ISIS terrorists; open borders without a plan to manage illegal border crossers; and increasing cybercrime, just to name a few. The RCMP is overwhelmed, while the Liberals present false information and sidestep questions on what to do.

The Liberals may have called this a national security law, but it is more like a regulatory bill. It would erode rather than help public safety. It deals with security from the federal government's perspective rather than from protecting Canadians first and foremost.

Justice

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on the serious matter of judicial appointments. Since elected, our government has taken significant steps to ensure that the process for appointing judges is transparent and accountable to Canadians and promotes greater diversity on the bench. At the same time, we recognize the challenges courts face with respect to court delays, which have come under heightened scrutiny since the Supreme Court of Canada's Jordan decision.

We have demonstrated that we are committed to responding to these challenges by introducing Bill C-75. This bill promises substantive reform that will fundamentally address delays, and modernize our justice system.

Let me assure the member opposite that the minister is very mindful of the effect judicial vacancies can have on the effective operation of a court. The minister is absolutely committed to ensuring that the most meritorious candidates are appointed to the bench to meet the needs of all Canadians.

Since elected, our government has appointed or elevated 183 judges to superior courts across the country, including five in Saskatchewan, and today, the diversity of our appointments is unprecedented. Under our government, 57% of appointed or elevated judges are women, compared to just 32% under the previous government.

Our government is committed to continuing to strengthen our judiciary. Budget 2017 created funding for 28 new federally appointed judges. Using this funding, the minister has appointed judges to new judicial positions in Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, and Newfoundland and Labrador, with more such appointments to come.

Through budget 2018, we are creating 46 new judicial positions, including a judge for the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. This new position would respond directly and positively to a request from Saskatchewan. This additional judge would assist that court, the highest court in the province, to address a growing number of civil and criminal appeals as well as increasingly complex matters. The amendment to add this position to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal is currently before Parliament in Bill C-74.

Fundamental to the judicial appointments process are the judicial advisory committees. They evaluate the applications of those who have put their names forward for judicial appointment and provide lists of highly recommended candidates to the Minister of Justice. As a result of the changes we introduced, the JACs are now more balanced and inclusive. We also made changes to help achieve a more representative bench, with a broader diversity of backgrounds and experience, allowing candidates to speak to their own understanding and experience of Canada's diverse makeup. We also increased our ability to validate candidates' bilingual capacity.

National Security Act, 2017

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my speech this evening by talking about public safety and national security matters.

Whenever I stand up in this place, on whatever we are talking about, I always like to think about whether this is the job of the federal government. Typically, in broad sweeps, I can rarely get past the end of one hand when it comes to things the federal government should be dealing with. I usually think of things like border security, the justice system, and the military as things that definitely the federal government should be taking care of.

The issue we are dealing with tonight is one of those issues the federal government definitely needs to take care of. It is definitely something that is timely. Folks from where I come from, in Peace River—Westlock, in northern Alberta, often mention this to me when I am driving around meeting with folks. They are concerned about national security. They are concerned about terrorism issues. It is one of the top 10 things people talk to me about. Therefore, I think this is a timely debate.

I would hearken back to some of the speeches we heard earlier this evening. September 11 was a significant turning point in western civilization. I think every one of us in this place remembers that day. I remember listening to the news on 630 CHED in Alberta. My alarm clock had gone off, and I was listening to the news, when the normal broadcast was interrupted to tell us that the twin towers had been run into by an airplane. I remember that day well, as I am sure everyone in this place does. Since that day, the entire western world has had to look at how we defend our national security. Before that point, we were looking at our national security from the perspective of nation states. However, this brought a whole new protocol. We needed new laws. Frankly, I think we are still learning all of that.

I do not think the Liberals have necessarily taken serious consideration of public safety and national security in this bill. They basically looked at what we did when we were in government. They thought that the Conservatives were aggressive on this and took the bull by the horns, and they would just turn it back a notch. It does not seem to me that they are giving it adequate weight by saying that they just have to change a bunch of things in Bill C-51. The Liberals heard over and over again that Bill C-51 was bad, and they would just turn it back. That does not seem to me to be grappling with the issues we need to deal with.

Public safety and national security is hard work. We need to create a culture in Canada so that people feel safe. That is what I hear over and over again in my riding. They do not feel that the government is creating a culture in Canada where people feel safe. For example, advocating or promoting terrorism is something that has been touched on in this debate. We need to talk about that in terms of what it means when it comes to Bill C-75, which is another bill that will be debated tonight. I believe that in that particular bill, advocating or promoting terrorism, even if one is found guilty of it, would be downgraded as well.

When we look at the bill before us, I am disappointed that the Liberals have not grabbed the bull by the horns. Bill C-51 came out a number of years back, and the landscape has changed since then. I was looking forward to having a robust debate on this issue. I know that it was something in the Liberal campaign and something I was challenged on over and over again. I knew that after the election, Bill C-51 would be up for debate, and I was looking forward to having that debate on some substantive changes that could improve it.

I think we got it right with Bill C-51, but every piece of legislation is open to improvement and I was happy to come here to debate this. I do not think Bill C-59 improves on Bill C-51 at all. In fact, all it seems to do is to just turn everything back a few notches, which does not seem to make an effect. It is the exact same philosophy that we are seeing with Bill C-75. The Liberals say we have backlogs in the justice system, rather than their addressing some of the underlying causes and doing the hard work of digging into it. They say, turn the dial back a little, lower the thresholds, push people out of the system more easily rather than dealing with the actual justice system.

When I do surveys in my riding, people do not think the Liberals are taking our national security seriously. People do not think they are securing our borders properly. All of this plays into the world view of the Liberals.

Whenever I am discussing national security or justice issues, I say that people have the ability to do evil. That is a fact of life and we need to have a justice system that recognizes that. Most people lock their doors at night. Why? Because people are capable of evil. That is the truth. It would be great if we all could leave our doors open and nothing ever went missing. It would be great if we could all give up our firearms and everyone would be safe, but that is not the reality. That is the underlying philosophy that is lacking on the Liberal side. They are not convinced that people are capable of evil and they think that the justice system is being mean to people and that if we just hug the thug, so to speak, everything would be better.

There is a philosophy in this bill that if we just turn down the justice element, if we trusted people a little more, this country would be a safer place. That is definitely not the case. We need to ensure that our police officers and our intelligence community have the resources and tools they need to ensure that Canada is a safe place.

My riding is a long way from the border, and I cannot say that the border crossing issue has directly affected my riding, but it is amazing how many times people in my riding have asked, when is the government is going to do something about the border crossings? Why are the Liberals jeopardizing our public safety? We are seeing that here, as well with the terrorism issue.

One of the things people in my riding are concerned about is the growing threat of terrorism in the world. In this regard, in the bill we see that for advocating and promoting terrorism, the threshold is being lowered, and that in Bill C-75 the sentencing is being lowered. It is being taken from an indictable offence to a summary offence. The Liberals need to do the hard work that it takes to make sure that we have a national security regime that people in Canada trust. That is an important point that I wanted to make here tonight. Whatever the Liberals are doing, people need to have trust in that system that their safety is being upheld, that Canada will remain the safe place it has been in years past, and that people can sleep safely in their beds.

With that, I look forward to any questions that people may have.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue with the report stage debate on Bill C-69, the environmental assessment act.

Following this, we will turn to Bill C-75, the justice modernization act, and Bill C-59, the national security act.

If time permits, we shall start debate at report stage of Bill C-68, the fisheries act, and Bill C-64 on derelict vessels.

Tomorrow morning, we will begin third reading of Bill C-47 on the Arms Trade Treaty. Next Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday are allotted days. Also, pursuant to the Standing Orders, we will be voting on the main estimates Thursday evening.

Next week, priority will be given to the following bills: Bill C-21, an act to amend the Customs Act; Bill C-59, an act respecting national security matters; Bill C-64, the wrecked, abandoned or hazardous vessels act; Bill C-68 on fisheries; and Bill C-69 on environmental assessments.

We also know, however, that the other place should soon be voting on Bill C-45, the cannabis act. If a message is received notifying us of amendments, that will be given priority.

Justice

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is attempting to reduce penalties for many serious crimes in Canada. His proposed changes are part of Bill C-75, which contains more than 300 pages of sweeping changes to the Criminal Code. I am concerned about the number of very serious offences that would now be eligible for much lighter sentences, or even simply fines. These offences include acts related to terrorism; assault; impaired driving; arson; human trafficking; and infanticide, the killing of infants. These lower sentences send the wrong messages to criminals, victims, law-abiding Canadians, and society.

When virtue takes a back seat to lawlessness, Canadians rely on a strong justice system. Deterrents are necessary. It is a cause for concern that our Prime Minister is changing our Canada from a nation of virtue to one of virtue signalling.

Conservatives will continue to stand up to the creeping changes attacking our social and justice systems. We will continue to place the rights of victims ahead of the offenders.

Bill C-59—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, from the 41st Parliament, we have reams of quotes from Liberals regarding the use of time allocation by the then Conservative government. The quotes we have from the member for Winnipeg North would fill several pages.

What we have seen over the last couple of weeks is the government's use of time allocation and using the bare minimum, allocating five hours for debate on this legislation, on Bill C-69, which was done just before this, on Bill C-75, and on Bill C-76. The list goes on.

I have a simple question for the Minister of Public Safety. Given his party's record when it was the third party in the 41st Parliament, does he not feel the slightest bit of shame and contrition over the complete reversal of his position, now that he occupies that side of the House?

Justice

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice claims that Bill C-75 has nothing to do with sentencing. Bill C-75 makes serious indictable offences prosecutable by way of summary conviction. Therefore, instead of a sentence of up to 10 years if prosecuted by way of summary conviction, the maximum sentence would be two years less a day or as little as a mere fine. That is right. Under Bill C-75, a maximum sentence could go from 10 years to two years less a day.

Contrary to the minister's claims, Bill C-75 has everything to do with sentencing and everything to do with watering down sentences for the most serious of offences.

Bill C-75 is a terrible bill for victims, it is a terrible bill for public safety, and it is why Conservatives will work to defeat Bill C-75.

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-71

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the other side gets up and misleads this House about what is in this legislation. Can she point to any part of Bill C-75 that would allow people to get off those particular types of offences? If she can show it, which she cannot, I will vote against it.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a portion of Bill C-75 is well done, the part of the bill that would go after those who would sexually assault another person. It would protect women and the vulnerable, which is a good part of Bill C-75. However, the bill has many other parts that would allow people who participate in terrorist activities to go free. It would allow people who participate in forced marriage to go free. It would allow people who participate in or promote genocide to go free. It would allow people who participate in infanticide to go free. By “free”, I do not mean that they would walk out the door, though that is possible under the way Bill C-75 is structured. I am talking about significantly reduced sentencing, and that is basically free.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the motion that is on the floor, which is to have the Standing Committee on Public Safety travel as part of its consideration of Bill C-71. This legislation is deeply flawed, and therefore it would serve the committee very well to travel across the country to talk to everyday Canadians. The government claims that this legislation is in the interest of public safety, but the reality is quite different. I would like to outline that for the House.

This legislation would create a bunch of useless red tape that will not make Canadians safer. In fact, this bill shows classic Liberal logic. The current government is saying that it wants to keep Canadians safe and prevent gun violence, but this legislation would do absolutely nothing to accomplish this end. Instead, it would target or go after firearms owners who have already gone through extensive background checks and safety courses in order to possess their guns and use them lawfully.

In addition, it would create the failed long-gun registry that cost Canadians $1 billion, and then was scrapped because it was so wasteful and ineffective. Bill C-71 would force retailers to keep transaction records for 20 years on every single person who buys a gun. This would increase the cost that would then be passed on to the consumer, not to mention that it would also make a great shopping list for criminals, should they get a hold of that list and then acquire those firearms based on where they are.

Furthermore, this legislation would remove the ability of licensed firearms owners to transport their registered firearms between their houses and a gunsmith or a trade show, even though they are allowed to transport their guns between their houses and gun ranges. In addition, the legislation would unfairly turn thousands of Canadians into criminals overnight by reclassifying their non-restricted or restricted firearms as prohibited altogether. I am talking about firearms that have been legally imported and sold in Canada for the last 12 years.

There is not a single one of these measures I have listed that would take guns out of the hands of criminals. At the end of the day, criminals do not purchase their guns by going down to Canadian Tire or Cabela's; instead, they get them off the street through illegal means. Through Bill C-71, the government is simply painting law-abiding gun owners—we are talking about farmers, hunters, and sports shooters—as if they are all evil and deserve punishment.

