Bill C-5 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code

This enactment amends the Judges Act to restrict eligibility for judicial appointment to persons who undertake to participate in continuing education on matters related to sexual assault law and social context. It also amends the Judges Act to require that the Canadian Judicial Council report on seminars offered for the continuing education of judges on matters related to sexual assault law. Finally, it amends the Criminal Code to require that judges provide reasons for decisions in sexual assault proceedings.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what the hell is going on? The country is without a finance minister and I am without a minister to be a critic of. The Prime Minister has not only lost control of his colleagues but has also lost control of his colleagues and has lost the confidence of Canadians. The only person he has not lost confidence from is the leader of the NDP, who is just waiting for his $2.2-million pension, and then maybe he as well might lose confidence in the Prime Minister.

Do members know who else has lost confidence in the weak, fake feminist Prime Minister? It is the two million Canadians visiting a food bank in a single month; the one in four Canadians skipping meals; and the parents, the moms, who are putting water in their kids' milk to extend how much they can give to their kids. They have all lost confidence. They lost confidence nine years ago.

After the weak Prime Minister doubled housing costs, doubled crime and doubled the debt, he basically doubled all the pain and suffering in this country. Then he blamed Canadians for it, and then he lectured them. Then on top of that, to pour salt in the wounds, he is slamming Canadians with another carbon tax scam hike, one that he wants to quadruple if by some chance he becomes prime minister again.

Now the former finance minister has joined a long list of women who were in the Prime Minister's caucus and cabinet who have exposed how big of a fake feminist he is. She joins women like Jane Philpott, Jody Wilson-Raybould and Celina Caesar-Chavannes. It is a slap in the face to women, not just parliamentarians but all women.

Let me quote what the former finance minister said in her letter today that exposed the fake feminist Prime Minister: “On Friday, you told me you no longer want me to serve as your Finance Minister and offered me another position in the Cabinet.” What a slap in the face that was. He was done using her.

On Friday he let her know, “Hey, I'm going to make you break through this fiscal guardrail that you promised Canadians, which was $40 billion. I'm going to make you crash through that guardrail and take Canada's finances off the cliff, but why don't you go and deliver that bad news, and then I'll switch you into a different post?” What kind of fake so-called feminist does that?

What kind of a leader and what kind of a boss does that? It is pathetic to the highest degree what the fake feminist Prime Minister has done. He proves it once again, and he just recently gave a big speech last week about being a proud feminist. Some feminist he is. He is a fake.

Let me go on to read what else the former finance minister said: “you made clear that I no longer credibly enjoy that confidence and possess the authority that comes with it.” I would argue that she never had it in the first place, because the fake feminist Prime Minister and carbon tax Carney are in the background.

Carbon tax Carney made his Canadian comeback just to fire the furious finance minister. That was his role. They used her, and they wanted to blame her for the finances of the country going over the cliff, only to disregard her afterward. This is all being done by the backroom boys of the fake feminist Prime Minister and carbon tax Carney.

The former finance minister goes on to say, “you and I have found ourselves at odds about the best path forward for Canada." She also says, “keeping our fiscal powder dry today, so we have the reserves we may need for a coming tariff war. That means eschewing costly political gimmicks, which we can ill afford and which make Canadians doubt that we recognize the gravity of the moment.”

I could not agree more. These are political gimmicks. The Liberals just introduced a two-month temporary GST tax trick, which was a vote-buying scheme that businesses all across hated, that was going to be costly to them and that is not really going to bring in much more revenue. The Liberals brought it in at the busiest time of the year, just so the Liberal-NDP government could buy votes from Canadians.

However, Canadians are experiencing much more pain than that. While Liberals want to take pennies off peanuts or nickels off Nutty Bars, common-sense Conservatives want to axe the tax on everything, for everyone, for good. Enough of these cheap political gimmicks.

This carbon tax scam is more than a gimmick; it is pain. It is no environmental gain with all financial pain for Canadians, to the point where we see seniors who need to choose whether they heat their homes or buy a little more at the grocery store. They are getting through by putting blankets on. This is the reality of nine years of the corrupt, inept and weak Liberal-NDP government.

Instead of standing with Canadians and standing up for Canadian values, the Prime Minister chose to start a war with the Americans. This is the same former finance minister, obviously with the guidance of the weak Prime Minister, who said, “Why don't you go ahead with your digital services tax? Why don't we join other countries doing it?” Can members believe we are in the same pod as countries like Pakistan, which has introduced this? We are not with our partners on this at all. Liberals knew it would be something that would impact Canadian businesses and could possibly get our tariffs raised by the U.S., but they still moved forward with it. They pissed everyone off. They pissed off the Americans.

This is how incompetent the Liberal-NDP government is. It has no game plan. Once again, these cheap political gimmicks have Canadians footing the bill. At the end of the day, Canadians are having to suffer for these really incompetent political policies that have impacted them.

The former finance minister goes on to say, “our time in government will come to an end.” Yes, it will. We should put the tired, corrupt government out of its misery and call a carbon tax election now. We should give people control back, give Canadians back control of their lives, which is something they have lost. When Canadians see crime on the rise, hate crimes on the rise, and that the cost of everything is out of control, it is because they have a government that has worked against them. They have a leader in the NDP who has propped up the corrupt Liberal government for nine years, and now he is doing it just out of spite, just to get his $2.2-million pension.

Canadians will remember this. Canadians will remember this at the next election. It is time for the government's time to come to an end. We have to give that power back to the people, where it belongs. There is only one leader in the entire House of Commons who will bring the power back to the people. That is the Conservative leader, the member for Carleton.

The former finance minister says something else I agree with, which is, “Canada will win if we are strong, smart, and united.” We need a leader who is strong, smart and will unite, one with a backbone and brains. Again, there is only one leader in the House of Commons with that, and that is the member for Carleton.

Once we have a common-sense Conservative government, we are going to axe the tax for good. We are going to get rid of the carbon tax to bring the cost of gas, groceries and home heating down. We are going to unleash the power of our natural resources, the world-renowned natural resources sector we have in Canada that the Liberal-NDP government has tried to kill with its oil and gas cap and all these other ridiculous policies like the carbon tax scam. We are going to axe the tax for good to bring home our natural resources and give them to the world in order to bring down emissions across the world.

We are going to build the homes. There will be no more photo op funds and no more giving municipalities and mayors millions and billions of dollars just to create more bureaucracy. We are going to build the homes, not more bureaucracy. We are going to bring home a GST tax cut for homes that are a million dollars and under, which will generate up to 30,000 new homes and save up to $50,000 on those homes, which is going to lower the cost of mortgages.

While I am on the topic of mortgages, after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government, housing costs have doubled. Whether one is renting or a mortgage holder, the costs have doubled. Why have they doubled? The Liberal-NDP government has fed into the bureaucracies at the municipal level, which have only increased their permitting fees. On top of that, it is the population control that they admit themselves is “out of control”. The Liberals did this; their incompetence did this. The Bank of Canada also confirmed that it is their out-of-control population growth that made costs to renters double.

In order to not give Canadians 40-year highs in inflation like the Liberal-NDP government did, we are going to balance the budget, something the Liberal-NDP government has no idea of how to do. This is the same Prime Minister who said that budgets balanced themselves and that he does not think about monetary policy. Then he said to let the bankers worry about the economy. He loves the bankers. Those are his Bay Street buddies, the same ones that Canadians have to send money to, with more in debt-interest charges than what goes to provinces for health care.

After the incompetent Prime Minister doubled the national debt, that is exactly what happened. Interest rates went up. Inflation went up. Of course, for the Prime Minister and his rich buddies, their assets got inflated, while everyday Canadians had to pay for that incompetence.

We are going to balance the budget and bring in a dollar-for-dollar law. We are going to make sure that any dollar spent in any department has to be matched with a dollar of savings. Canadians and businesses have had to do that under this government. The government should do the same and respect the money.

There is no doubt that we are going to cut the Liberal waste. The waste that went to Liberal insiders, such as the friends of the Liberals who got so much money for arrive scam and for the consultants, the McKinsey consultants. Now we just found out from the Auditor General about the CEBA loans that went to fraudulent corporations and companies. This is just another rerun of the last nine years of this government. First it was CERB, and now it is CEBA. This is what incompetence looks like. Who has to pay for it? Canadians always end up having to pay for this incompetence.

It is time for a common-sense Conservative government that will balance the budget, get rid of that Liberal waste and, of course, stop the crime. Canadians do not leave their houses now and sometimes live in their houses in absolute fear, because criminals have never had it so good. Under the Liberal-NDP government that brought in Bill C-5 and C-75, criminals have it way too easy. They commit crimes repeatedly and without any fear. They know they are going to get bail. They commit crimes over and over again.

However, just to virtue signal and to show that it is the most woke government, the Liberals created a bail system that is just too easy for criminals to get. That is why there is no more fear left within criminals. There is no fear in Canada. The only fear is from everyday Canadians who are just working to make it, to get by, to put food on their families' tables.

However, now carjackings are up, violent crime is up and gun crime is up. Every day there are new videos coming out, and it is a result of this incompetent, woke government that lets criminals have zero consequences for what they do. We are going to stop the crime and bring in common-sense Conservative policies once again that will keep repeat offenders in jail and not grant them bail like this woke government has done over the last nine years.

My parents came here because Canada used to have this reputation that one could work hard here and either get by or get ahead. Canada used to be a country where one paycheque could run the household. One paycheque used to be able to get people a house, whether they wanted a mortgage or to rent. One paycheque used to be able to afford groceries for the week. One paycheque used to put people's kids through school. One paycheque used to be able to put people's kids in other activities.

However, after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government, the Canadian dream that my parents came for and that Canadians had, whether they were born here or immigrated here, is broken. It is broken. Our reputation has been broken because this weak, woke, fake feminist Prime Minister broke Canada.

It is time for a common-sense Conservative government, led by our common-sense Conservative leader, the member for Carleton, to not only unite Canadians but to rebuild that Canadian dream and finally have a country where we can proudly stand and say we are from Canada, one where we see our flag and the rest of the world sees our flag and know we are represented by a competent leader who has the brains and the backbone to stand up for Canadians and do what is best for Canada first.

This is the same Prime Minister who, wherever he goes, is an embarrassment, not just nationally but all over the world. Literally, he is known as a clown now. He has turned the country into a circus. It is time for real leadership.

It is time to bring a serious government back that will put the people first, that will reduce those food bank lineups, that will reduce housing costs, that will reduce the cost of gas, groceries and home heating, and reduce the crime in this country, because that is how it used to be. Before the Prime Minister it was like that. When was the last time members heard of people lining up at food banks in record numbers or of people being afraid in their own homes or outside? We never used to even have to lock our doors in Canada.

In this next carbon tax election, the choice cannot be more clear: People can vote for a Liberal-NDP government that will punish their work, that will tax everything and that will double their housing costs on the Liberal-NDP government's path to quadrupling the carbon tax scam, or Canadians can make a choice to get back control of their lives and get back control of the country that they once knew and still love, under a common-sense Conservative government that will bring back the common sense that used to be common in the country, which we lost after nine years of the incompetent, woke Liberal-NDP government. Let us work together to bring home the Canada we all knew.

I turn to the leader of the NDP to make a request that he put the country and Canadians over his pension. Enough is enough. Canadians have had enough. Canadians cannot suffer anymore from the Liberal-NDP government. It is time. It is time for a carbon tax election. This country is in chaos. The Prime Minister and his entire caucus is in chaos. It is time to give the control back to the people. It is time to give this country a common-sense Conservative government under the leadership of the member for Carleton, the leader of the common-sense Conservatives.

