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

[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.