The Liberals' firearms legislation would do nothing to improve the safety of Canadians. There are no concrete measures to combat gang violence or to address the catastrophic increase in rural crime in Canada. Bill C-71 is a flawed bill that would crack down on law-abiding firearms owners and would do nothing to punish criminals who illegally use firearms to commit crimes. This legislation would create a backdoor long-gun registry, requiring an electronic record of the sale of every firearm in Canada. Furthermore, this legislation would remove the ability of licensed firearms owners from transporting restricted firearms to a gunsmith or trade show.

Instead of treating hunters, farmers, and sports shooters as criminals, the Liberals should be focusing their energy on the real criminals, those who actually commit crimes and use their guns illegally. This would be a common sense approach and the right approach, but the Liberals are not interested in making a positive difference. Instead, they are simply interested in optics. They want to be seen as if they are protecting the Canadian public from gun violence, but in actuality the legislation before the House would do absolutely nothing to this effect.

The Liberals would in fact be making life a whole lot easier for criminals. I will talk about the legislation by which they are doing this. It is Bill C-75. The Liberals are reducing penalties for a massive list of extremely serious crimes, and I will list a few: participating in a terrorist group, trafficking women and children, committing violence against a clergy member, murdering a child within one year of birth, abducting a child, forcing a marriage, advocating for genocide, participating in organized crime. The sentencing for all of these heinous crimes that take place in Canada would be reduced. Those criminals will get off. Meanwhile, the individual who properly owns and registers his or her gun would be punished by Bill C-71, the legislation before the House. That is wrong.

The rights of victims and communities must always come first. A young person in my riding, who has the ability to see the smoke and mirrors in Bill C-71, asked this: Why is the government sending the message that it is okay to punish law-abiding citizens instead of going after those who actually commit crimes?

Canadians are rightly concerned about Bill C-71 criminalizing innocent people.

I have the privilege of sponsoring e-petition 1608, which is currently open for signature by Canadians, and I encourage them to sign it. This petition was started by a gentleman by the name of Ryan Slingerland, who is 16 years old and lives in my riding. He was incredibly upset about the negative impact this legislation would have on his family members who hunt. He was incredibly disgusted by the fact that Bill C-71 would do everything to hinder their ability to be law-abiding citizens and use their guns effectively, and do absolutely nothing to go after rural crime in our area, which is skyrocketing.

Since launching this petition, it has gathered national media attention and my constituent, Ryan Slingerland, has done an incredible job fielding those questions. In fewer than two months, this petition has become the second-largest e-petition in Canadian history, being signed by nearly 79,000 Canadians from coast to coast. Twenty-three thousand of these signatures come from Ontario and 5,800 from Atlantic Canada, thus showing that this is a concern of Canadians from coast to coast. It is not just regional.

When I was in Nunavut this spring, I heard the concerns of Inuit hunters about the potential implications of this legislation. Furthermore, at the public safety committee, indigenous leaders were coming to the table and threatening potential legal action because they argue that the bill would infringe their constitutional rights.

It is important for the Liberal government to recognize that it does not understand the impact this proposed legislation would have on Canadians, which is why the public safety committee needs to travel to talk to Canadians from coast to coast. It is the right thing to do.

I am proud to represent a southern Alberta riding. There are many families who enjoy our heritage of hunting and sport shooting. When I talk to my constituents, they are deeply concerned about this proposed legislation. They want to know why the Liberal government is targeting law-abiding, licenced firearms owners and not going after criminals who are using their guns illegally.

I sat down with my youth advisory board members and got their feedback on the bill this week. They asked that I communicate their views to the Prime Minister. First, they wanted to remind the Prime Minister that he is the leader of the country in which they live, and not the leader of a high school drama classroom. They want him to lead with honesty. They want him to function with integrity. They want him to stop attacking those who own firearms legally. They call upon him to use legislation in a way that is common sense, not nonsense. They ask that this proposed legislation not be used as an emotionally charged response to a problem in the United States that unfairly punishes Canadians who rightly own and use their firearms. They ask that I speak out on their behalf and to ask in particular, why is the Prime Minister skewing the facts and telling mistruths in order to pass this legislation that punishes those who lawfully own firearms?

The fact that indigenous people in this country, the fact that young people in this country, the fact that law-abiding citizens from coast to coast in this country are asking the Prime Minister to sit up and listen to their concerns, the fact that they are begging him to this, and the fact I have a petition that is signed by nearly 79,000 Canadians are all facts that say that this proposed legislation is ill placed. They see that this proposed legislation needs more time. They say that the right thing to do would be for this committee to travel and to listen. It is simply good governance, listening followed by action.

Therefore, I am calling upon the House to take this motion into consideration and to vote for it, not for my sake, but for the sake of Canadians from coast to coast who deserve to have a voice on this topic, who deserve to be treated as law-abiding citizens first and foremost. This proposed legislation, in its current state, would not do that, and we can do better.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that question is a good juxtaposition of the two bills, a contrast, almost.

I am very happy that one of the member's constituents is the one who proposed what I think is going to fast become the e-petition with the most signatures. Maybe the member could tell me afterwards what the signature count is.

It is interesting to see that in Bill C-71, we would be going after law-abiding firearms owners. What will do they? They will abide by the new law. They will try their best to obey the law as it is written by the Parliament of Canada.

On Bill C-75, we would download onto the provincial courts a lot of the provisions for criminal activity, such as the promotion of genocide, such as drinking and driving causing serious bodily harm, such as infanticide, and say that the provincial courts would handle it now, and that would be better.

What happens in Alberta, oftentimes, in provincial court, because they are so overloaded with cases, is that they are always looking for an opportunity to find a plea deal they can live with. They will offer up a fine to people, saying that if they do not pay the fine, they will serve jail time. In certain cases, and there is a laundry list of these provisions in Bill C-75, it is irresponsible to offer an opportunity to simply pay a fine for the crime done. We can contrast that with Bill C-71 and the provisions imbedded within it.

These are the wrong priorities, especially at a time like this, when resources at our courthouses are limited. For the longest time, the Minister of Justice was behind on appointing judges, and the issue remains. If we approve of this, travel of the public safety and national security committee, the members are going to hear this story in our communities. They are going to hear stories of local courthouses being overloaded with work already and not being able to deal with additional court cases.

They are going to be able to tell the story that law-abiding firearms owners will abide by the law, whichever way it is written by the Parliament of Canada. However, gangsters, organized crime, and other criminals will not. That will not change. Those individuals who take part in illegal organized crime activity, such as trafficking in firearms, people, and narcotics, are not going to be swayed by a piece of legislation passed in the House. Frankly, they just do not care about those things. The deterrence will be through greater law enforcement resources, more police officers, and a more effective way of tracking down the money as it is being spent by those types of organizations.

We are not focused on that. We are focused on lawful firearms owners who are looking to just obey the law.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my hon. colleague could comment on the juxtaposition or comparison between Bill C-71, which would punish law-abiding firearms owners, and Bill C-75, which the Liberals would also put in place, which would decrease sentences for heinous crimes, such as being a part of a terrorist group or an organized crime group, promoting genocide, forcing women into marriage, and trafficking women and girls for sex purposes.

There are these types of crimes the Liberals would actually be going extremely soft on. They would actually decrease the sentences for these types of crimes. Meanwhile, the Liberals want to put law-abiding firearms owners behind bars.

Could the hon. member comment on the comparison of the legislation the Liberals would impose on the Canadian population?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really do appreciate your wise comments. I will be splitting my time with the member for Thornhill this evening.

Let me start by saying why we are here tonight. Again, the Liberals are refusing to consult, refusing to allow reasonable amount of input and debate on another piece of controversial but very important legislation, Bill C-71. What has been exposed by the very limited conversation so far is that Bill C-71 effectively breaks another Liberal promise, the promise not to bring back the wasteful, ineffective long-gun registry. I want to thank my constituents in Oshawa for their input and insight into this bill.

To start, Conservatives support public safety, safe and effective legislation, and we also respect the fact that firearms owners in Canada are, by and large, law-abiding citizens. We believe that no government should take punitive action against those who uphold the law.

I was proud to be part of a Conservative government that eliminated the wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry. It was a good example of how poorly thought out, wasteful policy is ineffective at reducing crime rates by targeting law-abiding gun owners, instead of criminals who, by the way, do not register their firearms. That is why I cannot, in good conscience, support Bill C-71, which does nothing to address the issue of criminal unauthorized possession of firearms and gang violence, places new burdens on business and law-abiding firearms owners, and opens the door for a new registry.

As I said, Bill C-71 does nothing to address the issue of criminal, unauthorized possession of firearms. Let me emphasize this point. The Liberals seem to have difficulty understanding that criminals are not law-abiding firearms owners. Therefore, the provisions included in Bill C-71 will not affect criminals, who do not follow laws to begin with. Thus, it is highly unlikely that they will follow provisions included in Bill C-71.

In an expert submission to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security regarding Bill C-71, Dr. Gary Mauser, a Canadian criminologist and professor emeritus in the Beedie School of Business at Simon Fraser University, stated that Bill C-71 is a red herring and would be regarded as a failure to fulfill the Liberal government's promises to develop criminal legislation using evidence-based decision-making. Tonight we have not heard very much of that evidence, have we?

I support Dr. Mauser's view. I feel that the Liberal government is trying to create a problem where one does not exist. For example, the Liberals are intentionally using a low outlier year of 2013 to justify saying that homicide rates are increasing. Realistically, firearms homicides have gone up since 2013. However, our overall firearm homicide rate has been steadily falling since the 1950s. This is a point that the Liberals are intentionally misleading Canadians with. Total homicides, have declined at least since the 1990s, and if anything, knife stabbings in Canada have increased more dramatically. The Liberal government's statistics also leave out the fact that these homicides are primarily driven by gang murders. The majority of Canada's gun violence stems from illegal gang and similar criminal activity. However, this bill mostly focuses on gun licence holders, and not violent criminals or gangs. If we think that the homicides are driven by gangs and criminals, we should be focusing legislation against them.

Gang-related activity and repeat offenders make up the bulk of the 223 homicides in 2016. Some 141 of the 223 homicides were related to gang activity. That is well over half. Let me reiterate that criminals do not register their firearms. It seems this is becoming a theme.

I just want to briefly raise the issues with another Liberal bill, Bill C-75 which also fails to deliver tough on crime approaches. Bill C-75 aims to do away with preliminary inquiries and seeks to lower the maximum sentencing for terror and gang-related offences. In other words it is getting softer on crime. How can the government justify weakening penalties for Canada's gang and criminals while at the same time targeting law-abiding Canadians? This just does not make sense.

Let me address another thing that the Liberals are being misleading about, which is the process of applying for and receiving firearms licences. It is very important, and Canadians need to understand, that we are not the United States. In order to qualify for a licence, one must complete safety training and learn the rules that govern the privileges these licences afford one. Not everyone is eligible for a firearms licence. One must be a responsible Canadian citizen who does not have a criminal record and be mentally stable.

The first step in the process is to take a firearms safety course. The courses are dictated by the licences someone is intending to apply for. There are two different licences that could be applied for, a PAL and an RPAL, respectively. The first licence is a basic firearms licence, which allows one to buy and possess the types of firearms primarily used for hunting purposes, for example, rifles and shotguns. The second licence is a restricted possession and acquisition licence, which allows one to buy and possess firearms that are permitted by law for sporting and hunting purposes in Canada.

Each course has a written and practical exam that one must score 80% or better on to pass. Each course focuses on the safe handling of firearms and the responsibilities of ownership. These courses are the same across the country.

Then, step two, once someone has passed the courses, they can submit their license application to the RCMP for review and processing. This process and background check can take six to eight weeks.

I repeat, this is a process that criminals will not follow. Bill C-71 only penalizes law-abiding gun owners and small businesses. Criminals continue to operate in the shadows and will continue to ignore any federal legislation. Law-abiding gun owners and small business owners are then left feeling the burn of Bill C-71.

Small businesses will be burdened with unnecessary red tape, as this reintroduces a wasteful and ineffective firearms registry. The unnecessary red tape will be of no benefit to public safety, and will only make transportation of firearms to a gunsmith or a gun store more onerous.

The bill is forcing businesses to keep 20 years of records. In fact, I visited a local firearms retailer in Oshawa, CDNGunworx, to discuss the impact this bill will have on small business. I learned that Bill C-71 is increasing the costs of doing business for many small businesses like this one.

These unknowns make Bill C-71 all the more concerning, as the additional costs, money, and resources could be the final nail in the coffin that will put hard-working business owners in jeopardy of failing to keep their business afloat, all without increasing public safety.

Again, I want to point out that Bill C-71 gives the RCMP overreaching authority. It will increase the power of the RCMP to reclassify firearms at a moment's notice, which would make otherwise law-abiding gun owners criminals overnight. For example, Bill C-71 reclassifies an estimated 10,000 to 15,000 non-restricted rifles as prohibited, and turns their owners into immediate criminals unless they comply with new ownership requirements.