Let us bring home the Canada we all once knew and still love. Let us bring it home.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise once again to address the sweeping corruption that grips the NDP-Liberal government here in Ottawa. Parliament is consumed with the issue of the Liberal government refusing to turn over unredacted documents to the RCMP for a criminal investigation.

These documents pertain to Sustainable Development Technology Canada, better known as the green slush fund. I have already spoken extensively on this issue, as did the Auditor General, I may add, so I am in good company. I encourage everyone to check out my Facebook and Twitter feeds to see my deep dive into the green slush fund and other Liberal criminal wrongdoings. For example, in today's case, these documents have been blotted out by the Liberals and, as a result, the police are at a standstill, but is this a surprise? In our country, police investigations of possible wrongdoing and criminal activity are not just esoteric questions confined to the Prime Minister and his cadre of NDP advisers. Crime is real.

The government may not take crime seriously, something they are demonstrating here by failing to provide to the RCMP documents that may very well hide criminal actions and connections to Liberal insiders, potentially even Liberal MPs or ministers, but crime is a crisis gripping our nation. It is a crisis that affects every community, family and Canadian.

I am speaking about the devastating convergence of drugs and crime, two interconnected issues that have spiralled out of control under the NDP-Liberal government's watch. This crisis is not about abstract statistics. It is about real people. It is about the family grieving the loss of a loved one to a fentanyl overdose, the shopkeeper who no longer feels safe in their store and parents who are afraid to let their children play in local parks because of discarded needles and drug paraphernalia. This is a crisis that touches all of us, and it demands immediate, decisive action.

For too long, the Liberal government, propped up by its NDP allies, have implemented reckless ideological policies that have not only failed to solve these problems but also made them worse. Their so-called evidence-based approaches have emboldened criminals, exacerbated addiction and left Canadians feeling less safe in their own communities. It is unacceptable. The Conservative Party offers a clear, common-sense alternative. We believe in holding criminals accountable, in prioritizing recovery over enabling addiction and ensuring that every Canadian can feel safe in their home, their neighbourhood and their workplace. All of this is against the backdrop of a government that commits scandal after scandal.

This discussion here today is only the latest one, which is the refusal of the government to provide the unredacted documents to the RCMP so it can determine if there were actual crimes committed. When we have a federal government so quick to bend the rules, and possibly even commit crimes, is it any wonder that we have a larger crime and drug problem in this country?

To address this crisis effectively, we must begin by understanding the root causes. Drug addiction and crime are deeply intertwined, each fuelling the other in a vicious cycle that devastates individuals, families and communities. The opioid crisis is a prime example. Since 2015, Canada has seen an explosion in opioid-related deaths, driven by the rise of synthetic drugs, such as fentanyl. These substances are cheap, potent and deadly. Between January 2016 and September 2022, over 35,000 Canadians lost their lives to opioid overdoses. In my home province, the Saskatchewan Coroners Service recorded eight deaths by fentanyl poisoning in 2016. Deaths by fentanyl poisoning peaked at 272 in 2021, during COVID, and levelled out at 252 in 2023.

Addiction is not just a personal struggle. It is also a societal failure. The current government's response has been to normalize and enable drug use through policies such as safe supply and harm reduction. These programs are based on the flawed assumption that addiction is a permanent condition that cannot be overcome. This defeatist mindset ignores the potential for recovery and consigns individuals to a life of dependency.

At the same time, our justice system has been systematically weakened. Bills such as Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 have prioritized the rights of offenders over the safety of law-abiding citizens. These laws have made it easier for repeat offenders to obtain bail, have reduced sentences for violent crimes and have eliminated mandatory minimums for serious offences. The result is a justice system that no longer serves justice. We cannot afford any more years of inaction or misguided ideology.

It is time to chart a course built on accountability, safety and recovery. These are important words. We need accountability here in Ottawa, like today as we debate this motion on the green slush fund and the possible criminal wrongdoing of the NDP-Liberal government in funnelling money through the green slush fund. Why do I say “possible wrongdoing”? Well, it is because the Liberals are blocking this Conservative motion to release the unredacted documents necessary for the RCMP to investigate.

It is amazing that the Liberal Party has prioritized itself and its own selfish needs over the safety of Canadians, selfish needs like funnelling government cash to their friends through the green slush fund. How do I know that? Well, just look at the Liberals' legislative record when it comes to criminal matters.

The NDP-Liberals passed Bill C-5, which purposely took accountability and punishment out of the courts. Since the passage of Bill C-5, violent crime and drug-related offences have skyrocketed. Repeat offenders, no longer deterred by the threat of significant prison time, have become more brazen. Police officers across the country report increased difficulty in keeping dangerous individuals off the streets, knowing they will likely be released with minimal consequences. Simply put, Bill C-5 replaced prison sentences with conditional sentences, better known as house arrest, for crimes like sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, stealing cars, breaking and entering, arson, assault with a weapon, assaulting peace officers, and trafficking in dangerous narcotics and drugs.

The introduction of house arrest for these serious crimes is quite troubling. House arrest may be appropriate for minor, non-violent offences, but it is entirely inadequate for crimes like sexual assault, kidnapping or drug trafficking. This policy not only fails to hold offenders accountable, but also places an undue burden on victims and their communities. Imagine the trauma of knowing that one's assailant is serving their sentence just blocks away from one's home. One particular harrowing example is the case of a violent offender released on house arrest who subsequently commits additional crimes. This revolving door justice system undermines public trust in the legal system and places innocent Canadians in harm's way. That is why we need accountability restored to our criminal justice system.

Unfortunately, accountability is lacking in this justice system, which is why common-sense Conservatives brought forward the motion we are debating today to turn this criminal matter over to the RCMP. Indeed, common-sense Conservatives have put forward strong policy proposals on criminal justice matters since the last election. Perhaps the government, which is so intent on avoiding accountability around the criminal wrongdoings of the green slush fund, as well as everyday, common-sense Canadians, would like to hear about them. Perhaps this could distract from other conflicts of interest.

Conservative members have introduced numerous private members' bills designed to correct the failures of Bill C-5 and address the broader issues plaguing Canada's justice system. First, Bill C-299, the strengthening penalties for sexual exploitation act, seeks to increase the maximum penalty for offences like human trafficking and child exploitation to life imprisonment. While the Liberals redacted their scandals, we introduced Bill C-321, the protecting first responders and health care workers act, which proposes harsher penalties for assaults against first responders and health care workers. While the Liberals hid their wrongdoing with redacted documents, we introduced Bill C-394, the restoring mandatory sentences for drug trafficking act, which would reinstate mandatory jail time for criminals involved in producing, importing and trafficking dangerous drugs like fentanyl and cocaine. These bills tackle the root causes of rising crime. Rising crime requires urgent solutions, yet the Liberal government chooses in the House to defend redacted records and questionable spending on the green slush fund rather than tackling the root causes of crime.

These next two Conservative bills would make sure that criminals stay in prison and do not revictimize people over and over again. Bill C-325, the ensuring dangerous offenders stay behind bars act, would prohibit dangerous repeat offenders from serving sentences in the community. Bill C-296, the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act, would ensure that individuals convicted of heinous crimes, such as the abduction, sexual assault and murder of the same victim, serve life sentences without parole for up to 40 years.

There is more. While the Liberals were giving money to their friends and hiding the evidence in these redacted documents, we introduced Bill C-351 to end least restrictive conditions for dangerous offenders, which would ensure that prisoners are confined under conditions necessary for public safety rather than trying to make criminals feel more comfortable. This change would keep dangerous individuals like Paul Bernard, in maximum-security facilities where they belong. I spoke to this bill when it was debated in the House, and the other side voted it down, voting in favour of Paul Bernardo.

These private members' bills reflect the core principles of the Conservative Party's broader justice reform agenda. Canadians can count on Conservatives to stop the erosion of public trust in the criminal justice system. The erosion of public trust caused by increasing crime mirrors the corruption and opacity surrounding the green slush fund, both of which harm the fabric of Canadian society, which is my point here today. If the Liberals would simply hand over the unredacted documents, we could get on with business here in Ottawa. We could get on with the important things Canadians are demanding, and one of those things is stopping crime.

Our Conservative plan to stop the crime includes the following pillars.

Number one is restoring mandatory minimum sentences for violent crimes, drug trafficking and serious sexual offences. Mandatory minimum sentences are essential to ensure accountability and public safety.

Number two is implementing jail, not bail. Repeat violent offenders would no longer be released back into the community on bail. We would prioritize the safety of law-abiding Canadians over the convenience of criminals.

Number three is expanding treatment and recovery options. A Conservative government would invest in detox and rehabilitation programs, ensuring that individuals struggling with addiction have a path to recovery.

Number four is supporting law enforcement. We would provide police with the tools and resources they need to combat organized crime and drug trafficking effectively. This includes reversing the NDP-Liberal government's restrictions on law enforcement powers under Bill C-75.

Number five is enhancing victims' rights. Conservatives would ensure that victims of crime are treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve. This includes greater transparency in parole decisions and increased support for victims and their families.

It is important that Canadians understand the Conservative approach to these criminal matters, such as the possible criminal wrongdoing that we are debating here today. Today, we are debating documents that, once this Conservative motion is adopted, will allow the RCMP to conduct a proper and formal probe into NDP-Liberal actions around the so-called green slush fund. Unfortunately, the Liberals have chosen to paralyze Parliament rather than adopt our common-sense motion and release those documents.

While Conservatives propose common-sense solutions, the NDP-Liberals engage in one misguided policy decision after another, and the consequences of misguided NDP-Liberal policies are clear. Violent crime in Canada has increased by 39% since 2015. Homicides are up 43% and gang-related murders have more than doubled. In Toronto, sexual assaults have risen by over 11% in the past year alone. The link between drugs and crime is undeniable. Drug users desperate to fund their habits often turn to theft, burglary and other crimes. Organized crime groups capitalize on this desperation, using drugs as a tool to trap individuals and expand their influence. Public Safety Canada has stated that the illegal drug trade is a key driver of gang violence and organized crime.

The situation is particularly dire in British Columbia, where the government's experiment with decriminalization and harm reduction has backfired catastrophically. Drug overdose deaths in the province have increased by 380% since 2015, and this year alone, B.C. is on track to recording more overdose deaths than in any previous year. The evidence is clear. These policies are not working. The human cost of this crisis cannot be overstated.

Canadians are paying the price for the NDP-Liberal government's failed policies in very real ways. In Saskatoon, the police department's crime map reveals a city increasingly plagued by violence, theft and drug-related offences. Parents in neighbourhoods like Riversdale and Fairhaven tell me that they are afraid to let their children play outside. Small business owners report break-ins and vandalism at unprecedented levels.

The opioid crisis has also placed an enormous burden on our health care system. Emergency room visits for overdoses have skyrocketed, straining resources and diverting attention from other medical emergencies. First responders, already stretched thin, are now dealing with an epidemic of overdoses and drug-related violence. The emotional toll on these frontline workers is immense. It is an emotional toll that comes from the challenges of crime gripping our communities. This emotional toll reflects the consequences of a government more focused on rewarding insiders through the green slush fund than on ensuring the safety and well-being of Canadians.

Let me repeat the sad statistic of the green slush fund. The Auditor General found 186 cases where board members doled out $400 million with clear conflicts of interest. The Liberals were taking taxpayer money and giving it to their friends and each other. That is shameful.

An emotional toll is being paid by Canadians, who are suffering through the current government of the costly NDP-Liberal Prime Minister. The NDP-Liberals have wasted billions of dollars of Canadians' money on wasteful so-called green projects through Sustainable Development Technology Canada. The sad truth is that it is being funded through Canadians' carbon tax dollars.

All common-sense Canadians know that when we slap a massive carbon tax on the farmer, then on the transport truck bringing the food to grocery shelves and then on the grocery stores themselves, the price of food goes up. It is called inflation, and boy have Canadians suffered through inflation because of the carbon tax. It is simple: Canada is in crisis. Food Banks Canada's 2024 HungerCount report highlights this stark reality. In Saskatchewan, food bank usage has surged by 42% since 2019. Alarmingly, 23% of food bank users in the province are two-parent families and 18% are employed. It is a glaring sign that something is deeply wrong when hard-working Canadians cannot afford basic necessities.

This crisis is not limited to Saskatchewan; it is a nationwide issue. Since last year, business bankruptcies have climbed 16% while personal bankruptcies are up 14%. Do members know who is not starving? It is the NDP-Liberal insiders, who have funnelled millions of dollars of cash into their pockets from SDTC. That is who. Families and business alike are struggling under the weight of skyrocketing costs and failing policies. The Prime Minister's sunny ways of 2015 have turned into a storm of economic disaster, and it is clear that the government is not worth the cost.

That is why Conservatives have a plan to restore hope and opportunity. We will axe the tax to lower costs for families. We will build the homes that Canadians desperately need. We will fix the budget to end inflationary spending and we will stop the crime that threatens our communities. Canadians are ready for a change, and it is time for an election to bring it home. Conservatives are ready to fix what is broken and restore a brighter future for all.

Fixing the budget is part of the solution to increase public trust right here in Canada. Fixing the budget means respecting the demand of Parliament and finally releasing the documents about Sustainable Development Technology Canada, the so-called green slush fund. By releasing the documents to the RCMP, it can address the criminal aspects of this matter, because crime is crime. It does not matter if it is committed in the House by the government or on the street. Crime makes Canadians less secure. While crime rates surge across Canada, it is alarming that the government continues to block transparency around public funds, funnelling taxpayer dollars into dubious projects like this green slush fund instead of addressing public safety.

The Conservative Party offers a clear, common-sense plan to address the twin crises of drugs and crime. Our approach is rooted in three pillars: accountability, recovery and prevention.

First and foremost, we must restore accountability in our justice system. A Conservative government will repeal Bill C-75 and bring back mandatory minimum sentences for violent crimes. These measures will ensure that dangerous offenders are kept off the streets and that justice is served. We will also implement a jail-not-bail policy for repeat violent offenders. Canadians deserve to know that individuals who pose a threat to public safety will remain behind bars while awaiting trial. Restoring such accountability is one step toward a brighter future that must not only stop the crime, but also address the NDP-Liberal government's disregard for fiscal responsibility, epitomized by the green slush fund scandal, which diverted resources from public safety.

We will also prioritize recovery over enabling addiction. The current government's safe supply program has been an unmitigated disaster, with up to 90% of prescribed drugs being diverted to the black market. The Conservative government will end this program and redirect funding to treatment and recovery initiatives. We will expand access to detox and rehabilitation programs, working with provinces to increase the number of treatment beds and support recovery-oriented systems of care. Programs like the Saskatoon drug treatment court, which offers alternatives to incarceration for non-violent offenders struggling with addiction, are good examples to follow.

Finally, we will invest in prevention. This includes supporting law enforcement efforts to dismantle organized crime networks and reduce the supply of illegal drugs. It also means educating young Canadians about the dangers of drug use and providing at-risk communities with the resources they need to thrive. How can Canadians feel secure when their government prioritizes schemes like the green slush fund over investments in policing and justice reform?

The crisis of drugs and crime demand immediate and decisive action. Canadians are tired of living in fear. They are tired of a government that prioritizes ideology over safety, that experiments with their lives rather than protecting them. They are tired of a government that gives their hard-earned tax dollars to Liberal friends and insiders and covers it all up by refusing to release the documents to the RCMP.

The Conservative Party is ready to lead. We will end the failed policies of the past decade and implement a common-sense approach to crime that prioritizes safety, accountability and recovery. We will bring back mandatory jail time for violent offenders, end taxpayer-funded drug dens and invest in treatment and prevention programs that actually work.

It is time to bring it home. It is time to restore safety to our streets, hope to our communities and dignity to every Canadian. I urge my colleagues in the House to join us on this mission. Together, we can build a safer, stronger Canada.

RCMP Allegations of Foreign Interference by the Government of India

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, the news we heard last week from the RCMP was extremely concerning and must be taken seriously. I want to be very clear when it comes to this: Any foreign interference from any country, including India, is unacceptable and must be stopped.

Our government's first job is to ensure that Canadians stay safe and that their livelihoods are protected. No Canadian should feel unsafe living in our country or feel unsafe because they are getting foreign threats. We expect a full criminal prosecution of everyone who has threatened, murdered or otherwise harmed Canadian citizens.

As a country, we need to ensure that we do every single thing possible and necessary to protect Canadians, our democracy and our sovereignty. However, over the years, under the Liberal-NDP government and with the current Prime Minister in charge, we have seen a failure to protect Canadians. We have seen the government and the Prime Minister fail to protect our democracy and our sovereignty.

Back in 2015, while working in the previous Conservative government, it would have been unheard of for foreign governments not only to threaten Canadians and their lives but also to go after them and take their lives. That never happened before, under our Conservative government. However, the Prime Minister has allowed foreign interference to run rampant in our communities and our country. He has dragged his feet and made things worse by bringing in soft-on-crime laws. We have seen the bills the Liberals brought in, such as Bill C-75 and Bill C-5; these catch-and-release bail policies are soft on criminals and hard on victims. These laws send a signal to criminals in other countries that we do not take this stuff seriously in our country. It sends a signal that organized crime can run freely in our country and that the criminals have more rights than Canadians. The Liberal policies fostered this environment. The Prime Minister's inaction made Canada a playground for foreign interference.

We heard some troubling news from the RCMP last week that foreign agents from India used organized crime to create a perception of an unsafe environment targeting the South Asian community in Canada, predominantly the Sikh community. We heard accusations of extortion and murder on Canadian soil, as well as the use of organized crime, intimidation and coercion.

Conservatives have been calling for action on foreign interference and clamping down on organized crime and transnational criminals for some time now. I have stood up in the House multiple times during question period to ask questions of the government on what its plan is to fight extortion. We got nothing from the government; it has been no action and all talk.

The Prime Minister did not want to act, and what that has meant for Canadians is the loss of safety in our communities. Under his leadership, homicides are up 28%. The member for Mississauga—Malton mentioned comparing the records of the two governments. I am talking about the Liberals' record. Violent crime is up 50%. Violent gun crime is up 116%. Can members guess how much extortion has gone up? That is the same crime that was mentioned by the RCMP last week. It has gone up about 360%. That is not a small number. Something had to have changed for that to happen.

It is the Liberals' policies. It is Bill C-75, Bill C-5 and the Liberal government's approach to fighting organized crime. If tough laws were in place, it would send a signal to criminals that we are not going to tolerate this in our country. Not just folks in Canada but those across the world would get the idea that Canadians will fight against this kind of action.

I have heard directly from business owners and members in the South Asian community who have been victims of extortion. I have listened to the calls they received, which they shared with us. Those are scary calls. Imagine a business owner, a prominent member of a community or an activist who gets a call from someone threatening to shoot up their home, their business or their family. Listening to those calls gives a person a chill down their spine. The Liberals' policies have allowed this to happen.

We have learned from the RCMP that transnational gangs are being used by foreign agents from India, who are trying to cause fear in our communities and take the lives of Canadians. Many people are afraid to return home. They are afraid to carry on with their businesses and worried about carrying on with their lives.

Some have separated from their families, with some living in different parts of the country and some living in hotels. Many have had to hire security and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep their families safe. They come from a wide range of industries. Some are in the trucking business; some are in hospitality or are restaurant owners. We have heard of prominent Punjabi singers being targeted in B.C.

This is not just happening in one part of Canada. We have seen this right across our country, in B.C., in the GTA, in Winnipeg and in Edmonton. No one should feel unsafe in their communities. Canadians from all faiths, Sikh, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, should not feel unsafe living in our great country.

That is why our Conservative deputy leader brought forward a common-sense Conservative bill to take on extortion head-on. The bill would have made it harder for extortion to happen in Canada. It would have sent a signal to these international gangs that we mean business here in Canada. These are the same crimes the RCMP mentioned just last week. The bill would have established mandatory minimum penalties and stopped extortion from happening, yet the Liberal and NDP members voted against the bill, leaving more Canadians susceptible to foreign interference.

Earlier today, the member for Calgary Skyview, who brought forward the motion for this important debate, shared stories similar to the ones I have heard from families who have been separated from their loved ones because of extortion. Here is what I do not understand. When we travel across our country and meet groups, as we have had town halls and seen other groups host town halls, they are asking for concrete solutions. When our deputy leader put forward that solution, a tangible piece of legislation that would have helped prevent this crisis, the NDP and the Liberal Party voted against it.

They voted against tangible solutions to the problems, and I know members hear about it in their communities. We have held dozens of town halls in the South Asian community where we have spoken to and heard concerns of those affected by extortion. They do not want symbolic gestures; they want real action. Our bill had real solutions. Those parties voted against it.

We have also seen the Liberals dragging their feet on this issue and not taking foreign interference seriously. The government was repeatedly warned about foreign interference within its own party, the Liberal Party, but refused to act. I wonder why. It is the Prime Minister and members of his government who repeatedly claim they just were not aware of foreign interference that was happening right under their noses, despite a paper trail of warnings from officials.

With Conservatives it is less talk and more action. Conservatives brought forward a foreign agent registry bill that, almost four years ago, was blocked by the Liberals and the NDP. The measures would have been useful as a tool to help keep our communities and the South Asian community safe. Despite multiple warnings, however, the Liberals continue to claim ignorance. The record shows otherwise, including mysterious delays of 54 days that we saw on a CSIS surveillance warrant for a Liberal power broker.

It is happening under their noses, yet they are not taking action. They plead ignorance. The ministers say they do not know anything about this. The Prime Minister makes excuses. We saw even former staffers who gave absolutely no answers to the commission. We heard in the Hogue commission that this is not a new problem affecting Canada. This has been happening for years under the current government.

The red flags have gone up, lots of red flags, but again, there is no action from the government. It makes no sense. We have seen flag after flag, leaks in the media, yet no action from the government.

If we look at the U.S., which has seen a similar situation unfold, within weeks it was able to arrest those involved, move forward with indictments and hold them accountable. Our government has not been able to do that. It has not been able to stop these attacks on our sovereignty. It has not been able to save the lives of Canadians. This is a serious matter. Canadians' lives are at risk, and the Liberals are in charge of keeping Canadians safe; it is their job.

At every single juncture, we have the Prime Minister and members of the government, backed by their coalition partners, who put pension and party before country, not acting on the information they have had. It is beyond rich for the Prime Minister to grandstand, given his government's record of not taking foreign interference seriously. Even with all the benefits he has from the government and agencies, and all the information he has from our great security services, he failed to act.

Conservatives are the only ones who have taken this foreign interference crisis seriously. The NDP members can laugh all they want, but they have been in bed with the government for nine years. If they cared so much about this, why did they not include it in the supply and confidence agreement? Why did they not make it a core pillar of their agreement? They do not care. They make it up on the fly.