Carlos, a young constituent of mine, voiced his concerns to me in regards to providing the RCMP with the power to classify firearms. With this bill, firearms he currently collects can be banned by the RCMP at any moment, forcing him to either turn them in or become a criminal, and he will not be compensated for his lawfully owned property.

Our previous Conservative government allowed for our elected representatives to overrule any of these RCMP mistakes, and allow individuals to keep their legally owned property by exercising a democratic mechanism. No such mechanism will exist under Bill C-71. There will be no mechanism to correct the mistakes made by the RCMP.

Recently in fact, the RCMP was bold enough to launch, on its website, a page that formally read: “How would Bill C-71 affect individuals?”

To be clear, Bill C-71 is not law. The RCMP quickly changed the wording on the web page, but the damage had been done. The RCMP obviously felt that it could pre-emptively tell Canadian citizens to comply with a law that had not yet achieved royal assent. This had only been corrected after my colleague, the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, pointed it out. This is a glaring issue that Canadians need to know about.

Bill C-71 opens the door for a new registry. We have heard Liberals say tonight that it will not, but it very clearly will. They say it will not be a registry, but it mentions the word “registrar” 15 times, the word “registration” 17 times, the term “reference number” 12 times, and the word “record” 26 times. If this is not a registry, I do not know what else is.

Record keeping conditions are placed on businesses, including information collected for 20 years. Records would be accessible by police officers on reasonable grounds and with judicial authorization. However, the government would essentially have businesses build and maintain the registry on its behalf. Businesses would have to pay the higher costs for it.

In conclusion, I hope I have made it abundantly clear that Bill C-71 will not impact criminals or stop illegal firearms practices, as the Liberal government claims. It in fact targets law-abiding firearms owners and harms small businesses. It opens the door to a gun registry 2.0, and gives overreaching powers to the RCMP. I stand with law-abiding Canadians, not the criminals.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, as a matter of fact, I have been to two well-attended firearms legislation meetings with firearms clubs in the member opposite's riding. In terms of firearms legislation, they would like to see having mandatory minimum sentences and harsher sentences for people who use firearms in the commission of crimes instead of what we are seeing in Bill C-75, where all these harsher sentences for people who use firearms in committing crimes are being let go.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a great question.

As my colleague aptly pointed out, the bill should be focusing not on the firearm itself, but on people who should not have firearms. It should be focused on criminals, those who steal or smuggle firearms. None of that is addressed in Bill C-71. It should be focused on things that Bill C-75 should be focused on.

Bill C-75 is the government's so-called legislation to make the justice system more efficient, which means the revolving door is going to go faster, and criminals will only suffer a bit of motion sickness going through that revolving door with ever-increasing speed. That is going to be the penalty they pay for association with a gang, theft, and all of these things that are causing people real problems.

With regard to straw purchases, there is nothing in the legislation about that. A straw purchase is when somebody might use a stolen licence to try to buy bulk firearms through illegal means and ends up putting those in the hands of organized crime. Is there anything in Bill C-71 that addresses that? No, not at all.

The enhanced check is not necessarily a bad thing, but I am not sure it is addressing the right issues. On a firearms possession acquisition licence, the chief firearms officers already have the ability to go back as far as they want, if they find something of concern.

On domestic violence, the bill does nothing. With the continuous eligibility clause on domestic violence, if a spouse calls the police and triggers that continuous eligibility, the next day the police will show up asking if there is a licence, if there are firearms in the house, saying that the have a domestic complaint and are going to take the firearms. That would already happen.

There is nothing in this bill, and there should be, dealing with mental health. When police officers pick people up on a mental health call, that should be flagged immediately. It should go into the Canadian Police Information Centre information system to see if that person has a firearms licence. If they do, there should be a knock on the door to see if everything is okay.

That is how to enhance public safety.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, no; as a matter of fact, we heard statistics from the handful of witnesses who did manage to make it before the committee that completely debunk the myth.

Most firearms deaths in Canada are not caused by legally owned or legally acquired firearms. That is a myth. We can take a look at the statistical anomalies of the years 2013 up until 2016, and include 2013 in that number. Not only that, I did we not have the chance to talk about the fact that domestically sourced firearms also includes firearms for which the serial numbers are burned off, sheared off, or ground off, whatever the case might be, so that firearm might have actually been sourced outside of the country. It comes in, and because of the alteration made to the firearm, there is no way to trace it, so it gets lumped in with domestic firearms.

To my colleague who asked the question, if I thought some of the provisions in Bill C-71 would make her community safer, they would also make my community safer. We would both want that, and I would vote in favour of that.

The difference between the member and I is that I understand the problem in her community is likely gang related, and it is likely illegal guns, illegally owned and acquired guns, and it is likely related to violent crime.

I will be interested to see how the member votes on Bill C-75, which is going to make life easier for all the people she claims she wants to protect her voters from.

Justice

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with their criminal justice reforms, the Liberals are making a bad situation worse. Under Bill C-75, the Liberals have created the option to proceed with a large number of violent offences by way of summary conviction rather than indictable offence. This means that violent criminals may receive no more than six months in jail or a fine for their crimes. These are six months for terrorist activities, obstructing justice, assault with a weapon, forced marriage, abduction, advocating genocide, participation in a criminal organization, or trafficking, just to name a few. These are serious offences. Putting these criminals back on the streets makes things even worse, and makes less sense.

This is another hurdle that the police have to protecting our streets, another barrier for parents protecting their children, another barrier to removing criminals and organized crime from our communities, and another example of the Liberals being soft on criminals and ignoring victims. I call on the government to admit its error and withdraw this bill.

Criminal Code

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, the safety of Canadians should be the number one priority of the government. A strong criminal justice system must always put the rights of victims and communities before special treatment for violent criminals. Reducing penalties for serious crimes sends the wrong message to victims, law-abiding Canadians, and criminals. The Liberals' proposal to eliminate consecutive sentences for human trafficking is a huge mistake that will have devastating consequences.

The Liberals earlier committed to keeping full protections in place for religious officials under section 176 of the Criminal Code but are now removing them in Bill C-75. An assault on officiants during a religious service is very serious and must remain an indictable offence.

We have major concerns about many other elements of the bill, such as lighter sentencing, such as fines, for what are very serious crimes. They include participating in the activity of a terrorist group, infanticide, concealing the body of a child, impaired driving offences causing bodily harm, and advocating genocide.

It is time for the Liberals to put victims ahead of criminals.

Export and Import Permits Act

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, once again, it is a pleasure to rise in this place to give my comments in tonight's debate on Bill C-47, but before I do so, perhaps I can expand upon a couple of the comments made by my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, who talked a little about the procedural aspects of what is happening tonight.

If anyone is actually watching these proceedings tonight, they would notice that there is no debate happening. We are scheduled for debate, we are supposed to be having debate, but “debate” means that there are two sides debating, and the Liberals have chosen not to participate in this debate. That is their prerogative, and they can certainly do as they wish, but from a procedural standpoint, I would like to point out a couple of items.

Number one, if the discussion on Bill C-47 collapses, and by that I mean if no further speaker stands to offer comments, it means that the bill would get passed. Why is that important? It is because, as the government knows, there was an offer made earlier tonight to members on the government side that if Bill C-47 collapsed—in other words, if no one got up to speak—and if the government would not introduce another bill, we would all go home. Not to make it appear that we do not want to do our jobs, the reality is that every extended hour we spend in this place is costing the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars. The lights have to remain on, staff have to be here, security has to be here, the cafeterias have to remain open, and, ultimately, Bill C-47 will be passed. The government knows that. It has a majority, yet we sit here wasting taxpayers' dollars and not even participating in the debate.

I find it shameful that members on the government side who say they want to actively debate will not even comment on their own legislation. I will put on the record that the government is playing games here. We could all be cutting back on the expenses that taxpayers are being forced to pay, but Liberals do not see it that way, and I find that almost unconscionable. That is on the procedural side of things.

I will turn my remarks now to Bill C-47. I will make a couple of brief comments on the bill itself, which of course is about the Arms Trade Treaty. The reason I am bringing it up is the fact that any arms treaty should recognize the legitimacy of responsible gun owners who wish to own guns for their personal use, for their recreational and sporting activities, but the treaty does not recognize the legitimacy of that. For that reason, and that reason alone, I cannot support Bill C-47.

However, we should not be surprised, because this is just the latest in a long litany of Liberal attempts at gun control that have ended badly. The member for Sarnia—Lambton referenced it just a few moments ago when she talked about the failed Liberal long-gun registry back in the 1990s and early 2000s. For those who have perhaps forgotten the history, let me remind them that in 1995, then justice minister Allan Rock introduced the long-gun registry as a piece of legislation in this place, ostensibly and purportedly, according to him, that it would save lives.

History has taught us many things, and one of the things it has taught us about this failed attempt at a good piece of legislation was that the long-gun registry did nothing to save lives. What it did do, as was found out in later years, was cost Canadian taxpayers billions upon billions of dollars. In fact, in 1995, the then justice minister, the hon. Allan Rock, stated in this place that, by his estimations, the long-gun registry, once fully implemented, would only cost $2 million a year. At that point in time, many people took him at his word, because there were no real records or precedents for what a registry of that sort would cost taxpayers, but, luckily, for the taxpayers of Canada, a former colleague of mine, Mr. Garry Breitkreuz, from Yorkton, Saskatchewan, knew that this figure of $2 million was obscenely low, that it certainly could not be anywhere close to that and that it would cost much more. Hence, for years thereafter, Garry Breitkreuz filed ATIPs, access to information requests, time after time, month after month, year after year, getting limited, if any, response from the government.

Finally, after years of diligent and persistent requesting of the government for pertinent information on the cost of the gun registry, it was revealed that the gun registry did not cost $2 million, but $2 billion.

What did it accomplish? Did it accomplish anything? Did it save lives? Well, I am here to argue that it most certainly did not. Why not? It is because the one fundamental flaw in the rationale and reasoning of Allan Rock, back in those days, supported by every Liberal in Canada is seemed, was that criminals do not register guns.

We have seen over the years an influx of illegal handguns and other guns coming across the border from the United States to Canada, but the people who brought these illegal guns across the border had no plans to register their weapons. Therefore, the gun registry legislation was absolutely worthless. To say it cost $2 billion for a worthless piece of legislation and call it obscene is being kind to the word obscene. It absolutely was one of the largest fiscal mistakes the former Liberal government has made in that party's long history.

I do not think the current government has learned anything from these past mistakes, because we see them time and time again trying to introduce legislation that would in fact be a back door gun registry. Whether it be Bill C-47, Bill C-71, or Bill C-75, we know that what the Liberals would love to see is another gun registry being enacted here in Canada. However, I can assure members that if they try to do that, if they try to force their position on Canadians, on rural Canadians in particular, legitimate gun owners would again be absolutely beside themselves. The first time the Liberals tried to force the gun registry on legitimate gun owners and on rural Canada, the reaction was visceral, and it will be again.

I will conclude with a true story that happened when I was on the campaign trail in 2004. During the campaign, when I was door-knocking, I did not know the gentleman living at the residence I visited, but I saw in my identification that he was a former RCMP officer. I naturally thought that he was probably going to be in favour of this. Well, how wrong I was. When I got to the door, I was met with hostility on every issue I brought forward to the point where I actually started losing my temper, which I normally do not do, particularly when I am door-knocking. It finally got to a point, after many arguments on different issues, that the gentleman asked me “What do you think you're going to do about the gun registry?” I said, “We're going to scrap it.” He said “I worked for the gun registry.” I said “Well, in that case, don't vote for me.” He said, “I won't, and get off my doorstep. ”

I was laughing by the time I got to the sidewalk because it was so bizarre, but it just illustrates the visceral reaction that so many people have about this very contentious issue.

The gun registry that the Liberal government of the day tried to force down the throats of rural Canadians was something that should never have happened in the first place, but it did, unfortunately. However, for $2 billion in taxpayers' dollars, it is something that Canadians, particularly rural Canadians, will never forget, and because of that, when they see the current government introducing legislation like Bill C-47, Bill C-71, or Bill C-75, they harken back to the dark days of the 1990s when the Liberal government tried to force this obscene long-gun registry down their throats.

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on the Liberal government.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here tonight to speak to Bill C-47. I want to note right up front that I am a bit disappointed that the government seems to have disengaged from the debate.

This is my first opportunity to consider this issue, and I am happy to stay here until midnight tonight. I was looking forward to the opportunity to ask questions and to hear the answers. It is important for Canadians as we debate this important issue.

The Liberals have a majority government and they will get the bill through, but to disengage, to not even participate in the debate is a bit disappointing.

Before I get into the specifics of Bill C-47, I want to draw attention to the connection among Bill C-71, Bill C-75, and Bill C-47. It speaks to the Liberals ideological perspective on things that are not driven in practicality.