Canadians deserve transparency. The Prime Minister must release the names of all members, from all the parties, who are collaborating with foreign entities, but he will not. The Prime Minister is doing what he always does. He is trying to distract us from the truth. He is trying to cover up a Liberal caucus revolt, which we are seeing. We saw four ministers recently announce they will not be running under his leadership again, because they continue to fail to make the lives of Canadians better. If the Prime Minister has evidence of challenges, he should bring it up to the public, because this is a public safety concern.

Conservatives are committed to protecting our democracy and our sovereignty from foreign interference. The Prime Minister must be held accountable for his government's failure to act, and we call on him to release all the names of MPs involved in foreign interference, to restore transparency and to defend the interests of all Canadians.

While some may try to divide our communities, try to stoke fear and hate, or spread disinformation to pit our communities against one another, it is important that we stand united as Canadians in protecting the integrity of our democracy. Our country depends on it.

Public Safety

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents. I rise for the 49th time on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime.

The community of Swan River is alarmed by the extreme levels of crime caused by the Liberal government's soft-on-crime laws, like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. Bill C-75 allows violent offenders to be in jail in the morning and back in our communities in the evening. Bill C-5 allows criminals to serve their sentences from home.

It is no surprise that after nine years of the Liberal government Statistics Canada reports that violent crime has risen by 50%. The people of Swan River see crime in their streets every day. That is why they are calling for jail, not bail, for violent repeat offenders.

The people of Swan River demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies that directly threaten their livelihoods and their community. I support the good people of Swan River.

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

Mr. Speaker, during an interview this morning, the Montreal police chief clearly said that to solve Montreal's problems, he would need the laws and regulations to make it possible.

For the past nine years, all the government has done is pass bills like Bill C‑5, Bill C‑75, and Bill C‑83.

These laws have left criminals free to roam the streets of Montreal and all the other communities in Canada. They have no fear of the justice system or the police. Will the government listen to the Montreal police chief? Will it change the laws back to what they were when the Conservatives held power?

Online Harms Act

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the people of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry in our part of eastern Ontario. In this case it is to contribute to the debate going on today on Bill C-63, known to many Canadians, through the media or the debate on the bill, as the online harms bill.

I want to take the time I have today to lay out a case to Canadians that I think is getting clearer by the month and the year. After nine years of the NDP and the Liberals in office, crime is up significantly in this country. It is their record and it is their actions, or in some cases inactions, that have undone what was successful in keeping our streets safe.

When we looked at the metrics by Stats Canada before the Liberals came into office, we see that crime was decreasing across the country. After nine years of their legislation, their bills, their ideas and their policy proposals, here is what Stats Canada says is the record of the Prime Minister, the NDP and the Liberals working together: Violent crime has increased 50% in this country. Homicides are not down; they are up 28%. Sexual assaults are up by 75%, and gang murders have nearly doubled in this country over the course of the last nine years. A crime wave has been unleashed across this country.

I make the case. Sadly, now there is not one part of this country, a province or a region, that has not heard the stories in local media or by word of mouth in communities of crime going up: violent crime, robberies, theft and car theft. Auto theft is up 46%. The justice minister's own car in fact has been stolen three times. That is how bad crime has gotten under the Liberals' watch.

Extortion has exploded in this country under the Liberals' watch. It is up 357%. This side of the aisle, through our deputy leader from Edmonton, the member for Edmonton Mill Woods, proposed a private member's bill that would crack down and toughen up on Canadians who try to extort others. I would suggest that when there is a 357% increase, the status quo of whatever the Liberals are doing is not working. We proposed a common-sense private member's bill from this side of the aisle that was voted down, only to continue the status quo by the Liberals and NDP.

Recently, through our work in asking questions, we finally got some answers. The Liberal government was forced to admit that 256 people were killed in 2022 alone by criminals out on bail or another form of release. It is unacceptable and speaks to the many broken policies that the government has implemented in the last nine years. It is not by accident.

The province of Ontario paints a picture when it comes to the Liberals' public safety record. In Ontario, the total number of violent Criminal Code violations is up 51% to 164,723. Homicides in Ontario are up 50% to 262. Total violent firearms offences, for all the action the Liberals have claimed to have taken, and I will get to that in a bit, is up to 1,346. That is a 97% increase in violent firearms offences in Ontario alone. Extortion is up 383% in Ontario, at just under 4,000 cases.

Theft of a motor vehicle has gone up. When the Liberals came in, there were 16,600 vehicle thefts in Ontario. It has exploded 167%. Now, under their watch with their soft-on-crime approach, including Bill C-5, Bill C-75 and so forth, it is up to 44,459 thefts of a motor vehicle.

That is the Liberals' record. Bill C-75 was passed and implemented by the Liberals and the NDP, who implemented catch-and-release bail policies. Despite the legislation demanded by Conservatives and by every premier in this country, it did not go far enough, and Bill C-75 is still wreaking havoc on our law enforcement and on public safety in this country.

Bill C-5 passed, again by the Liberals and the NDP and supported by the Bloc in that case, I specifically remember as well. When it started to be implemented and Canadians saw the wacko examples of criminals of a violent, repeat nature being arrested and back out on the streets, the Bloc members tried to pretend they were not for it anymore, but they voted for Bill C-5. That bill removed mandatory minimum sentences for major crimes, ensuring again that violent criminals are out on the streets.

After all those numbers I took the time to lay out, that is the Liberals' record. They cannot go back and blame anybody else, but for the last nine years that the Liberals have been in office, it has been their government legislation that has allowed the crime wave to be unleashed across Canada, and here we have a justice minister who is touting how great the Liberals' latest solution is with Bill C-63.

Rightfully, Canadians have major distrust in the current government. Its record on public safety speaks for itself by the numbers and the examples that people are living and breathing. However, it was the current justice minister, on his first days on the job, who did a media interview and said he thought it was empirically unlikely Canada is becoming less safe. He said it is in people's minds; it is in their heads and is not really a problem. People are just envisioning that.

That just goes to show the mindset and perspective when it comes to public safety, to protecting our streets and getting the violent crime wave down in this country. That is the perspective: It is just all in our heads and there is nothing to think about.

I have mentioned Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. The debate today is actually timely because it was just last week that we got an updated answer. Four years ago, the Prime Minister did a big stunt of a photo op and an announcement that he was going to ban assault rifles; he was going to clamp down and resolve all of this by way of the Liberals' legislation and their will. Well, the numbers are out. Four years later, after saying that, zero firearms from criminals are off our streets, and the only winner in this is the bureaucracy.

Sixty-seven million dollars of taxpayer money has been spent on a program that is not even running, not even active and has taken precisely zero firearms from criminals and gang members off our streets in this country. That is the Liberals' record. Worst of all is that we know what the Liberals are proposing to do and the reason there are all the delays. They are rightfully being called out that it will not affect the gang members and those involved in criminal enterprises who are committing the car thefts, violent crimes and firearms offences in big cities, suburbs and rural communities alike. They are not going to be participating in this terrible program, this costly, useless program, frankly.

The Liberals are targeting law-abiding firearm owners, hunters, sport shooters and indigenous communities that follow the law and have never been a public safety issue. They are going to be the ones paying the price on this, and it is taxpayer money, $67 million alone, going out.

One of the things I have said to many folks in our part of eastern Ontario and in my travels across the country is that there are not too many prerequisites to becoming a member of Parliament and sitting in the chamber. Members are democratically elected, which is obviously the right way to go. However, I feel if there were a little asterisk of what every member of Parliament must do before debating or voting on public safety legislation such as this, it would be that the member should do a ride-along with the frontline law enforcement in this country.

We are very blessed in Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry to have the OPP, the Cornwall community police, a force in Akwesasne and the RCMP. One of the most rewarding events or annual visits I make is to those detachments, getting in a vehicle with a frontline law enforcement member and seeing first-hand and on the front lines what they have to go through day in and day out.

Officers are extremely frustrated after nine years of a soft-on-crime approach, a broken justice system, a broken bail system and a Liberal government that continues to make life easier for those criminals of a repeat violent nature, which takes valuable police resources and time away from important things. Instead, they are repeatedly arresting and re-arresting many of the same folks despite being out on bail.

I raise that today because under the Liberals watch and the broken bail system, where repeat violent offenders are back out on the streets within about 24 hours, on average, police are being redirected and dealing with the same percentage. The Vancouver Police Department said that in one year there were 6,000 police interactions, many of them arrests of the same 40 or 50 people. This means that every other day there was an interaction, an arrest, a bail hearing and back out on the street. That is a waste of police resources.

How much longer will it take? How many more calls from the Conservatives, premiers and law enforcement agencies will it take to fix our broken bail system? Instead, today, when we talk about the broad terms of protecting folk online, protecting children, or cracking down on Internet child pornography as the bill states, the basis of this legislation is admitting failure on the part of the government.

Our court system and existing law enforcement resources are so overloaded with the increase in crime, the broken justice system and the broken bail system, that now the government is proposing a brand new federal bureaucracy, with hundreds and hundreds of federal bureaucrats, to administer what it says cannot be done through existing means.

If we were able to go back to common sense, the way it was before the Prime Minister and the government came into office, we could revert and allow law enforcement and, in many cases, our existing laws to be enforced and protect Canadians, protect children, families, victims of child pornography, victims of all ages, and clamp down on the rising hate crime numbers happening under the government's watch.

I correlate it again to the government's record. We had legislation a couple of years ago passed under its watch, Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act, which I basically called a censorship act, where the government would hire hundreds of new bureaucrats at the CRTC to watch and regulate the algorithms of Internet searches in Canada. At that time, the Liberals said not to worry, that it was not that big of a deal, that it would not cost that much. It is getting very expensive, and they are just getting started in the cost of the bureaucracy.

I am proud of our common-sense Conservative team on this side. Very early on, when the government came forward with Bill C-63, we asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer to look at what the cost of this proposal would be, an independent look to understand the true cost to administer the government's proposal. A little while ago the analysis came forward. Posted on the website, the Parliamentary Budget Officer found that would cost a staggering $200 million to establish, the government's own data provided to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, 330 new bureaucrats and a brand new bureaucracy to administer this. When does this madness stop?

The Liberals keep adding new bureaucracies, new commissions and new layers, but they do not tackle the problem we have in our existing justice system and law enforcement community. Whether it be the RCMP, a provincial force or local municipal force, they are stretched thin because of the broken policies that the government has implemented. Now its proposal is to separate all that into a new bureaucracy. Worst of all, when asked, there is no time frame. A lot of the regulations and details of what it is proposing will be dealt with later, of course, behind closed doors. A lack of transparency and details, that is what the Liberals are providing to Canadians.

We know how Ottawa works. We know how the Liberals work with the NDP. They make a great, big announcement of how wonderful the legislation would be and that it would solve every problem possible. They never follow through, it is never done cost-effectively and it is delay after delay, and more and more frustration and backlog. We will see the exact same thing when it comes to the new bureaucracy proposed under Bill C-63. For context, if we took the $200 million and invested in frontline law enforcement, if we hired more police officers, we could hire over 200 more per year to work the front lines each and every year.

I want to thank the member for Calgary Nose Hill, who has been on the file of protecting women, children and all Canadians and victims of child pornography, of exposing intimate images and, in many cases, new emerging technologies of deepfakes and AI. We need to realize that this legislation is inadequate for many reasons. She, our shadow minister for justice and the Attorney General of Canada, and many other colleagues with a law enforcement background in the legal community have spoken up against the bill.

As Conservatives, we have said that, as always, the Liberals get it wrong again. They claim that we should pass this, get it to committee and just be fine with it, because for four years they have consulted experts in the field. They have tabled legislation before that they had to pull because they got it wrong. There are still many voices in the country speaking up against the bill in its current form and what it would do on the infringement of free speech. The Liberals are making decisions through regulation, through back-channel means and behind closed doors, putting the power in the hands of way too many people who do not deserve it, for example, Meta, Facebook, other tech companies that have these massive lobbying efforts they can use to pressure this new bureaucracy.

Instead, our common-sense Conservative private member's bill, Bill C-412, would enforce the existing laws in the country when it comes to hate crimes. The laws are there, but the government lacks the political will use those tools. If we are going to modernize legislation, which it does need at times, we could go after AI and deepfakes, which is not even addressed in Bill C-63.

The Liberals, like they have with Bill C-5, Bill C-75 and now with Bill C-63, talk a big game. We can look at other legislation such as their firearms confiscation program of law-abiding hunters and anglers who own firearms and so many other pieces of legislation. We can look at the Liberals' own numbers. The longer they are in office, the more they spend and the worse it gets from a financial situation, but, most important, from a public safety perspective.

Bill C-63 does not need to be as omnibus as it is. For the number of years the Liberals claim they consulted experts, they have gotten it wrong again. It is time to bring forward not this bill, but the common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-412.

Let us get to the root causes, protect children, women and all Canadians from the abuse and hate and violence seen online through child pornography and other means. Let us trust our law enforcement on the front lines, with the tools and resources, to get that job done. They do not need a new bureaucracy or to be thrown aside. Law enforcement needs to be empowered with good legislation and support from this federal government, not the record we have seen after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government.

Military Justice System Modernization Act

[Don Stewart, Conservative, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal soft-on-crime bill, Bill C-5, would allow criminals convicted of sexual assault to serve their sentence at home in front of a television. Does the member believe survivors of military sexual trauma should have to endure their attacker serving out their sentence in the comfort of their house right down the street?

Motions in Amendment

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to speak in support of Bill C-40, an act to amend the Criminal Code. This miscarriage of justice bill represents a critical step in our ongoing efforts to reform the criminal justice system and to address the systemic inequities that have long plagued it, particularly for indigenous people, racialized communities and marginalized Canadians.

For the better part of a decade, the New Democrats have called for the establishment of an independent commission to investigate wrongful convictions. In late 2021, we supported expediting Bill C-5 in return for the Liberals' promise to create this commission, which Bill C-40 finally delivers on. Justice delayed is justice denied, so we must act swiftly to ensure that those who are wrongfully convicted have a pathway to justice free from the delays and limitations of the current system.

The current process, where the Minister of Justice reviews applications for miscarriages of justice, has proven inadequate. Each year, dozens of applications are filed, yet only a handful proceed to investigation. Bill C-40 would address this by shifting the review power to an independent miscarriage of justice review commission, which would have the authority to direct new trials or hearings, or refer matters to a court of appeal. This independent body would not be an alternative to the criminal justice system, but an essential adjunct that would create a fair and impartial review process.

The commission would consist of a chief commissioner and four to eight other commissioners appointed to reflect the diversity of Canadian society, considering gender equality and the overrepresentation of indigenous and Black persons in the criminal justice system. This diverse composition is crucial for building a commission that understands the unique challenges faced by marginalized communities.

Indigenous women in particular have disproportionately suffered miscarriages of justice. They are often charged, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned due to systemic failures within the criminal justice system and the broader societal failure to protect them from racism, sexism and violence. According to the Senate report on the injustices experienced by indigenous women, expert witnesses have repeatedly highlighted these systemic issues. Bill C-40 is a necessary step toward addressing these deeply rooted injustices.

New Democrats worked tirelessly to improve Bill C-40 at the committee stage. We supported amendments that would ensure applicants can apply to the commission without having to receive a verdict from a court of appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada. This would remove a significant barrier for those who are wrongfully convicted but lacking the resources to continue lengthy legal battles. We also proposed amendments to empower the commission to make recommendations addressing systemic issues that lead to miscarriages of justice. This proactive approach can help prevent future injustices. Additionally, we ensured that Correctional Service Canada and the Parole Board of Canada would be informed of the importance of not obstructing applicants from accessing programs and services due to their review applications.

It is important to note that the last significant reform to Canada's conviction review process was in 2002. Since then, we have seen the establishment of similar independent commissions in the U.K. and New Zealand, demonstrating the efficacy of such bodies in addressing wrongful convictions. Canada must follow suit and ensure timely justice for those who are wrongly convicted.

Bill C-40 has received support from various stakeholders, including the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, the University of British Columbia's innocence project, and Innocence Canada. These organizations, along with experts like Dr. Kathryn Campbell from the University of Ottawa, have been instrumental in advocating for this crucial reform.

While we commend the Liberals for bringing this bill forward, it is long overdue. The delays in tabling and debating this bill are unjustifiable, particularly given the urgency of addressing wrongful convictions. Many individuals continue to serve lengthy sentences due to miscarriages of justice, and every day of delay is a day too long for them.

The Conservatives have obstructed this process at every turn with filibusters and threats of further delays. We urge all parties to put aside partisan differences and work together to ensure the swift passage of Bill C-40. Time is of the essence, and we must ensure that this bill receives royal assent before the summer parliamentary recess.

Bill C-40 offers a long overdue pathway for those wrongfully convicted to seek justice. It represents a significant step in addressing the historic and systematic injustices within our criminal justice system. New Democrats are in support of this bill and call on all members of the House to do the same. Let us move forward with a shared commitment to justice, equity and the rule of law.

Public Safety

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents.

I rise for the 41st time on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime. They live in crime and chaos caused by the Liberal government's soft-on-crime laws, like Bill C-5, which allows criminals to serve their sentences at home. In fact, Manitoba West District RCMP reported that in 18 months, just 15 individuals racked up over 200 charges. The people of Swan River are asking for jail, not bail, when it comes to violent repeat offenders.

The people of Swan River demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies that directly threaten their livelihoods and their community. I support the good people of Swan River.

Report Stage

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise tonight to speak to Bill C-20, which is an act that would establish the public complaints and review commission. It would essentially replace the existing Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP by creating an external body and then combining it with the Canada Border Services Agency, which at the moment does not have an independent review system at all. The bill would create a new review commission for both of those organizations. It would have certain rules, tools and procedures to deal with the issues that would typically come up in a review body.

There are many different things that can come up. For example, just a few years ago in Saskatchewan, there was a terrible, tragic incident on the James Smith Cree Nation, where Myles Sanderson murdered 11 people on that reserve just north of Saskatoon. A coroner's inquest was held, which, in the future, could be done by a commission like the one we are talking about tonight. In this case, it was done by a provincial coroner's inquest. The inquest was completed in January of this year, and I want to highlight a couple of the things it found.

For example, one of the findings was that the RCMP gives patrol officers access to the most current photos of people. In addition, the enforcement and suppression team provides a list of its 60 most-wanted targets to all Saskatchewan RCMP detachments. When a most-wanted person is affiliated with or is a member of a first nation, RCMP detachment commanders work with the first nation's leadership to advise them of the individual's wanted status. That is an example of the kinds of findings and outcomes that could come from a commission like the PCRC. This is important and useful work that is done when there are complaints.

One of the interesting things in that particular incident was that the perpetrator, Myles Sanderson, had a history of violent offences and had been recently released on parole, despite the prediction by the parole board that he was likely to reoffend regardless of his racial background. This is really important because a lot of the work that commissions like the proposed one end up doing comes from a lot of the crime that is happening, obviously. The tragedy that occurred because of someone who was released on parole but maybe should not have been is an example of the soft-on-crime Liberal policies that we are seeing in Canada these days.

In 2021, the Liberal government introduced Bill C-5, which essentially removed mandatory minimum sentences from all Criminal Code offences committed with a firearm, such as robbery, assault, break and enter and extortion, as well as drug crimes such as trafficking, production and selling. In addition, Bill C-5 replaced prison sentences with conditional sentences, which is house arrest, for crimes like sexual assault, kidnapping, arson for fraudulent purposes, assault causing bodily harm with a weapon and assaulting a peace officer causing bodily harm or with a weapon. Those are just some examples of types of offences for which prison was removed and conditional sentencing, or house arrest, was granted.

In 2018, Bill C-75 was introduced by the Liberal government. Essentially, it made it much harder to put someone in jail and, conversely, much easier to get out. That is the essence of Bill C-75. The problem with that, and what leads to much of the crime we are seeing, is that it takes away the consequences in many cases for criminals, so they lose their fear of punishment. I will give an example. Imagine a youth who is struggling and is a little down on his luck. We could talk about how the government has made life so expensive with its reckless spending that has caused inflation and its carbon tax that has caused grocery prices to get more expensive, but that is another conversation.

Imagine this youth who is struggling to put food on the table. He may live with five or more other people in a two-bedroom apartment. Again, the policies of the government have caused housing to be so expensive. Now imagine that a gang member or somebody in a criminal organization asks him if he wants to make $500 by stealing a car, and tells him he will never go to go to jail and that the worst case scenario is that he will get arrested and be released back into the community, but that there are really no consequences.

What is that youth going to do? There is a good chance they are going to take the opportunity because they need the money. This is a problem in our culture today, that the consequences of their actions, the punishment for doing crimes, has been lessened so much that it becomes a viable option for a person like the one in the example I have given. What do we see in our country? We see that violent crime is up. Since 2015, when house arrest, which I mentioned in the examples I gave, was brought in, violent crimes are up 32% nationally.

Now, just to focus in on Saskatoon a little, in 2023 there were 12 murders in Saskatoon, 10 of which, by the way, were in the riding I represent, Saskatoon West, where I live and work. I have lived there for a period of time, and I have experienced many of the things that people experience on the west side of Saskatoon, including having my bike stolen, having to deal with people outside my home and things like that. These are things that we get used to and put up with.

As I said, in 2023 there were 12 murders in total in Saskatoon. So far this year, up to the end of May, there have been 10 murders, all of them in the riding I represent. I will look at a few other numbers on arrests, and this is quite concerning. In Saskatoon in the first five months of this year, there have been 830 assaults, versus 742 all last year. Sexual assaults so far this year are at 120, versus 84 all last year. Weapons charges are at 250, versus 256 all last year. Abductions so far are at 17, versus 14 all last year. Robberies are at 147, versus 131 all last year. Break and enters are at 500 so far, versus 600 all last year. Vehicles broken into or stolen so far this year are at 1,000, versus 1,200 last year.

We are not bad people on the west side of Saskatoon, far from it, and it is not a bad place to live. It is a beautiful area. There are lots of nice houses and lots of nice neighbourhoods. However, because of the soft-on-crime policies that we are seeing from the government—

Public Safety

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to the table two petitions on behalf of my constituents in New Brunswick Southwest.

The first petition is concerning the rising rate of crime in rural communities. The petitioners no longer feel safe in their communities because of the soft-on-crime laws passed by the Liberal-NDP government. They note that Bill C-75 made it easier for repeat violent offenders to obtain bail, Bill C-5 removed mandatory prison time for serious gun, drugs and sex crimes, and Bill C-21 redirects valuable police resources away from our streets and toward too much back-office work.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to protect victims of crime by giving jail, not bail, to repeat dangerous offenders and to bring home safe streets for rural communities by immediately passing the Conservative reforms found in Bill C-325.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

I am honoured to rise in the House and add the voice of the people of Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte to today's debate. I want to take a moment to go over the unfortunate state of this country's finances after nine years of deficit budgets and how the Liberal government's inflationary policies are affecting families in my community.