Bill C-71 is the Liberal government's back door firearms registry. In spite of what the Liberals say, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, it is a duck. They claim the bill will protect cities from guns and gangs. People who have only lived in big cities like Toronto, Montreal, or Ottawa, might not understand that a law-abiding hunter or farmer who lives in a rural area considers a firearm a tool. It is a tool for ranchers and hunters. It is a tool for indigenous people.

Bill C-47 would impact law-abiding hunters and farmers, as would Bill C-71, but not in a practical way, not in a way that would make a difference. It would not make a difference in guns and gangs in cities, especially Bill C-71. However, it would create an added level of bureaucracy for many of our rural communities and our hunters and farmers.

Bill C-75 is about Liberal ideology, not practicality. Some people commit pretty serious and significant crimes. Bill C-75 proposes to reduce sentences. Do the Liberals want to reduce sentences for terrorist activities, or for crimes such as administering a noxious substance or date rape? If something ever happened to my daughter, I would be absolutely appalled if the sentence was reduced.

There was a very disturbing court case in Kamloops involving the death of a young girl. The Twitter world was filled with people, saying justice was not done with respect to the sentence given to the person who murdered this child. Everyone had a sense that justice had not been done, yet Bill C-75 would further reduce criminal sentences for what would truly be horrific crimes.

I will get into the specifics of Bill C-47. This legislation was introduced in April, 2017. Let us talk about time management. It was introduced in April, 2017 and we are now going into June, 2018, with late night sittings so the Liberals can get what they believe to be important legislation through the House? That significantly indicates bad management of House time.

Bill C-47 would control the transfer of eight different categories of military equipment. The one we find to be the most troubling is category 8, small arms and light weapons. I understand an amendment was introduced at committee that would add “The Brokering Control List may not include small arms that are rifles, carbines, revolvers or pistols intended for hunting or sport, for recreational use, or for a cultural or historical purpose.”

It was quite a reasonable amendment, but it was voted down. I wanted to ask the government tonight why it voted it down because it would have given many of us greater comfort in how we looked at the bill.

The government tends to look at anything the UN does without criticism. If the UN says we should do this, the Liberals tend to say, absolutely, how fast, and how quickly. They do not spend as much time as they might reflecting on what we do in Canada.

I would beg to differ from my colleague from the NDP. We do have a responsive system. We have a Trades Control Bureau. To a greater degree, this system has worked pretty well. Would it be better to have something that everyone uses? Absolutely, if everyone used it. We only need to look at the list of the countries that have not or will not signed onto this agreement. We have to recognize that this agreement will not accomplish what it is intended to accomplish.

I encourage anyone who might have an interest in this issue to go online and look at the list of countries that have signed on to the treaty and implemented it. However, look to the larger category of countries that have said no. People will quickly recognize that we are not creating a solution in Canada. We are going to be creating increased challenges.

Another area that the Liberals should be reflecting on is this. The Department of National Defence has always been excluded from our internal systems. Under this treaty, it will be included. Is that going to affect the nimbleness of our military, its ability to respond in a rapid response? Perhaps the Liberals have not done as much due diligence in that area. We need to ensure our military can react rapidly to trouble spots around the world and send assistance. We often thought that sending assistance was the correct response. This does nothing for law-abiding citizens.

Yesterday in the House, the Liberals voted for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Over a year ago, at the UN, they committed to its implementation. With respect to Bill C-71, today at committee one of the first nations leadership said “We had no consultations.” This is another example of the Liberals telling them what they are going to do. I would suggest that the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne would say that with the borders between the U.S. and Canada, the bill would impact the people, that the council did not even know about it. The fact is that over a year and a half ago, the Liberals committed to consultations under article 19, but they have not followed through in any meaningful way to that commitment.

I am disappointed that we have not had engagement, but, quite frankly, the treaty goals in the bill will not be met. Meanwhile we will create some new regulatory burdens for our Department of National Defence and people in the fishing and hunting community who will keep having to do more and more under a Liberal government. I am sure they must be terribly frustrated. This is one more example of its lack of understanding on that issue.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleague, the member for Calgary Shepard, who articulated so very well the issues we are facing, certainly not only in rural Alberta but in rural communities across the country.

I would like to start by telling a story about an incident that happened in my constituency not long ago. Friends of mine told me about burglars coming into their house. Their children were in the basement. It was the middle of the day. They came down the stairs to the basement, armed. Their very large 17-year-old son was able to walk up the stairs and scare these burglars off, but they were very concerned about what could have happened to their three kids who were home alone that day. Of course, the burglars did not leave empty-handed; they took four vehicles from the farm on their way out the gate.

This is what residents throughout rural Canada are facing right now: a steep increase in rural crime. The Liberal government had an opportunity over this past year to address this issue.

I was very proud to be a member of the rural crime task force, which was made up of several Conservative Alberta members of Parliament. We held town halls throughout the province over the last six or seven months. We put together a list of more than a dozen very strong recommendations that we will be presenting to the government later this spring.

Many of the messages we heard from constituents were clear, no matter which open house we attended throughout Alberta. People were asking for stiffer penalties. People were asking for action against gang violence. People were asking for action to be taken against the illegal gun trade. People were asking for programs to address mental health. So many of these crimes are just a revolving door. A criminal robs a farmyard, goes to jail, gets a minimal fine, and is back out there, sometimes in hours, sometimes within days, repeating the crime.

Not one single time did I hear from the hundreds of Albertans that what they were really looking for was not one but maybe two gun registries. They were certainly not looking for a reduction in sentences for serious crimes.

When we look at the action the Liberal government is taking, it is going in the exact opposite direction that every rural Canadian is asking for. Rural Canadians are asking for stiffer fines and penalties and jail time. Canadians are asking for resources for our police services. Canadians are asking for a focus and a priority on safe communities. They are not asking for the Liberal government to ram through three bills that go against every single message we are getting from rural Canadians.

Let us take a look at Bill C-75, reforms to the Criminal Code and the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which would take dozens of crimes that were federal crimes and reduce them to summary conviction offences that may receive sentences of two years less a day. These include possession of goods from crime, theft, terrorist acts, and kidnapping children under 14 years old. I do not know where the common sense comes from with such a bill.

Canadians are asking us for exactly the opposite. I have not heard from one single Canadian that we need to address rural crime by reducing sentences to solve the problem. The government is not just reducing it from 10 years but is reducing it so that they may get a fine and be back on the streets. That is exactly what we are trying to prevent. It does not make sense. It is certainly frustrating for Canadians in our rural communities to see that this is the direction the government is going.

One of the first jobs of any government, no matter what the level, is to protect its citizens. This does anything but. It sends a very poor message to Canadians across the country who are looking for their government to stand up and protect them. The Liberal government is doing the exact opposite. It is going out of its way to ensure that criminals are the ones who are the priority.

Let us take a look at Bill C-71, which is on the Firearms Act. It would do nothing to address gang violence. It would do nothing to address gun crime. It certainly would not do anything to address rural crime issues.

This is another attack on law-abiding firearms owners and establishes another back-door gun registry. I would argue that Bill C-47 is another back-door gun registry. When the Liberal government has multiple opportunities to address the real crime issue, and I am being specific about that, because that is something that hits very close to home in my constituency, the Liberals put up window dressing on taking a hard stance on violent crime and gun crime, but all they are doing is attacking law-abiding firearms owners, who are certainly not the problem.

I am going to tell another story of a man in my riding, Eddie Maurice, in Okotoks, who many members may have heard of, who is now charged with a crime. He was protecting his property and young daughter from burglars who were going through his yard, his acreage. I can guarantee that the burglars on his property had not gone to Canadian Tire to purchase their firearms and make sure they were registered.

These bills are attacking the wrong people, and that is what Conservatives are finding to be incredibly frustrating with these two bills that are being rammed through by the Liberal government.

What Canadians are looking for is a Liberal government that is going to support them. Bill C-47 would not reduce illegal weapons coming into Canada. It would not reduce rural crime, and as I said before, it would not reduce gun violence or gang violence.

I would like my Liberal colleagues, during the question and answer period, to explain to me how, with the suite of legislation they are trying to ram through by the end of this session, I can go home to my constituents and tell them with all sincerity that I feel we have taken steps to protect their homes, properties, and families. I do not believe these bills would do any of those things.

When Conservatives were in government, a similar bill was before us, but we did not follow through on signing the arms treaty, because we were concerned about the limitations and the impact it would have on law-abiding firearms owners.

I would also point out that the Liberal government had some difficulty meeting some of its promises in its first mandate, but the promise I heard, in the words of the parliamentary secretary, is that it would in no way put any government restrictions on law-abiding Canadian citizens. I would argue that these pieces of legislation would do just that. If the Liberal government were concerned about putting forward legislation that would not impact law-abiding citizens, the language in this bill should have provided a certain level of certainty and legal assurances for Canadians that this would exempt them from some of these registrations. However, it asks our law-abiding firearms owners to go through even more hoops rather than addressing what I think is the most serious issue, and that is crime, especially in rural communities.

In conclusion, I strongly believe that for any government, the safety of Canadians and our communities is paramount and should be among its top priorities. I would ask my Liberal colleagues on the other side in government to take a hard second look at what their priorities are. Instead of attacking law-abiding firearms owners, put your focus on ensuring that rural communities are safe. I will be voting against this piece of legislation, because it does not do that.

Business of the House

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the opposition House leader to speak to the government House leader on the questions that she has just raised.

In the meantime, this afternoon we will continue with report stage of Bill C-74, the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1.

Following this debate, we will turn to Bill C-47, the arms trade treaty, also at report stage.

Tomorrow morning, we will begin third reading of Bill C-57, an act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act. Monday and Wednesday shall be allotted days. Next week, priority will be given to the following bills: Bill-C-74, budget implementation act, 2018, No. 1; Bill C-69 on environmental assessments; Bill C-75 on modernizing the justice system; and Bill C-47 on the Arms Trade Treaty.

Bill C-74—Notice of time allocation motion

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honour to rise again and join the debate on Bill C-74.

Before I wrote my speech, I wanted to do a bit of research to remind myself exactly what the Prime Minister had promised regarding the use of omnibus bills. An interesting thing occurred.

When I googled the name of the Prime Minister and then used the word “promise”, the search screen auto-filled with a massive number of different promises from the Prime Minister. Guess what? They were all broken promises, every single one of them, because that is what the Prime Minister seems to do. He promises things he clearly has no intention of delivering on, and this is no different. Allow me to repeat this one. He said, “Stephen Harper has also used omnibus bills to prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating his proposals.” The Prime Minister promised his Liberal government would “bring an end to this undemocratic practice”, yet here we are. The Prime Minister is doing the complete opposite of what he promised he would do.

A constituent of mine recently suggested that the Prime Minister was basically a real-life Pinocchio. That comment troubles me. When we look Canadians sincerely in the eyes and we promise something that we have zero intention of delivering on, how do we let that go? How do we say “That's okay”?

Here is a case in point. Over in the finance committee, we were reviewing this omnibus bill as best we could. Lo and behold, what did we find buried in it? We found legislation that proposed to modify the Criminal Code so white-collar crime might more easily go unpunished. Seriously, why is that in there?

I have defended governments because of the complex state and wanting to do things. Sometimes they have to be able to change multiple pieces of legislation so an omnibus bill may be okay. For example, paying the remuneration for justices probably can be added in as a measure because I do not believe there would be time, respectful of the House, to table that. I have defended the previous government and I have given the current government a lot on that as well. However, here is the thing. The Liberal members of the finance committee had absolutely no idea this corporate crime get out of jail for free clause was in the budget implementation act.

I have a great amount of respect for my fellow members of the finance committee on the government side. We have a productive and good relationship. I am proud of that fact even though we found this questionable clause. At the same time, it concerns me greatly that the Liberal government is proposing serious changes like this. Not only do the Liberals try to hide it in a budget implementation bill, they do not even tell their own caucus about it.

Who is really calling the shots and running the government? Why would it keep its own caucus in the dark? To be fair, I am not going to say that the Liberals are soft on corporate crime or that the secret payoff is intended to help Liberal corporate insider friends, but others are saying these exact things. In the absence of information there is misinformation. When something is intentionally hidden from view, people will speculate there must be a reason it is hidden. These things undermine the integrity of our justice system when it comes to prosecuting white-collar corporate crime.

I will give the benefit of the doubt to the government here. I do not believe the intent of this proposed legislative change is to help out white-collar criminals. In fact, I am certain there are arguments to be made why some believe this measure is a good thing in helping crack down on white-collar crime. However, we will not be having that debate because this clause is not before the justice committee where it belongs. That, of course, is because someone in the Prime Minister's Office thought it was a good idea to bury this proposal in the budget implementation act instead of in a justice bill where it belongs.

Bill C-74 is a budget implementation act omnibus bill. Bill C-75 is a criminal justice reform omnibus bill of 300 pages. It makes no sense that the Liberals would put this provision in Bill C-74 unless they wanted to evade scrutiny. Not one single witness came to committee to talk about this. That is a failure, either of us as parliamentarians or because someone on the government side thought the Liberals could pull a fast one.

Before moving on, I would like to thank the members of the finance committee for the collective work we have done exposing this questionable piece of legislation. We do what we can, and we try to do a good job.

Another troubling aspect of the budget implementation bill is the fact that it does not place Canada on a path to a balanced budget by 2019. That is another broken promise by the Prime Minister, which begs the question why the Prime Minister made that promise in the first place. Is it because he believes that a balanced budget is a good thing, or because he believes that others think it is a good thing and he will basically say anything that would help him win votes? We do not know the answer to that question. However, it is not unlike the promise “While governments grant permits for resource development, only communities can grant permission.” We all know how that broken promise is turning out, which leads to my next question.

Out of the blue, the Prime Minister promised to borrow another $4.5 billion so he can politically control the timeline of the Kinder Morgan pipeline. Where exactly is this money coming from? It is a massive amount of money, yet it is not anywhere in the budget. Further assuming that the Prime Minister actually intends to build the Trans Mountain pipeline, it will surely cost another $7 billion or more. Combined, that is over $11 billion. That is more than the modest $10-billion deficit the Prime Minister promised.

Nowhere in this budget document is that out-of-the-blue spending referred to. This is all so that the Prime Minister can buy himself out of another broken promise, while at the same time breaking other promises. It gets complicated. With so many broken promises, one begins to lose track. This is not unlike his $7-billion slush fund, which the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said contains “incomplete information and weaker spending controls”. That is $7 billion of borrowed money, with zero information on how that money will be spent, and we are going into an election next year.

Meanwhile, the Liberal government is busy ramming through changes to the Elections Act that would limit what everyone else can spend pre-writ, except of course the Liberal government itself. How does anyone support that? Basically, we have a Prime Minister who has a well-documented history of being willing to promise anything to anyone to win votes, who will be armed with the equivalent of a $7-billion Visa card going into an election.

I have sympathy for the members opposite, because we all know that when anyone dares to vote against the Prime Minister on the Liberal side, there are serious consequences, despite those promises for free votes and sunny ways.

In closing, there is no possible way I can support the budget implementation bill. To be candid, I would have a hard time supporting it even if I sat on the government side of the House, because it breaks so many of the promises the Prime Minister made to Canadians, the same Prime Minister who, once upon a time, claimed he was worried about cynicism in Canadian politics.

I can think of no previous prime minister in the past few decades, since I started closely following federal politics, who has broken more promises to Canadians than the current Prime Minister. The most troubling part is that, more often than not, it is a “do as I say, not as I do” approach, much like this omnibus bill I will be voting against. It was bad when Stephen Harper did it as prime minister, but despite the fact that the current Prime Minister said he would bring an end to what he called an “undemocratic practice”, in reality he has taken it to a whole new level. From my perspective, that is not right. I look forward to hearing the comments from all members in this place.

Criminal Code

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table, in both official languages, a legislative background for 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.

Bill C-75—Time Allocation Motion

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am incredibly proud to answer the member opposite's question.

With respect to listening to the provinces, and I will add the territories, of course we have listened to the provinces and territories. If the member opposite was familiar with the Government of Quebec, the minister of justice was involved in the discussions we had. The provinces and territories and I issued a press release about the bold reforms that are necessary in six fundamental areas.

We have acted on the fundamental areas that have been identified. Of course we are listening to the provinces and territories. We will continue to listen to the provinces and territories.

With respect to amendments, absolutely, I am always open to hearing amendments. I am always open to hearing how we can improve on a piece of legislation, not only from the parties in the opposition but from the actors and the witnesses that come before committee.

In terms of front-line workers, we had a round table on victims and those who advocate for victims. We had a round table that included judges, defence counsel, and prosecutors in every jurisdiction across the country, so we have done our necessary homework. We have the evidence to put forward on Bill C-75.

I would seek all members' abilities in having these debates and discussions, and where this bill can be improved, let us improve it. This is the opportunity we have to address the Supreme Court's—

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-75, we have introduced a very comprehensive piece of legislation.

In my view and in the view of the government, the best way to deal with the criminal justice system is to ensure that we have done our homework, ensure that we work with officials not just within my department but across the country, ensure that we are working with the provinces and territories to bring forward and understand a shared responsibility on the administration of justice, and ensure that there is agreement around the bold reforms that are necessary.

We have had extensive consultations and discussions with the provinces and territories. We are taking heed of the report of the Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs, which did a detailed study on justice delays, and we are taking heed of online surveys as well as round tables right across the country in every jurisdiction.

We are taking this incredibly seriously. We have the evidence to support the reforms that we are making. I would invite the members opposite to support alleviating the delays in the criminal justice system.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight debating Bill C-75, which has been crammed with a lot of different changes taking place from other legislation. It is now receiving less time in the House here before going to committee.

Could the minister explain to the House, or at least go on the record to say if she believes that her process and her government's process right now to fast-track this bill and limit debate and cram it together like this is going to lead to better legislation, or to potential problems later on?

In the minister's opinion, is this the best professional way to deal with the criminal justice system in Canada?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, every member in this House, I am certain, takes the issue of human trafficking extremely seriously. These are among the most vulnerable people in our society, and we need to protect them.

The reforms that we are making in the criminal justice system are broad-based. They ensure that we are protecting public safety, that we are showing compassion and respect for victims, and that people are held to account for their offences.

Contained within Bill C-75 is the bill that we had introduced to deal with human trafficking. However, because this is a difficult offence to prove, the bill proposes to provide additional tools to prosecutors and law enforcement in order to prove the offence of human trafficking. That is one measure.

In terms of assisting victims, we are doing many different things, including in the areas of domestic violence and sexual assault. We are bolstering the intimate partner violence provisions within this bill, among many other things. Recognizing that this is Victims and Survivors of Crime Week, we have engaged in a number of ways to assist with respect to victims and to ensure that we are showing our compassion and respect to them.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to change the channel and look at some facts on victims. One thing that I have been studying as I have been writing my speech for Bill C-75 is about human trafficking and sexual exploitation.

We know that the average age is from 11 to 14. We know that this is a growing epidemic. We also know that there were a number of cases in 2012 and 2014, and we put in hard legislation, but these perpetrators, these pimps that allow this to happen to our children, are going to be provided a summary conviction. I am wondering why we are taking the side of criminals and not the side of victims who are like our children.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about the judicial appointments process, which we dramatically reformed. I have to say that I am incredibly proud of the 179 Superior Court judges that I have appointed. Last year, 100 appointments were made, which is more than any other minister of justice has made in more than two decades.

In terms of judicial appointments, of course this is something that I take seriously. I am going to continue to fill the necessary vacancies. This is one aspect that could potentially contribute toward the delays. However, 99% of criminal cases are heard in provincial courts. We are continuing to work with our provincial and territorial counterparts to ensure that we are moving forward with Bill C-75, which is an incredibly collaborative bill.

I am going to continue to address the appointments of judges, but the member opposite should know that this is only one aspect. There are more complicated issues that need to be addressed as well.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a big part of Bill C-75—the stated purpose of it, anyway—is to try to address delay within the court system. However, we know from debate in the House and from reports in the media that an important cause of delay in the court system is that a lot of judicial vacancies have not been filled.

I am wondering if it is possible to move a time allocation motion on the period of time that the minister takes to appoint judges when there are vacancies, because if it is possible, I think she would find that there is support on the opposition benches for that time allocation motion. If it is possible, would she move it?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice, in response to the question posed by the hon. member for Niagara Falls, stated that she is committed to getting tough on impaired drivers. It was this Minister of Justice who opposed tougher sentences in Bill C-46 for the most serious of impaired driving offences, including impaired driving causing death, and it is now this minister who has introduced legislation in Bill C-75 that will make the offence of impaired driving causing bodily harm prosecutable by way of summary conviction. In other words, instead of facing up to 10 years behind bars, individuals who commit the offence of impaired driving causing bodily harm may be able to get away with a slap on the wrist and a mere fine. How is that taking impaired driving seriously?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are moving forward with Bill C-75. We want to get it to committee to have this discussion.

There have been conversations among the parties with respect to Bill C-75. From those discussions, members on this side have spoken to this bill, the New Democratic Party has exhausted its speakers, and members from the official opposition see fit to not speak to this bill at all, and in fact to cut off second reading debate.

We want to get this bill to committee so that the legal community and others can have further dialogue and debate, make suggestions, and put forward potential amendments to improve this legislation. This is an important piece of legislation, and we would like to get it to committee.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say it is nearly unbelievable that we have had three time allocations in one day today.

In this debate period, we do not usually speak to the merits of the legislation. In Bill C-75 there is much that is important with respect to reforms. For instance, I am pleased to see it is getting rid of peremptory challenges to jurors. That was clearly a big issue in the Colten Boushie case.

However, we stand here today to ask the government why time allocation is being used time and time again. It is anti-democratic. There is no way around it. The minister can say that this bill is so important that it deserves full debate in committee—it deserves full debate in the House.

I ask the hon. minister if she can please explain why this bill is now an emergency that requires that we shorten the opportunities for those of us particularly in smaller parties to have a chance to debate this bill.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, members on this side of the House have had the opportunity to speak to Bill C-75. It is my understanding that the members from the New Democratic Party have had the opportunity to speak to this legislation. The members of the official opposition have refused to speak to the bill, and they want to cut off second reading debate.

The member opposite is correct in that we amalgamated a number of justice bills, which represent very important pieces of potential legislation around the victim fine surcharge, around human trafficking, and around phase one of the charter cleanup, which includes section 159. These are incredibly important pieces of legislation that would amend the Criminal Code. We have put them into Bill C-75, which speaks to efficiencies and effectiveness.

This is an important piece of legislation that deserves a debate in committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, one gets the sense that someone in the government House leader's office looked at the parliamentary calendar and suddenly started panicking when they saw how much time they had left.

That aside, Bill C-75 is like a giant amoeba: it has swallowed three previous justice bills, one of which had swallowed another bill. We now have four previous justice bills in Bill C-75.

The Minister of Justice came to power with a very strong mandate to reform our criminal justice system. If that is the case, why did she let those four previous justice bills languish at first reading for so long, and only now, in the third year of her mandate, move ahead with Bill C-75 and cutting off Parliament's ability to properly debate this bill?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand up to speak to the measures we propose putting into place via Bill C-75. This is a very comprehensive piece of legislation that deserves the necessary discussion and debate, including from defence counsel, when it arrives in committee. I look forward to that dialogue and discussion.

I certainly recognize that this is a very large bill, but it deals with measures to amend the Criminal Code. Amending the Criminal Code is its theme. I would reference my hon. colleague across the way when he was talking about section 159 in what was then Bill C-32. This has been amalgamated into Bill C-75, and it is a necessary provision that needs to be repealed.

We are entirely supportive of all the provisions in Bill C-75 and we look forward—

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I echo my whip's concern about the government's excessive use of time allocation and omnibus bills. I hear groans from many of the Liberals MPs who were not here in the last Parliament when their deputy House leader used to say repeatedly that these were assaults on democracy. They are assaulting the House today in particular.

What troubles me about this omnibus legislation is that our Minister of Justice is also the attorney general, the chief prosecutor in Canada. The defence bar in Canada does not want Bill C-75 rushed. In fact, it has said repeatedly that it denounces both the elimination of preliminary hearings and the stipulation that police evidence can only be introduced in written form and not as viva voce evidence. Speaking on behalf of the defence bar, Michael Spratt, who is someone I do not generally agree with politically, said that these changes “will erode fundamental safeguards of trial fairness.” Now they are not allowing any debate. How can our chief prosecutor do this?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that all members of the House take delays in the criminal justice system seriously.

We have put forward Bill C-75 with a huge amount of consideration and consultation to ensure that we have the provinces and territories on board with the bold reforms we have proposed. We have had consultation across the country via round tables. The Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs has submitted a substantive report, and many of their recommendations are contained in Bill C-75. These bold reforms are necessary.

I look to the members across the way to ensure that we do everything we can to answer the Supreme Courts of Canada's call and to make these necessary changes. If we get this bill to committee, we can have the necessary conversations and debate to ensure that we put the best piece of legislation forward.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, new member or not, I am incredibly proud of the work our government has done. I am incredibly proud to introduce Bill C-75, which answers the Supreme Court of Canada's call to address delays in the criminal justice system. We are making every effort.