Under the Liberal government, mortgage payments have doubled, down payments have doubled, rents have doubled, the cost of gas, groceries and home heating has skyrocketed and people cannot afford to eat, heat or house themselves. The Prime Minister said repeatedly that doubling the national debt would have zero consequences and the budget would balance itself. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister did not have the foresight to realize that doubling the national debt would drive up interest rates to historic modern highs, and now the government will spend over $54 billion in interest on the national debt. That is more than the government is spending on provincial health care transfers.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer, in his latest report, stated that budget 2024 marks the third consecutive fiscal plan in which the government's new measures, even after accounting for revenue-raising and spending reviews, have exceeded the incremental “fiscal room” resulting from economic and fiscal developments.

Conservatives had three simple demands leading up to this year's budget. We committed that if the Liberal government introduced measures to immediately pass Bill C-234 in its original form, require cities to permit 15% more homebuilding each year as a condition for receiving federal infrastructure money, and cap spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down interest rates and inflation, we would give our support to the budget. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister and the finance minister ignored our pleas for a balanced budget, lower taxes and more homes for Canadians, and decided to add more than $60 billion in new spending that will keep inflation and interest rates higher than Canadians can afford. That means higher taxes, higher inflation, higher interest rates, higher rents and higher mortgage payments.

I would like to spend some time discussing three central issues that I hear often from members of my community: the high cost of housing, the carbon tax and public safety.

First, one of the top concerns for residents in my community is housing affordability. In my riding, the cost of housing has skyrocketed under the Liberal government. Residents in my riding are now forced to spend almost $2,000 a month on a one-bedroom apartment. The only solution to this crisis is for the Liberals to build more homes. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister told Canadians directly that housing is not a federal responsibility, and bureaucrats in his own housing department have confirmed that the government has no plans to bring down housing costs by building the homes that Canadians need.

According to Statistics Canada, between January 1 and November 30, 2023, Canada built 17,000 fewer homes than in the previous year. Instead of taking real action to address this issue, the Liberal government is concerned with photo ops and ribbon cuttings. The numbers do not lie. The government has failed an entire generation of Canadians who fear that they will never be able to own a home.

I see the crisis surrounding interest rates playing out in my community. I receive calls and emails constantly from residents whose mortgage rates have doubled. Recently, a retiree in my riding saw their mortgage jump from $1,100 a month to $2,600 in less than a year. It has not always been like this in Canada. Nine years ago, the average down payment on a home was approximately $20,000. Now the massive cost of even a modest home in my community is forcing residents to save for longer and longer. It now takes 25 years to save up for the cost of a down payment, and the needed down payment for a home has doubled.

Roughly 64% of the average pre-tax monthly income is needed to pay the monthly costs associated with housing. This crisis has made the dream of home ownership impossible for all but the wealthiest few. In fact, 76% of Canadians who do not own homes believe they never will. The Liberal government had nine years to address this issue. The housing crisis is a policy and leadership failure from the Liberal government.

I will go on to an issue that is directly affecting families and farmers in my community: the carbon tax. Just a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister hiked his punishing carbon tax by 23% as part of his plan to quadruple the carbon tax over the next six years. The Parliamentary Budget Officer told members of this House that Canadians would be better off without the carbon tax, saying that they would experience higher income growth while the price of food would come down, but the Liberal government went ahead with its tax anyway.

To illustrate the impact this tax is having on the lives of Canadians, I want to share some of the correspondence I have received from people living in my community. I have a bill here from a family of six in my riding that is paying $142 a month plus HST in carbon tax on their home heating bill.

I have another Enbridge bill from a Barrie resident where the carbon tax makes up 33% of the total bill when the HST is factored in. This resident bought a programmable thermostat that automatically turns down the temperature in her home to 15°C from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. She believes that she is doing all she can do lower her gas bill, but she still feels punished by this costly carbon tax.

I hear this government boast often about the rural top-up of the carbon rebate. Meanwhile, we know that the calculations it made on who qualifies as a rural Canadian are deeply flawed. Residents in my riding who live in rural places like Anten Mills, Elmvale, Hillsdale, Midhurst, Minesing, Phelpston, and Snow Valley are deemed to be living in urban areas, according to the Liberal government's rural top-up formula. Budget 2024 finally says that the government will look to better define rural areas, but it only commits to putting forward a proposal to do so later in the year. This is unacceptable for residents in my riding who are forced to pay more in carbon tax, and it is proof of why we simply need to axe the tax for everyone, forever.

I will move on to how this tax is affecting the hard-working farmers in my riding. I am proud to represent a riding with a large, vibrant agricultural industry. I was recently sent an Enbridge bill for almost $10,000 from a farmer in my riding who runs a poultry operation. Their bill shows a carbon tax charge of $2,700 on the cost of fuel to dry grain corn. Shockingly, the carbon tax is more than the value of the gas before delivery and global adjustment. The Prime Minister just does not understand that if we tax the farmer who grows the food and the trucker who ships the food, we end up taxing the food that a family buys.

Finally, I will spend some time discussing the crime and chaos that the Prime Minister has unleashed, which is deeply affecting members of my community.

Small businesses bring life and a sense of community to our downtowns and neighbourhoods, yet they are sounding the alarm about the impacts of crime on their livelihoods. These businesses, including in my community, face significant challenges related to vandalism, theft, loitering, and public intoxication.

In my riding, a beloved Italian restaurant named Limoncello Bistro was recently broken into for the sixth time. Thieves who recently broke into Limoncello Bistro stole everything from the restaurant, even the meat and seafood. These repeated break-ins have cost the owners thousands and thousands of dollars. One of the owners of Limoncello Bistro has stated, “I find it hard to swallow that I have to pick up and leave a place where 5 short years ago this wasn't as bad as it is today. We fell in love with downtown Barrie. The waterfront, the community and the people. We as business owners shouldn't have to leave because criminals are putting us out of business.”

I agree. Small businesses like Limoncello Bistro are on the front lines of the Canadian public safety crisis, and we urgently need to address this issue of skyrocketing crime rates. We know that the Liberal government caused this problem with its soft-on-crime laws: Bill C-5 and Bill C-75.

Another issue that is directly affecting small businesses in my community is the Liberal government's nonsensical attack on law-abiding hunters, farmers, and sport shooters. The budget proposes to spend $30.4 million on a hunting rifle buyback plan that does not exist. This is on top of the $42 million it has already committed. Members can think about that. The Liberal government will now spend $72.4 million to buy exactly zero guns from owners and businesses. Not one gun has been bought back after spending $72.4 million.

I recently received an email from a small business owner in my riding. He is a responsible business owner who gives back to the community and is facing devastating financial losses because of this failed policy. He is now struggling to pay for his everyday expenses. He has over 40 firearms, worth almost $50,000, sitting in safes that cannot be sold but must be insured and housed in a secure rental space, while the Liberal government forces him to pay GST on them. The owner of this business says that this government is “clearly bent on just winning political points and not truly caring about the safety of the general public surrounding firearms and criminals who use them.” I agree with him. While the Prime Minister wants to protect turkeys from hunters, common-sense Conservatives want to protect Canadians from criminals.

The only way to reverse the damage the Liberal government has caused is by reversing course and doing the opposite. Canadians want change. They want lower taxes, lower mortgage rates, lower grocery bills and safer communities. Most of all, they want a change in government. The Conservative promise is simple: no gimmicks, no half measures. We will axe the tax, build more homes, fix the budget, stop the crime and bring home affordability for all Canadians.

I will be voting alongside my Conservative colleagues against the budget, and we will be voting no confidence in this costly NDP-Liberal coalition.

Public Safety

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents.

I rise for the 33rd time on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime. The community of Swan River is overwhelmed with alarming levels of crime because of the Liberal government's soft-on-crime laws, such as Bill C-5 and Bill C-75.

Jail has become a revolving door for repeat offenders. With Bill C-75, violent offenders could be in jail in the morning and back on the street the same day. With Bill C-5, criminals could serve their sentences from home.

The people of Swan River are calling for jail, not bail, for violent repeat offenders. They demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies, which directly threaten their livelihoods and their community. I support the good people of Swan River.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents.

I rise for the 31st time on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime. The community of Swan River is consumed with unprecedented levels of crime because of the government's soft-on-crime laws, like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. Bill C-5 allows criminals to serve their sentences from home, and Bill C-75 allows violent offenders to be in jail in the morning and back out on the street in the afternoon. The people of Swan River are calling for jail, not bail, for violent repeat offenders.

The people of Swan River demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies that directly threaten their livelihoods and their community. I support the good people of Swan River.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, here are the actual facts: Bill C-5 keeps mandatory prison sentences. They were already in place, put there by the previous Conservative government; they were not created by Bill C-5. What Bill C-5 did was bring in house arrest for career car thieves, so they could watch Netflix or perhaps play Grand Theft Auto in their living room and then go out onto the street and steal another car whenever they want.

Will the Prime Minister follow my common-sense plan to end house arrest for career car thieves?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition likes to make base political accusations. He likes to talk about Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 as the reason there is auto theft in this country. The reality is that Bill C-5 is the bill that keeps mandatory minimum penalties for car theft on the books, and Bill C-75 is the bill that raises the maximum penalty on car theft.

We have continued to step up in terms of keeping Canadians safe. We will continue to invest in the CBSA and in the resources necessary to counter these challenges. We will keep working based on facts and evidence.

Opposition Motion—Auto Theft

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

Imagine someone waking up in their home, their castle, where they should feel safe at all times, pouring their morning cup of coffee and looking out the window at their driveway, only to realize that their prize possession, their family vehicle that was parked there the night before, is now gone. After eight years of the Prime Minister, this has become a situation all too common for Canadians.

We have heard other stories of victims being robbed in parking lots and in front of their homes, some held at gunpoint in broad daylight. We will remember the story of Toronto Maple Leafs' Mitch Marner being held at gunpoint while his vehicle was stolen. Others have had criminals break into their homes searching for the keys to their vehicles.

According to the Insurance Bureau of Canada, on average, more than 200 vehicles are stolen every day, meaning that a car is stolen almost every six minutes in Canada. I cannot do the quick math, but members can imagine the number of vehicles stolen since the start of this debate. During my 10 minutes of debate and five minutes of questions and comments, another three vehicles will have been stolen. This is the result of the failed approach of the Prime Minister's soft-on-crime agenda.

How did we get here? We got here due to a number of important decisions made by the Prime Minister and his government, starting with Bill C-75, which allowed repeat offenders to get bail, often within hours of their initial arrest, and reoffend multiple times, sometimes on the same day, leaving police powerless to stop car thieves. Then, after criminals are convicted, the Prime Minister's reckless Bill C-5 allows them to serve their sentences in the comfort of their own homes. We all know that those who serve conditional sentences are not monitored on a regular basis, so repeat car theft offenders, while serving their sentences at home, are out on the streets creating more havoc and stealing more cars.

I have said many times in the House that criminals in this country are laughing at the government. They love the soft-on-crime approach. We all know Canada is now a haven for car thieves, for organized crime to thrive, for money laundering and human trafficking. That is the legacy the Prime Minister is leaving for Canadians.

After eight years of his soft-on-crime policies, the Prime Minister has created an auto theft crisis in Canada. Auto theft in the GTA alone is up 300% since he took office. Additionally, statistics tell us that, since he formed government, auto theft is up 190% in Moncton, 122% in Ottawa-Gatineau, over 106% in Montreal and over 60% in Winnipeg.