Members across the way continue to ask me questions about delays and why we have not done anything about delays. I would assume that they will not cut off second reading debate and actually support this legislation and get it to committee so we can have the necessary discussions and debate and proposed amendments.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when private members' bills are put forward, we consider them closely. I recognize the challenges posed by gambling and the need to address this issue. We considered that private member's bill closely.

We are now talking about Bill C-75, which would address significant delays in the criminal justice system. I am hopeful that we will have the support of all members of the House to move forward with this most important piece of legislation.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague raised a number of issues.

It is clear that there is a challenge with delays in the criminal justice system. The Supreme Court of Canada has challenged all of the actors in the criminal justice system to make substantive changes, to effect a culture shift. That is what we are doing with Bill C-75. Members on this side of the House have spoken. Members of the NDP have spoken. It is clear that members of the official opposition are trying to delay if not prevent second reading debate on this most important piece of legislation. It is my suggestion that we get this piece of legislation to committee, and that is what we are doing, so we can ensure that we have continued debate on this important piece of legislation to answer the Supreme Court of Canada's call.

With respect to my hon. colleague's discussions, I would be very cautious of the hon. member across the way raising impaired driving when the Conservatives have proposed removing mandatory alcohol screening from this most important piece of legislation and that would actually gut Bill C-46. We are trying to ensure there is safety on the roads. I am more than happy to talk about why we are reclassifying offences.

Motion that debate be not further adjourned

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is truly an unparalleled day in Canadian parliamentary history. On a day that the Government of Canada has paid a Texas company $4.5 billion to leave Canada and to stop investing in our resource sector, we also have the government House leader bringing to the House for the 34th or 35th time a time allocation motion on a motion that has not yet been debated. This is truly unparalleled.

The member was not here in the last Parliament, but I would like to remind her of the wisdom of her deputy, the member for Winnipeg North, who used to call such tactics “assaults on democracy”. There are so many times he said that. In fact, he went further to talk about the use of time allocation on omnibus bills before the House. He said they are “an affront to democracy and the functionality of Parliament.”

Why do the Liberals fear debate? Why do they fear Canadians knowing what is happening? Why are they using omnibus bills for budget implementation, and for Bill C-75 and Bill C-59? What about the openness and transparency they promised?

Justice

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand to speak about Bill C-75, which will address delays and efficiencies in the criminal justice system.

The member opposite spoke about the reclassification provisions in terms of the reforms that were proposed. It is simply untrue that we are changing the sentencing regime. We are hybridizing offences, but providing prosecutors with additional tools.

I would like to ask my friend across the way what he feels about the provisions in terms of intimate partner violence, where we are supporting those victims of sexual assault and domestic violence in this bill. Does he not support that?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the government that this week is Victims and Survivors of Crime Week.

I know that the Liberals have made it clear that victims have not been a priority of theirs in the last two and a half years, and of course the latest example is Bill C-75, which would reduce the penalties for many serious crimes, including the abduction of a child under 14 years of age, forced marriage, participation in terrorist groups and criminal organizations, and many others.

Is there any hope that the government can change its philosophy before the next election and start putting victims first? Can it do that?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives in Canada believe that the number one priority of any government should be the safety of Canadians. The criminal justice system must strengthen these provisions, not weaken them.

In 2017, the Liberal government introduced Bill C-51. Ostensibly, it was intended to eliminate unnecessary and unconstitutional clauses in the Criminal Code, but buried in it were a number of additional Criminal Code provisions the Liberals decided to remove, including long-standing protections for clergy and places of worship. There was no logical reason why these were included, particularly at a time when incidents of religious intolerance are increasing. The government only backed down and removed these proposals after Canadians spoke up and said this was completely unacceptable.

However, they are back. Bill C-75 would reduce penalties for a whole range of serious crimes, including membership in a terrorist organization and political corruption, but it also would reduce sentences for obstruction and violence toward clergy.

Why is it that the Liberal government always puts terrorists and criminals ahead of victims?

Bill C-75—Notice of time allocation motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of 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.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting motions to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Justice

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, keeping Canadians safe should be the priority of every government and a serious crime should never be taken lightly, yet the Liberals are pushing ahead with legislation to reduce sentencing for serious crimes.

Human trafficking is a despicable crime, with a devastating impact on its victims. It is a crime that is growing in Canada. We need to be sending a clear message to perpetrators that modern-day slavery is unacceptable in our communities and carries a severe penalty. Instead, through Bill C-75, the Liberals are eliminating consecutive sentences for human traffickers.

Canadians are right to be concerned. This misguided legislation could result in lighter sentencing for a long list of serious crimes. The Liberal government is not taking criminal justice issues seriously. The rights of victims should always be the priority, and sentencing should always match the severity of the crime.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if that is true, why did it not go to the justice committee? Why was it not included in Bill C-75 rather than Bill C-74? The Liberals have proposed dramatic changes to our criminal justice system that provide a “get out of jail” card for corporations charged with criminal activity. Not only have they snuck it into a budget bill, they rammed it through the finance committee without hearing from any witnesses, not one.

Can the Prime Minister tell Canadians why this radical change was not studied properly at the justice committee, where it belongs? Why is he intent on using a budget bill to continue to pass his soft-on-crime agenda?

Rural Crime

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand tonight and talk about the issue of rural crime. I appreciate my colleague from Lakeland bringing forward Motion No. 167. This is an important issue, and we have already heard several of my colleagues speak to it tonight.

Rural MPs from Alberta started talking about this issue in the last couple of years as they heard about it from their constituents. We held many town hall meetings in our ridings over the last year. We visited with staff sergeants and their detachments. We visited with RCMP commanding officers for the province. We talked to a lot of people. It was not hard to get people to come to town halls to talk about rural crime.

My riding, Bow River, is about the size of New Brunswick. It has 60 large and small rural communities. These are not city people who expect the RCMP or the metropolitan police to show up quickly. These people do not expect to see the RCMP very quickly because of the distance. It is very hard to get to them.

There are two groups I am very concerned about: the rural residents and the fear they are living with, and the RCMP members and the professional job they do. RCMP officers know that it is hard to get to reported crimes because of the distance. They want to get there, but there are some issues that are really creating problems.

We are glad that RCMP members have sick leave, maternity leave, and paternity leave. These are rights they should have. However, there is a strong shortage of staff, and they cannot backfill these positions. One detachment has seven members, but it really has only four because the positions cannot be filled, so the detachment is left short. If a detachment that supposedly has seven members but really has only four provides 24-7 coverage and has many miles to cover, that leaves the officers very much at risk. It is not only the stress of the job and the long hours, but the risk they may face being out in places far removed from any backup or support. The RCMP is caught in a vicious cycle.

The province did respond, in a sense, to this growing concern by saying that it would hire 59 more RCMP officers for rural detachments, but the soonest it can possibly get those is in two years, if it gets them at all.

We really have a problem with our professional police service, a service we really appreciate. The RCMP has a long-standing history of service to our country, but barriers are being put up in front of them and the work they need to do to respond to crimes. Upholding the law in our constituencies has become very difficult for them.

Then we get to the justice system. When the RCMP officers go out to investigate crimes, the people are often long gone before the officers can get there. When they do catch them, they appear in court, receive bail hearings, and are gone. The joke among RCMP officers is that they need to watch their vehicles when individuals are released on bail because they will probably steal one to go home. They know it is a slap on the wrist. The RCMP officers are very frustrated when doing their jobs because they will probably catch the repeat offenders another time doing the same crime. It is very hard for the RCMP.

They coach people at town hall meetings to get the citizens on patrol, on active crime watch. They are asking people to go out and help them in the middle of the night. We are talking about seniors on their properties in rural communities. They want them to go out and try to secure their property in the evening, and that is a challenging task.

This leads me to the second thing I am going to talk about, the fear among the citizens. I heard from a mother with a three-year-old child. At three o'clock in the morning, she heard people in her yard, and before long they were banging on her door. She locked herself in a room and phoned the RCMP. There was no chance the RCMP would get there.

In a community, two nights ago, two people attempted to steal a truck, and the resident came out. He is now in critical condition in the hospital, as he was severely beaten by them. They were long gone before somebody discovered this person, who was severely beaten, and called the police. The distances make it very tough.

Living in fear is a severe problem for our people in rural areas. The RCMP cannot get there. As other people have mentioned, reporting crimes is really important, yet people are giving up on reporting crimes because the RCMP cannot get there. Sometimes it has been days later when the RCMP can get there to try to investigate what is occurring. The dissatisfaction that is growing among residents toward their police force makes no sense. The frustration that is occurring among the residents in rural areas because of fear is wrong. We need to be able to provide better service in our rural communities.

We need to fundamentally restructure how we look at the RCMP and its service. Because of the way it is structured, there need to be more officers. They need more support. They should not fear going out at two in the morning on a call 30 miles out from where they live or where their detachment is, because they will be out there on their own with no backup from the unit behind them. They should not fear for their jobs to be able to do that. There needs to be backup. We need to look at how the RCMP works in rural areas. There is a serious shortage, and it is cyclical in what it causes them.

Someone mentioned Bill C-75. This could make it worse, in the sense that it is a revolving door with lesser penalties and fines for stealing things over $5,000. These are crimes of opportunity. These people know that the police are not going to get there. The vehicles found in rural communities are often very expensive. These are farming communities. They have expensive four-wheel drive trucks. These are $50,000 or $60,000 vehicles, and people are out there stealing them. If they know that under the new legislation they would get a slap on the wrist and maybe a fine, that would really exacerbate the situation in rural areas. Bill C-75 may cause this to become a more severe problem. The RCMP will be more frustrated and less likely to solve crimes if people are only fined for this.

Rural crime is a severe issue. In town halls, I see the fear on people's faces, their anger and frustration about the country they live in and should be safe in. This is not right. They have beautiful homes and great properties.

I am glad that this bill is here. We can collect data and information so that Canadians can feel safe in their homes, no matter where they live. This is a really important piece to do.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will begin debate on Bill C-75, the justice modernization act. This evening the House will consider, in committee of the whole, the votes in the main estimates for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

Tomorrow morning, we will debate the motion to extend the sitting hours. After question period, we will begin debate at report stage and third reading of Bill C-47 on the Arms Trade Treaty. We will resume that debate on Monday.

On Tuesday, we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C-75, the justice modernization act. On Wednesday, we will begin debate at report stage and third reading of Bill C-64, the abandoned vessels act.

Finally, should Bill C-74, the budget bill, or Bill C-69, the environmental assessment act, be reported back to the House, they shall take priority in the calendar.

Justice

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' tabling of Bill C-75 is an indication that they do not seem to believe either that crime is a serious issue or that victims' rights should be a priority. The bill contains elements that will permit crimes that are indictable offences to now be treated as summary offences. Perpetrators who commit offences such as participating in the activity of a terrorist group, forced marriage, polygamy, and impaired driving causing bodily harm will now be able to escape the consequences of their actions by simply paying a fine.

To add insult to injury, the Liberals are breaking yet another promise. They committed to protect religious officials by upholding section 176 of the Criminal Code, which says that the assault of religious officials is an indictable offence. In an era when religious officials are vulnerable to acts of hatred, it is puzzling that the Liberal government is once again trying to minimize the fundamental importance of religious freedom in Canada.

Conservatives believe that Canada's fundamental charter rights and the safety of Canadians should be the number one priority of any government.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, time and again, the government has turned its back on victims, from opposing mandatory sentences to failing to appoint a victims ombudsman after six months. Now the government is watering down sentences with Bill C-75. Bill C-75 makes serious indictable offences prosecutable by way of summary conviction. As a result, serious offences, including participating in a terrorist organization, kidnapping a minor, and impaired driving causing bodily harm, can be punishable with a mere fine.

There can be no justice for victims when terrorists, kidnappers, and impaired drivers are able to walk away scot-free. Bill C-75 is an absolute travesty. Victims of crime deserve better than the Liberal government.

Criminal Code

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's Bill C-75 seeks to dramatically change the Criminal Code.

We support some of the measures in the bill, namely the one on domestic violence, because it provides better protections for victims and is harsher on criminals. It makes perfect sense.

Here ends the praise, however. The Liberal government is seeking reduced sentences for those who commit heinous crimes, including participating in the activities of a terrorist group, municipal corruption, human trafficking, forced marriage, advocating genocide, helping a prisoner of war to escape, and causing bodily harm.

Canadians want justice to be served when a crime is committed. The Liberal government is acting recklessly in seeking reduced sentences for these crimes.

That is no surprise, however, coming from a government that is poised to welcome 60 former ISIS fighters and have them take poetry classes.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will begin debate on Bill C-76, the elections modernization act. This debate will continue tomorrow, and the following week will be a constituency week.

However, if we receive a message from the Senate this afternoon about Bill C-49, the transportation modernization act, this bill will get priority.

Upon our return following the constituency week, we will resume debate on Bill C-76 on Tuesday.

On Wednesday, we will start debate at report stage and third reading of Bill C-57, an act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

On Thursday, we will begin debate on Bill C-75, the justice modernization act.

Finally, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), I would like to designate Tuesday, May 22, for consideration in committee of the whole of the main estimates for the Department of Finance, and Thursday, May 24, for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

Justice

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians elect MPs to represent their interests and concerns in the House of Commons. Among other things, Canadians elect us to prioritize their safety and security, to defend the vulnerable, and to create laws that put the rights of victims before those of criminals, which is why it is extremely alarming to those of us on this side of the House to see the Prime Minister pandering to criminals rather than protecting victims.

Bill C-75 reduces penalties for a long list of very serious crimes, including participating in a terrorist group, trafficking women and girls, committing violence against a clergy member, murdering a child within one year of birth, abducting a child, forced marriage, advocating for genocide, and participating in organized crime.

The Conservatives believe the safety of Canadians should be the number one priority of every government. We will continue to speak up and speak out for those who are affected. We believe that the values portrayed within Bill C-75 are both deceptive and damaging, and we will continue to advocate on behalf of Canadians.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to make Canadians aware of some very troubling changes the Liberals are proposing in Bill C-75.

The government is essentially watering down very serious criminal charges by adding a possible summary conviction as a crown option. This could result in a penalty as low as a fine for what was an indictable offence with a penalty of up to 10 years. These charges include abduction of a child under the age of 14, material benefit from trafficking, breach of prison, participation in a terrorist group or criminal organization, advocating genocide, arson for fraudulent purposes, and the list goes on.

This is the Liberal answer to the current backlog in the justice system, a crisis created by not appointing the adequate number of judges to the bench.

Canadians know this. When a perpetrator of a serious crime is set free with a mere fine, he or she has not paid the price for that crime.

I call upon the government to finally start putting victims first.

Alleged Premature Disclosure of Contents of Bill C-75—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on April 17, 2018 by the hon. member for Niagara Falls concerning the alleged premature disclosure of the contents of 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 would like to thank the hon. member for Niagara Falls for having raised this matter, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the member for Berthier—Maskinongé for their submissions.

The member for Niagara Falls explained that an article by the CBC was published online eight minutes after Bill C-75 was introduced, suggesting that the only way this timeline was feasible was if the news organization was given advanced access to the contents of the bill.

Underscoring the importance of the House's right of first access to bills, the member contended that it is unacceptable that members have to “play catch-up” on a public debate on government legislation that is occurring between a well-briefed media and the Minister of Justice.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons told the House that no advance disclosure of the bill had occurred and the government had complied with all the rules. As a result, he believed that members were not impeded in their functions, nor was there any offence against the authority of the House.

Let me begin by noting that in this case, the right of members to be informed first as to the content of bills which are on notice is not in question. Rather, what is at issue is whether this customary privilege has been properly observed.

On June 8, 2017, I explained that the right of first access has to be balanced with other considerations, such as the complex policy development process that accompanies the drafting of a piece of legislation. I stated at page 12320 of the Debates:

The right of the House to first access to legislation is one of our oldest conventions. It does and must, however, coexist with the need of governments to consult widely, with the public and stakeholders alike, on issues and policies in the preparation of legislation.

This, then, must be measured against other evidence that is provided to the Chair; in other words, is there irrefutable evidence that specific legislative details about Bill C-75, beyond what could be considered as consultative information, were purposely and prematurely divulged to the media? Weighing the evidence provided in this case, as troubling as it is, it is difficult for the Chair to draw that conclusion, particularly since some details of the article in question could have come from the summary of the bill or from background information from discussions during the consultation process.

For that same reason, I can only agree with my predecessor when he noted on April 18, 2013, at page 15610 of the Debates, when referring to a question of privilege raised in relation to the premature disclosure of government legislation:

...it is a well-established practice that the contents of a bill are kept confidential until introduced in Parliament, thus making their premature disclosure a serious matter. However, in this case, a careful reading of the arguments presented to the Chair about what transpired reveals that the concerns expressed appear to be based more on conjecture and supposition than on actual evidence.

In addition, the parliamentary secretary assured the House that the government had not, in any way, divulged the contents of the bill nor its details before its introduction in the House. Therefore, although, as I said, this is very troubling, I cannot find that there is a prima facie question of privilege in this matter.

While the evidence presented may not be irrefutable in this instance, the Chair remains concerned that some members, of course, were left with the impression that they were put at a disadvantage in their ability to fulfill their duties.

When new ways, through technology or otherwise, are found to share information, it remains incumbent upon those who are responsible for legislative information to respect the primacy of Parliament by respecting the right of the House to first access. Members should never have to even so much as wonder if they were not the first to receive legislative information.

I thank all members for their attention.

Justice

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as Conservatives, we believe in fighting criminals who commit violent crimes; we believe in upholding victims and their families, and supporting law-abiding citizens. The Liberals are more interested in doing the opposite. With Bill C-75, the Liberals are proposing to reduce penalties for serious crimes, such as assault with a weapon, participating or leaving Canada to participate in terrorist activities, and participating in the activities of organized crime.

This bill will only weaken our justice system and sends the wrong message to Canadians. Canadians can be assured that we as Conservatives, will always stand up for the protection of law-abiding citizens and will put the rights of victims first. That is why, when we were in government, we passed tough on crime legislation, including the Victims Bill of Rights, which that party voted for. Unlike the Liberals, we put our words into action.

Record Suspension Program

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 161, a motion that calls for a study on the impacts of people in Canada with a criminal past who seek a record suspension.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I must say that this is not a pressing public safety or national security issue. It does not deal with the immediate concerns of gangs, guns, and violent crime, illegal border crossings, cybersecurity threats by foreign states, extremist attacks, or any kind of the myriad of crime concerns. However, while we debate the merits of the record suspension study, I have to say that my sympathies are generally not with those seeking a record suspension, but rather with the people who have been harmed by their crimes.

Record suspensions should not be something that anyone with a criminal past can get. Some crimes can and should remain forever on someone's record. The member for Saint John—Rothesay cites minor crimes committed years ago. However, it is the serious criminals and repeat offenders that are generally the concern, not one-time shoplifters. The fact is that one-time shoplifters are usually dealt with by means of alternative measures.

For the member's information, records do not prevent someone from obtaining employment. As an employer myself years back, I had many employees in my operation who had criminal records. It did not prevent them at all from working.

What we are talking about today are those with a record of a serious crime, like sexual assault, child abuse, trafficking, homicide, and other violent crimes. While I appreciate that some of those convicted of these types crimes have a difficult time, a burden they have brought upon themselves in most cases, having a record creates a deterrent. It is a reminder that these crimes are not welcome in society.

As a person of faith, I do believe in forgiveness. However, it is easy to forgive when we are not the victim. Forgiveness is easy when it requires no sacrifice. It is, and continues to be, the top priority of this House to protect Canadians, ahead of political gains and party standing. I believe that the language of this motion, which focuses on the hardships of convicted criminals, once again follows the trend of the current Liberal government to be soft on criminals. It should place the consideration of victims and honest, hard-working Canadians first.

Under the previous Conservative government, record suspensions were put more in line with our values as a society. We removed the term “pardon” to reflect that this was not an elimination of their past, but rather a recognition of the efforts made by those individuals to change their criminal past and live an honest contributing life within our society.

The Conservatives also removed criminals like child predators and repeat offenders with three or more indictable offences from being eligible to receive a pardon. As the member mentioned in his speech, this issue is not about a teenager shoplifting but about record suspensions for serious criminals.

The Conservatives also made it a user-pay model, so that taxpayers did not have to cover the costs of record suspension reviews.

Finally, the number of years that people with serious criminal convictions, like violence and sexual crimes, had to demonstrate that they were rehabilitated before they could obtain a record suspension doubled. Summary conviction offences went from three years to five years. Indictable offences went from five years to 10 years. To me, this is common sense. Actions have consequences, and those who have acted in a manner that many in our society might find unforgivable have longer-lasting consequences.

As someone who has worked in law enforcement and experienced the dark side of our society and complete lack of value that some place on other humans and human life, it is hard to reconcile those experiences with the sympathies of my Liberal colleagues. Looking at how many Liberals in the government have viewed public safety to date, I cannot say that the country we are building is safer than that of our past. Rather than feeling sympathy for victims of crime and defending those who respect and honour our laws, the Liberals seem to place misguided sympathy with those who have committed the crimes.

In Bill C-75, for example, which is the new Liberal legislation to change the criminal justice system, the Minister of Justice is seeking to water down protections for clergy. Having recently withdrawn from its previous position after considerable backlash from Canadians, the government has again sought to lower or remove protections against clergy in Canada. At a time of heightened hate crimes and increased religious conflict, we are making it easier to carry out a crime against any religious group. The government is giving lighter sentences on assaults with weapons, terrorism, rioting, and corruption. I have not met a Canadian who has asked us to water down protections. That certainly was not the Liberal mandate that the government received from Canadians.

However, the Liberals are getting tougher on some, primarily on law-abiding gun owners. The new gun legislation, Bill C-71, creates more rules and red tape, and potentially criminalizes honest Canadians who have not broken the law or harmed anyone. It is a regulatory bill, not a public safety bill. It appears that the Liberals' policy is to lighten penalties on criminals, make life harder for those who follow the law, and ignore real threats to Canadians by reducing penalties for serious crimes. It is hard to reconcile how a government so obsessed with image and photo shoots could be so completely out of touch with the needs of Canadians.

Any changes to our country's criminal justice system must place victims first. Too often, victims pay the price while the system works for criminals. For those with a criminal history, it is not up to society to change for them. Actions have consequences, and we have a path laid out to rehabilitation through prison and parole systems. Criminals who have been released must take on their own rehabilitation to earn their place back into being a productive member of society. No one can earn that for them, and no one else can give it to them. As Thomas Paine once said, “That which we obtain too easily, we esteem too lightly.” If we hand out record suspensions with ease, they are, by human nature, valued less.

I am particularly concerned of the potential risk that softer record suspension rules will have on vulnerable sectors in our society. We know that agencies all across this country ask law enforcement to perform tens of thousands of vulnerable sector checks each year on individuals seeking to work or volunteer with our society's most vulnerable, namely, our children, our disabled, and our seniors. If record suspensions become easier to obtain, if the types of crimes for which someone can have his or her record expunged are expanded, and if the time it takes to demonstrate that one's life is truly free from crime is reduced, the possibility exists for increased risk for the vulnerable to be victimized. That is unacceptable.

Therefore, I am left, when looking at this motion and the various other public safety measures the government has proposed, to ask, where is the plan? There does not appear to be a plan, and that is not appropriate for this House, which should place the protections of the innocent first.

With violent crimes affecting local communities, gang violence taking the lives of so many young Canadians, and a drug crisis that continues to tear families apart, this House has important things to consider, and I just cannot say this is a top priority. Some crimes have the ability to shake our collective feeling of security across our communities and our country. In 2014, this House was shaken by an armed assault. In 2017, in Edmonton, an ISIS-inspired terrorist attacked a police officer and tried to kill other people with a van. Just last month in Toronto, all of us witnessed the madness that killed 10 people. We were not able to save those who were killed or injured, but we certainly should not reward the perpetrators and punish the victims.

Canadians want a government that ensures criminals face the full extent of the law. The Hon. Margaret Thatcher was fond of saying, “Watch your thoughts, for they become words. Watch your words, for they become actions. Watch your actions, for they become habits. Watch your habits, for they become your character. And watch your character, for it becomes your destiny. What we think, we become.”

This motion tells us where the belief and attention is for the Liberal government. It is not with victims. It is not with law-abiding Canadians. It is not with police or national security. It seems to be with criminals.

I would caution my colleagues in government that their actions speak loudly to Canadians. Canadians are on the side of victims, police, and safer streets and communities, and they are on the side of families. Being on the wrong side of that will determine each of our political destinies.

Justice

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government's omnibus justice bill, Bill C-75, misses the mark completely. This bill is an attempt by a government falling behind in the polls to pass legislation in order to keep promises it has been failing to uphold. Bill C-75 is a huge overstep by the government. I think it is incredibly important to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians, but this goes above and beyond.

Under the proposed legislation, a number of serious offences, including child abduction, would be classified as hybrid offences. This would mean potentially lighter sentences for people accused of these serious crimes. Reducing these sentences would be a grave mistake.

I am not confident in the ability of the government to overhaul the justice system when it cannot even appoint judges on time, creating a backlog that allows criminals to walk free after long court delays.

Bill C-75 is another attempt by the government to parade its social justice agenda while jeopardizing the safety of Canadians.

Alleged Premature Disclosure of Contents of Bill C-75

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I would like to provide a response to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Niagara Falls on April 17 with respect to the alleged premature disclosure of the content of Bill C-75.