It is the responsibility of the federal government to reduce auto theft as the primary prevention tools, including the Criminal Code, the RCMP, the CBSA and our port systems, are all under the federal government's jurisdiction. However, as a result of the mismanagement of these prevention tools, organized crime has taken over our ports, turning them into parking lots for stolen vehicles, which are then shipped overseas.

The port of Montreal, a major hub for stolen vehicles to be shipped out of Canada, only has five CBSA agents to inspect the over 580,000 containers that leave the port each year. According to Le Journal de Montréal, one law enforcement agent said the CBSA has no resources to check containers and they check less than 1%, making it clear that the increase in auto theft is directly related to Liberal mismanagement. It is costing Canadians far too much.

In places such as Ontario, insurance companies are set to increase premiums by 25% this year. As reported by Équité, it is estimated that $1 billion in vehicle theft claims were paid out in the year 2022 alone, and these costs are being passed down to drivers.

What is the Liberal plan? We have been hearing about this great summit, where all the stakeholders are going to gather and talk about the problem and the solutions. Maybe in another two years from now, we might see solutions.

As per our foreign affairs minister, she proudly announced to the whole world that Canada is known for convening. That is all we hear about with the government. There is meeting after meeting, summit after summit, and no action.

To stop the increase in crime rates and reduce auto theft, today Conservatives are calling on the government to immediately reverse the changes to the Liberal government's soft-on-crime Bill C-5, which allowed for car-stealing criminals to be on house arrest instead of in jail. We want to strengthen the Criminal Code provisions to ensure repeat car-stealing criminals remain in jail, following the principles of both general and specific deterrents in the Criminal Code, and provide the Canada Border Service Agency and our ports with the resources they need to prevent stolen cars from leaving the country.

I asked the vice-president of inspections of the CBSA today at committee how he could explain having only five agents. He said that the CBSA does not have the resources or the funding, and that if it had to inspect every container, our trade system would completely shut down. That is small comfort to victims of auto theft crime in this country, but it is a pleasing announcement for the thieves out there because, not only are our cars being shipped abroad, but also we are accepting containers from countries in Asia loaded with deadly drugs such as carfentanil and fentanyl, which are poisoning our Canadians.

As the member for Brantford—Brant, I can speak to these issues personally, as my community has had over 600 vehicles stolen between the years of 2022 and 2023 alone for a population of just under 100,000 people. Sadly, it does not have the necessary funds to put into fighting car theft.

We heard from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada numerous times. The justice minister can speak all he wants about how he and his Liberal colleagues are hitting organized crime where it hurts, “funding the fight against crime” and “working with police, provinces [and] ports”, but the facts are the facts. He cannot change the fact that over 80,000 vehicles were stolen in Canada in the past year alone.

The minister and his Liberal colleagues have consistently taken a dismissive stance on pressing issues. Just last summer, they brushed off concerns about rising crime rates, suggesting that Canadians were imagining the problem.

What is our solution? The Prime Minister's reckless policies have caused an explosion of car thefts and made our communities dangerous, and the only action he has taken to fix this mess is to hold a summit. We do not need another summit. We need a common-sense plan to stop the theft and the crime.

The solution is simple. It is the first plank of our Conservative plan to hit the brakes on car theft. To combat this Liberal oversight, Conservatives will go after the real criminals by restoring jail, not bail; increasing mandatory jail time; ending house arrest for car thieves; and increasing sentences for gang-associated car thieves.

This is a pressing and urgent matter that Public Safety has a mandate to review thoroughly. Canadians cannot wait for the summit to produce results. It is time for the government to move beyond conferences, meetings, announcements and press conferences, join Conservatives and show up for Canadians.

I call on all members of the House to support our motion. Help us put the brakes on auto theft once and for all, protect our communities and bring home safer streets for all Canadians. That is just common sense.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was really surprised to see the Liberals issue a press announcement that talked about the huge increase in car theft since they were elected in 2015. It is interesting that they did nothing about the problem, other than make it worse with Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, until we started raising the issue. Now the Liberals' answer is a meeting.

Would the member agree that this is simply not enough?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague and good friend, the member for Oxford.

Since 2015, the Liberals have pursued a systematic agenda of dismantling Canada’s judicial system and undermining the rule of law in this country. They have not only done so with their repeated ethics violations and blatant disrespect for the charter but have also done so through more legitimate means, like through acts of Parliament. Thanks to Liberal bills that passed under a former justice minister, committing crimes has become easier and more common than before.

It seems that under the current minister, the streak will continue, given the responses we have heard in the House already, along with some colourful language of course. At every step of the way, Liberals have placed the rights of offenders over the rights of victims, and their woke, out-of-touch ideology over common sense and safety.

With respect to deterring crimes, the Liberals' Bill C-5 eliminates mandatory minimum sentences for dangerous crimes such as robbery with a firearm, sexual assault and drug trafficking. There are others. Not only that, but it also allows hardened criminals to serve their reduced sentence in the comfort of their own home, to serve time while watching TV in their living room, sleeping in their own bed and enjoying the privileges that all those who have not committed crimes enjoy.

With respect to arresting criminals, the catch-and-release practices now mean that it is nearly impossible to keep dangerous offenders in jail for more than a few hours. They are then released back into the world, free to commit crimes, sometimes even the same crimes and on the same day, over and over again. The revolving door spins, cycling through a rotation of hardened, merciless lawbreakers who face no accountability. They are free to break the law over and over again, putting the public at risk and propagating unnecessary harm on communities, innocent victims, families and neighbourhoods.

Finally, with respect to prosecuting criminals, after eight years of the Liberal-NDP incompetence, the government has decayed our justice system and made it just a shell of its former self. It takes months to get a court date. Resources have been stretched to the limit, which makes it harder to catch criminals, and it is harder to keep them accountable. Therefore it is no surprise that our streets are more dangerous and that Canadians are worried that their once-safe neighbourhoods are subject to crime, chaos, drugs and disorder. Every single day we see new, outrageous headlines about individuals who are putting communities in danger and about a system that is failing Canadians.

Just last week, a 43-year-old man stabbed a total stranger with a syringe in broad daylight in downtown Toronto. The man was out on bail for previous assaults and has had more than 40 convictions in his lifetime, including failure to comply with the court and failure to attend court dates. The incident was in the middle of the day in Toronto. However, thanks to the Liberal policies, we know he will get bail one more time and that the cycle will continue again and again.

Stories like these add up; that is what makes Canadians feel unsafe. It is not just a feeling; it is based on empirical data and evidence. The stories not only add up to broken communities, broken victims and broken families; they also a story about the state of our country. Since 2015, gang crimes have doubled and violent crime is up 37%. Canada’s murder rate is the highest it has been in 30 years, since the last time there was a Liberal government in power, and nowhere is the story more out of control and more apparent than when it comes to auto theft.

Too many people wake up, look out the window and see that their car that was sitting in their driveway the night before is no longer there. It is gone. It was taken while they were sleeping in safe communities like mine, where, at one time, nobody locked their front door. Since 2015, car thefts have tripled in Canada. More than 100,000 vehicles are being stolen every year, including nearly 10,000 in Toronto alone. That means that every six minutes in Canada, a car is stolen. Gangs and criminals profit from the criminal activity and use it to finance even more criminal activities, like more car theft, arms trafficking, human trafficking and drug trafficking.

Do not listen to me; the Prime Minister actually admitted it in his own press release. It costs every Canadian who drives almost everywhere more to pay for this. It cost the insurance industry a billion dollars in 2022. Everyone in the province is now paying more to drive. In Ontario, car theft claims, just in the first half of last year, were up 329%. That accounts for $700 million in losses. It means $130 more for every Ontario driver on insurance.

Why is this happening? Let us lead ourselves back to the dangerous catch-and-release policies that unleashed crime and chaos in communities. Bill C-75 allows repeat violent offenders to be released on bail within hours of arrest. They then often re-offend. Last year, even Mayor Steven Del Duca, who is the mayor of Vaughan and probably a familiar name to many on the other side, wrote to the Prime Minister, calling on the federal government to urgently modernize Canada’s bail system to ensure that dangerous offenders are kept off our streets for committing crimes ranging from gun violence to home break-ins and auto thefts.

The mayor wrote to Canada’s then public safety minister, asking about auto theft specifically and asking that CBSA protocols be tightened for screening and inspection of exports leaving our country. It fell on deaf ears. There was nothing until last week from the government's member of Parliament who represents a riding in Vaughan. The letter was written in January, after the problem got so out of control that the council had to step in to demand action for something it had been asking for.

For what happens after offenders have been convicted, the government did not let it stop at Bill C-75. Bill C-5 gives convicts house arrest, even those with long, storied histories of stealing multiple cars. This means that they can just walk out their front door, be on the streets again and start stealing cars and terrorizing neighbourhoods when they are done doing whatever they do in the comforts of their own homes.

One last thing is that the federal government controls our ports, the places where organized crime is taking place: en route to federal ports and at federal ports. Stolen cars are waiting at federal ports to be shipped overseas.

It is time for a new approach. It is time to start increasing mandatory jail time to deter the actual crime and not to have people keep doing it over and over again. We propose three years for three thefts, and of course ending house arrest for car thieves while also increasing sentences for gang-associated car thieves.

Police, insurance associations, community groups and business organizations have been sounding the alarm bell about this for years. Our own constituents send us videos of it happening right in their front driveway, but their concerns have fallen on the deaf ears of the Liberal government, which in the meantime still continues to stand with lawbreakers instead of with law enforcement.

Now the calls have reached a breaking point, and the Liberals are finally going to do something about it. What is that something? Are they going to increase the punishments? No, they will not. Are they going to end catch-and-release policies that turn repeat violent offenders back onto our streets? Are they going to crack down on the incompetence at Canadian ports that allows thousands of cars? Nope, they will not.

They are going to have a summit. They are going to sit around a table. They are going to have a meeting. They are going to come out with a press release. They are going to take some photos. They are going to talk about it, after eight years, this problem that has gotten out of control.

They had a summit on food prices; food prices went up. They had a summit on housing; housing prices have doubled. I can hardly wait to see the results from this summer. In fact, I think Canadians would beg them not to have a summit. Instead, they should start cracking down on the violent offenders, keep them behind bars when they re-commit, stop the house arrests and actually get serious about fighting crime in every single neighbourhood across the country.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult moment for me, not because I had to find a new seat near the exit, not because it took me two tries to get to Ottawa because of the fog and not because I come from an Irish family of criers, but because it is really a moving moment for me.

I want to thank the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun for the friendship we have developed in the House. He has a great record of accomplishment, about which he spoke, but I want to point out something someone asked me on the plane last night, and that was how I could go to work in such a negative place. My response was that, unfortunately, all people see is question period, which is theatre, where people have other agendas they are pursuing, but they do not see the hard work that goes on behind the scenes, the co-operation and the friendships that are built. I really meant that, and the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun is a great example of this.

I made a quick list, because I had 15-minutes notice that I had this opportunity, on the number of things he and I worked on together and his willingness to take action to ensure we improved the justice system in Canada, in particular for indigenous people and the work he did on Bill C-5 to reduce mandatory minimums, which fall very hard on the most marginalized in our society.

He mentioned the conversion therapy ban. His work with the leader of the Conservatives and all parties meant we were able to pass that ban unanimously, something which I remain very proud of the House for doing.

He worked on Bill C-40, with which we are not quite finished, on the miscarriages of justice commission. Again, miscarriages of justice fall very hard on the most marginalized, particularly indigenous women. My pledge to him is that I will work as hard as I can to get that done, hopefully by the end of this month. We only have a couple of days, but I think we can get that done.