My hon. colleague, in his statement, argued that the right of the House to first access to the text of the bill had been infringed. Our government takes these allegations, and the Speaker's recent decisions on related matters, very seriously.

I would argue that the matter before us today does not meet the requirements to be considered a prima facie breach of privilege. In fact, there was no premature disclosure of the bill.

On the subject of the confidentiality of a bill, the Speaker previously stated in his April 19, 2016, decision that:

....the House cannot allow precise legislative information to be distributed to others before it has been made accessible to all members.

This statement echoes the decisions of previous Speakers, such as Speaker Milliken's October 4, 2010, decision, which stated:

It is indisputable that it is a well-established practice and accepted convention that this House has the right of first access to the text of bills that it will consider.

Speaker Milliken also stated, in his November 1, 2006, decision, that:

The key procedural point....is that once a bill has been placed on notice, it must remain confidential until introduced in the House.

Again, I reiterate that all the rules have been complied with. In the present case, the article that the hon. opposition member referred to was published after the bill was tabled in the House.

At the core of the current debate lies the concept of parliamentary privilege. Matters of privilege and contempt can be broadly defined as: (1) anything improperly interfering with the parliamentary work of a Member of Parliament; or (2) an offence against the authority of the House.

The situation brought forward by the hon. member for Niagara Falls does not fit any of these categories, as no individual MP has been impeded, and there has not been any offence against the authority of the House.

Failing to see how anyone's right have been compromised or infringed, I would respectfully submit that this matter does not constitute a prima facie question of privilege.

Justice

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, again, I am happy to stand up to speak about the appointments process that we have instituted. We will follow the appointments process for every appointment that I make.

I have made 167 appointments to the superior courts across this country, 27 in Alberta. I will add again, there were 100 appointments last year, a record of any minister of justice in over two decades.

I look forward to the member opposite also supporting Bill C-75, as we are committed to ensuring that we reduce the delays in the justice system.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to ensuring that we continue to move forward to transform the criminal justice system, with an eye to public safety, protecting victims, and holding offenders to account.

We are going to continue to move on this. This is why our government introduced Bill C-75, which I look forward to the members opposite supporting, given that they are concerned as well about delays in the criminal justice system.

I was also proud and continue to be proud of appointing meritorious judges across the country, 167 in fact, and last year, in 2017, 100 judges, the most of any justice minister in two decades.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to ensuring that we continue to move forward with broad-based criminal justice reform to address delays that were identified by the Supreme Court of Canada.

I was grateful to introduce Bill C-75. I look forward to the member opposite supporting Bill C-75 as we move forward, because it will substantially address the delays in the criminal justice system. I am going to continue to appoint meritorious judges across the country, including in Alberta, of which I have appointed 27 thus far.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, again, I am committed to continuing to appoint meritorious judges to the superior courts across this country. The member opposite should know that appointing judges is not necessarily the main reason that delays exist. What we are doing is fulfilling our government's commitment to follow through to significantly address court delays by introducing bold reform by way of Bill C-75. I expect the member opposite will support these measures because they would significantly reduce the delays in the criminal justice system.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, our government is committed to improving the efficiencies and the effectiveness of the criminal justice system to ensure victims are supported, to ensure that offenders are taken to account, and to ensure public safety.

Delays in the criminal justice system are not new. They certainly existed in the previous government. The case of reference started to make its way through the system well in advance of our taking government. What is new is that we have taken significant steps by introducing Bill C-75, which aims to take bold action to address delays. As well, I have appointed 167 judges to the superior courts of this country.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, our government has taken responsibility by moving forward with criminal justice reform that keeps communities safe, protects victims, and holds offenders to account. By way of introducing Bill C-75, we have fulfilled a commitment to bring forward substantive reform to the criminal justice system that will fundamentally address delays, if passed.

Further to that, I take my responsibility of appointing superior court justices incredibly seriously. One hundred and sixty-seven have been appointed, with 27 appointed in Alberta. We will continue to appoint judges to ensure that all vacancies are filled.

Alleged Premature Disclosure of Contents of Bill C-75

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning the premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-75, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments.

The Minister of Justice introduced the bill on Holy Thursday, before the Easter long weekend, on March 29, 2018, at 12:11 p.m. At 12:19 p.m., eight minutes after the minister introduced the bill, CBC posted an article entitled “Liberals propose major criminal justice changes to unclog Canada's courts”.

The article goes into detail about Bill C-75 to make a prima facie case that CBC had prior knowledge of the contents of Bill C-75 before it was introduced.

For example, the article states that “The Liberal government tabled a major bill today to reform Canada's criminal justice system”, saying it contained measures designed to close gaps in the system and speed up court proceedings, including putting an end to preliminary inquiries except for the most serious crimes that carry a life sentence. It said, “The changes also include an end to peremptory challenges in jury selection” and that another proposed reform of the bill will “impose a reverse onus on bail applications by people who have a history of [domestic] abuse, which would require them to justify their release following a charge.”

Bill C-75 is an omnibus bill containing 302 pages. While I appreciate the quality of journalism at the CBC, I do not think anyone can believe that someone could read 302 pages, analyze what was read, write an article, and then post the article on the Internet with various links in just eight minutes. If such extraordinary human capabilities exist at CBC or if unknown technology exists to make this happen, then the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs would like to hear about it.

All I am asking of you, Mr. Speaker, is to find a prima facie case on the question of privilege to allow a motion to be moved instructing the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to look into this matter.

On March 21, 1978, at page 3,975 of Debates, Mr. Speaker Jerome quoted a British procedure committee report of 1967, which states in part:

...the Speaker should ask himself, when he has to decide whether to grant precedence over other public business to a motion which a Member who has complained of some act or conduct as constituting a breach of privilege desires to move, should be, not--do I consider that, assuming that the facts are as stated, the act or conduct constitutes a breach of privilege, but could it reasonably be held to be a breach of privilege, or to put it shortly, has the Member an arguable point? If the Speaker feels any doubt on the question, he should, in my view, leave it to the House.

Now, whether it be superhuman capabilities or advanced unknown technology available only to the media, it is unacceptable for members of Parliament to be left behind playing catch-up while the public debate on a government bill takes place outside the House, minutes after its introduction, between a well-briefed media and a well-briefed Minister of Justice.

It has become an established practice in this House that when a bill is on notice for introduction, the House has the first right to the contents of that legislation.

On April 14, 2016, the former opposition leader and current Leader of the Opposition raised a question concerning the premature disclosure of Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying).

The Leader of the Opposition pointed out that specific and detailed information contained in Bill C-14 was reported in a newspaper article and elsewhere in the media before the bill had been introduced in the House. The member stressed the need for members to access information in order to fulfill their parliamentary responsibilities, as well as the respect required for the essential role of the House in legislative matters.

On April 19, 2016, the Speaker agreed with the Leader of the Opposition and found that there was indeed a prima facia case of privilege regarding Bill C-14. He said:

As honourable members know, one of my most important responsibilities as Speaker is to safeguard the rights and privileges of members, individually and collectively. Central to the matter before us today is the fact that, due to its pre-eminent role in the legislative process, the House cannot allow precise legislative information to be distributed to others before it has been made accessible to all members. Previous Speakers have regularly upheld not only this fundamental right, but also expectation, of the House.

The Speaker's concluding remarks on April 19, 2016, were as follows:

In this instance, the chair must conclude that the House's right of first access to legislative information was not respected. The chair appreciates the chief government whip's assertion that no one in the government was authorized to publicly release the specific details of the bill before its introduction. Still, it did happen, and these kinds of incidents cause grave concern among hon. members. I believe it is a good reason why extra care should be taken to ensure that matters that ought properly to be brought to the House first do not in any way get out in the public domain prematurely.

On October 4, 2010, on page 4,711 of the House of Commons Debates, Speaker Milliken said:

It is indisputable that it is a well-established practice and accepted convention that this House has the right of first access to the text of bills that it will consider.

There was a similar case March 19, 2001, regarding the Department of Justice briefing the media on a bill before members of Parliament. This was referenced by the Leader of the Opposition in his submission on the Bill C-14 case, in which he quoted Speaker Milliken as saying, at page 1,840 of the House of Commons Debates:

In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government's discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House must take precedence. Once a bill has been placed on notice, whether it has been presented in a different form to a different session of parliament has no bearing and the bill is considered a new matter. The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well informed, but also because of the pre-eminent rule which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation.

The Speaker found another case of contempt on October 15, 2001, after the Department of Justice briefed the media on the contents of a bill prior to the legislation being introduced in the House. The leak of Bill C-75 is another example of the government's disregard for Parliament and its role in the legislative process. It is important that we in the opposition call out the government for these abuses of Parliament and place before the Chair any breaches of the privileges of the House of Commons.

Speaker Milliken said:

To deny to members information concerning business that is about to come before the House, while at the same time providing such information to media that will likely be questioning members about that business, is a situation that the Chair cannot condone.

You, Mr. Speaker, said, on March 20 of this year:

...respecting members’ needs for timely and accurate information remains essential. There is no question that the work of members of Parliament is made more difficult without expeditious access to legislative information. Given this reality, there is a rightful expectation that those responsible for the information should do their utmost to ensure members’ access to it. Not respecting this expectation does a disservice to all. It is particularly disconcerting when the government gives priority to the media over the members of Parliament.

Given the facts presented and the clear precedents on this matter, I believe, Mr. Speaker, you should have no trouble in finding a prima facie question of privilege. In that event, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's Report

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know you have been listening throughout my presentation. I have been interposing my remarks to make the point that we are not going to allow this motion to hijack the government's agenda relative to the substantive premise of the opposition motion. What is relevant about that is that any Canadian listening to this debate would hear that notwithstanding the efforts to delay and filibuster, we have our priorities right on this side of the House. I am spending an appropriate and proportionate amount of time devoted in my presentation to the priorities that matter. That is relevant for the purposes of understanding why we reject this motion. Perhaps the Conservatives want us to allow ourselves to be hijacked and not talk about these things. However, we are not going to surrender to that kind of false logic. Nor should we.

Let me round out my highlights in my remaining moments. I will come back to the very express language of the opposition motion, then conclude my remarks.

The trouble with the rhetoric we have heard from some of the members of the Conservative family is that it stokes fear. It stokes anger and division among Canadians. We live in a very broad, diverse country, but those different experiences all get reconciled in the chamber. We find ways as members of Parliament to be the voice for our local communities. At the same time, we take into consideration how Canadians in different parts of the country, in different provinces and territories go about living their lives and pursue opportunities and prosperity to provide for their children and families. This is the place where we can accomplish that. This is the place where we can balance those competing interests and priorities. If we cannot do it here, we cannot do it anywhere.

Therefore, I call on my Conservative colleagues to debate as passionately when it comes to natural resources, but also to remember this is an institution that does deliver for Canadians.

The last highlight I want to mention is a priority that is not in the budget but is one that matters to me, and that is Bill C-75, which was tabled before our two non-sitting weeks. The bill proposes to make significant reforms to the criminal justice system by reducing delay and by ensuring we are reducing systemic barriers to victims so they can come forward, have their stories heard, and get the justice they deserve. We cannot get to that business if we see these kinds of dilatory motions brought forward today by the Conservatives.

My Conservative colleagues are cheering me. We should have the record reflect that some colleagues are putting up their hands in adoration and praise. They are enjoying some of my remarks. They may not enjoy what follows, but one takes credit where one can get it.

There is a fundamental flaw with the opposition motion. We just heard the House leader for the Conservative Party say that it has been vigorously debated, then some jockeying back and forth about why not just let debate collapse. The motion proposes to tell the Ethics Commissioner what his job is. Unlike other parties in the House, this government respects the independence of the officers of the chamber to do their jobs and fulfill their responsibilities in a way that ensures Canadians can have confidence in the high ethical standards they demand of their parliamentarians.

The motion purports to say what the fixes for the loopholes should be, and so on. We cannot prescribe expressly how the debate around ethical standards will evolve. We will listen to the Ethics Commissioner and obviously pay very close attention to whatever recommendations he or his office may put forward. In the meantime, as my Conservative colleagues will know very well, the Prime Minister and the government have accepted the findings of the report on numerous occasions. We have had well over 130 or 140 questions in question period regarding the report, the same question repeated over and over again.

To what end? Simply to waste time. Simply to obstruct and impede all of the significant priorities and the things that matter, which I have already discussed in my remarks. Canadians are going to judge us, but they are also going to judge the opposition Conservatives on how they have used their time in the chamber. What they will see is not constructive dialogue, not thoughtful debate on jobs and the economy, on public safety, on trade. They are going to see obstruction.

Accountability is a two-way street. Canadians are watching the Conservatives very closely. I encourage them to withdraw this motion and let us get back to the business that matters.