He also helped shepherd medical assistance in dying legislation through the House when I was initially the NDP critic. This was the most difficult issue in my 13 years here because of the very strong feelings on all sides of the issue. The minister always demonstrated his ability to listen, to be empathetic and to try to find solutions that would keep us all together on this very important issue about reducing suffering at the end of life, not just for the person but for the families of people who need that assistance at the end.

One last one is that I approached the minister about the publication ban on survivors of sexual assault and how many of them felt stifled by the publication ban. He asked what we could do to fix it. Eventually he agreed to add the ability to lift the publication ban in Bill S-12, and it came to the House. This was an example of how, when I approached him with an idea and a problem, he always looked for solutions and a way to bring us all together.

I know he will continue to contribute to Canada once he leaves the House, though I am not sure in exactly what way or if he is sure in exactly what way. He is one of the finest members of Parliament I have ever had the privilege to work with, and I thank him for his contributions here.

Criminal Code

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

moved the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members. I am very pleased with the progress of Bill C‑48 in both Houses, and I am happy to be speaking to it again here.

This bill will strengthen our bail laws so they continue to protect our communities and maintain public confidence when it comes to violent repeat offenders and weapons offences.

I will start by briefly reiterating the bill's intent. I will then describe the amendments proposed by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Lastly, I will lay out the government's position on these amendments.

This bill demonstrates our government's commitment to public safety and my commitment to public safety. We will always fight to ensure that our communities are protected from violent crime. Families have been forever changed because of senseless killings.

I want to take this moment to express my sincere sympathies to victims of violence and their loved ones. A 16-year-old, Gabriel Magalhaes, was fatally stabbed at a subway station in my own riding of Parkdale—High Park. This terrible act should never have occurred. We need to address crime, as well as what causes crime, to stop future violence from occurring.

Bill C-48 is the culmination of extensive collaboration with provinces and territories, with which I have been working very closely. All 13 premiers came together and called for bail reform. We responded to this call and went even further in Bill C-48.

In addition to the premiers, Bill C-48 has received support from municipal leaders, police groups and victims' organizations right across the country, from coast to coast to coast. I am pleased to see such incredibly widespread support for a measure that would ensure Canadians can live free from fear of violence.

I am also grateful for the discussions we have had with national indigenous organizations on the topic of bail reform. Their views help us better understand how we can keep indigenous communities, and all communities, safe. I look forward to continuing my collaboration with representatives of these important organizations.

I also want to take a moment to acknowledge and recognize that members from all parties passed Bill C-48 unanimously in the House back on the first day of the fall session, on September 18. It was clear then that all of us recognized the importance of these measures. I am very hopeful that we can maintain the same unanimity of purpose today.

Public safety is paramount. It is fundamentally why all of us were elected to this chamber. Every member of this chamber wants the communities that we represent to be free from violence. I thank my colleagues for their support to date and I hope I can count on it today and going forward.

On this side of the House, we also commit to maintaining public safety while looking also at tackling the root causes of criminality. We need more mental health resources so that people in crisis do not resort to violence. I say this on a day when we have just launched the 988 suicide helpline. We need social services to help offenders reintegrate safely into their communities after serving their time. We need treatment options for those struggling with addiction so that they do not get mired in conflict. Investing in long-term solutions to crime is a core belief of mine and of our Liberal government.

Too often, I have heard fearmongering for political gain from people in this chamber. We need solutions; we do not need finger pointing. We need investments in long-term safety. We need evidence-based legislation. I challenge my colleagues to join me in supporting community investments so we can stop crime at its root.

I will now discuss the substantive changes proposed in Bill C-48. Canadians expect laws that both keep them safe and respect the rights enshrined in the charter. In Bill C-48, I believe we have struck that balance.

Bill C-48 is a targeted approach to stopping repeat violent offenders. The bill proposes amendments to the reverse onus bail provisions in the Criminal Code to make it more onerous for certain accused persons to receive bail. A reverse onus does simply this. It shifts the burden of proof at a bail hearing from the Crown to the accused. This means that there is a presumption that the accused will be detained unless they can demonstrate to the court that they should be released because they do not pose a significant risk to public safety, are not a flight risk or that their release would not undermine the confidence of the public.

What Bill C-48 would do is add a reverse onus provision to ensure greater scrutiny of cases involving repeat violent offending with weapons. For this reverse onus to apply, the accused must, one, be charged with a violence offence involving the use of a weapon. Two, they must have been convicted in the last five years of a violent offence involving the use of a weapon. Three, both the offence charged and the past offence must have a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more. This threefold criteria would encourage courts to focus their attention on those who present a higher risk of reoffending at the bail stage of criminal proceedings.

Second, four firearms offences would be added to the reverse onus provisions that currently exist. This proposal has the broad support of law enforcement agencies right across this country, from literally every province and territory. It would implement the call from all 13 premiers of three different political stripes to add a reverse onus for the offence of possessing a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm. What we would be adding to the premiers' request is 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. Anyone involved in those offences would be subject to the same reverse onus.

This bill would also clarify the meaning of a prohibition order at the bail stage. A reverse onus at bail currently applies to accused persons charged with offences involving firearms or other weapons where they are subject to a weapons prohibition order. This bill would make absolutely clear that a prohibition order includes a bail condition prohibiting an accused from being in possession of firearms or other weapons.

The other changes proposed by Bill C-48 relate to considerations that courts must make in their bail decisions. This bill would require bail courts to consider if the accused person's criminal record includes a history of convictions involving violence regardless of whether the accused is subject to a reverse onus.

In addition, Bill C-48 would add a further requirement that bail courts expressly consider the safety and security of the community in relation to the alleged offence when making a bail order, in addition to the safety and security of any victim who is involved. This would ensure that specific concerns from smaller municipalities, indigenous communities and racialized or marginalized communities are taken into consideration at the bail hearing. That directly responds to what we heard, particularly from small communities in Canada's north, including small indigenous communities in the north, which wanted their needs reflected and views heard at such bail hearings.

Let me now turn to two changes the Senate is proposing to make to this bill.

The first proposal of the Senate relates to an amendment that would require a statement in the record of proceedings as to how a justice or justice of the peace considered section 493.2 of the Criminal Code. This section states that, when making a decision relating to bail, courts shall give particular attention to the circumstances of indigenous accused and accused who belong to a vulnerable population that is overrepresented in the criminal justice system and that is disadvantaged in obtaining bail.

This is a mandatory provision that requires courts to turn their minds to these circumstances anytime they make a bail decision. What the Senate is doing is doubling down on that provision and emphasizing its importance. In terms of the overrepresentation of Black Canadians and indigenous persons in the criminal justice system, overrepresentation is a critical problem and I welcome this amendment.

The provision being cited by the Senate was originally enacted in 2019. Since then, many cases on the application of this provision have developed guidance for bail courts. It is clear from these cases that failing to adequately consider section 493.2 is an error of law that is a reviewable error. That said, the Senate heard from some witnesses that section 493.2 is not always considered and not always applied consistently despite there being a requirement to do so.

What the proposed amendment from the Senate would do is ensure that bail courts are fulfilling their obligations to consider these particular circumstances in every applicable case and recording that they have done so. This amendment would also be consistent with the preamble of Bill C-48, which currently reiterates “the need to consider the particular circumstances of accused persons, including those from populations that face disadvantages at the bail stage and are overrepresented in the criminal justice system”. In light of this, the government and I support this amendment and invite all members of this House to vote in favour of it.

Tackling the overincarceration of Black, indigenous and marginalized Canadians remains a fundamental priority for me and the government. We cannot accept a status quo in which marginalized groups are disproportionally incarcerated on account of systemic factors, including systemic racism and discrimination. To date, we have made progress on addressing this problem, including by removing multiple mandatory minimum penalties in the form of Bill C-5, which has already passed in the House.

There is always more work to do. I am proud of the work we have done on implementing assessments of the impact of race and culture and relaunching the anti-racism action plan, as well as the work that is ongoing on the Black justice strategy and the indigenous justice strategy. This is all fundamental to the work that will continue to be done to address systemic inequalities in the justice system.

The second amendment adopted by the Senate specified that this legislation be referred to a standing committee of the Senate for review at a future date. The effect of this amendment is that both the House of Commons and the Senate would be required to review the legislation five years after the act receives royal assent. I support this change as well.

I am encouraged by the speed at which we were able to reach a consensus in the House of Commons last time we studied this bill on September 18. I would suggest that we do the same so that the bill can be passed as soon as possible.

I would like to conclude by pointing out that bail is a responsibility shared by the federal, provincial and territorial governments. Every level of government has a role to play to make sure that our bail system works as intended. The government is doing its part, but non-legislative changes such as access to permanent housing and mental health and addiction support services are also key elements in improving our bail system.

I commend the work recently done in these areas, and I will continue to collaborate with all levels of government to make sure that the objectives of the bail system are achieved. I also undertake to make sure that we collect accurate and complete data on the bail system in Canada, and I will continue to work with our partners to that end.

Data sharing is essential for monitoring our bail system and ensuring it functions properly. I call upon provinces and territories to collect and share enhanced bail data. This will allow us to make evidence-based changes to bail law in the future.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-325, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to the conditional release system. This is the private member's bill of my friend and colleague, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, and I am happy to support it for the few reasons I will detail in these remarks.

The main reason is that our criminal justice system needs a serious overhaul to prevent violent offenders from committing further violent crimes, and this bill would work to combat that societal harm. One of our Conservative Party pillars is to bring home safe streets. To do this, we need to take serious action to reverse the precipitous rise in violent crime that has transpired over the last eight years with the Liberal government.

Data from Statistics Canada in August indicated that the national homicide rate has risen for the fourth consecutive year and is now at its highest level since 1992. This is largely due to gang violence. Violent crime is up for the eighth year in a row. The per capita victims of violent crime have increased 60% since 2013. Fraud is twice as prevalent as it was 10 years ago, and extortion is five times higher. It is a country-wide problem, not restricted just to our biggest cities. As an example, an article from the National Post from the past summer stated, “Reports from Newfoundland—which experienced one of the steepest rises in crime last year—reveal a growing sense of fear and abandonment among those living in St. John’s downtown core.” Our communities feel less safe. Crime, chaos, drugs and disorder are common, and the Liberal government is responsible for making the situation worse.

The common denominator here is the Prime Minister and his lenient approach to violent crime. The measures to reverse this trend in Bill C-48, which the House passed unanimously on September 18, were but a start to the serious overhaul necessary to create real change, to borrow a phrase from the Prime Minister, who used it eight years ago.

Bill C-48 does not go far enough to reverse the damage that the Liberals have done with their catch-and-release laws that let repeat offenders back onto our streets to cause more crime and chaos. It started with Bill C-75 and continued with Bill C-5, which had a soft-on-crime approach. That is why I am here to support Bill C-325, as it would take further measures to combat the violent crime waves.

Bill C-325's summary states:

This enactment amends the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to create a new offence for the breach of conditions of conditional release imposed in relation to certain serious offences and to require the reporting of those breaches to the appropriate authorities.

It also amends the Criminal Code to preclude persons convicted of certain offences from serving their sentence in the community.

Namely, Bill C-325 would strengthen the conditional release regime by creating a breach-of-condition offence in the Criminal Code at section 145, for breaches of condition on parole or statutory release. It would be an indictable offence and would be liable to imprisonment for a maximum of two years, or an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The bill would also amend the 1992 Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require parole supervisors to report breaches of conditions. It states that if a breach exists, parole supervisors must inform the Parole Board of Canada, the Attorney General and appropriate officials of the breach and the circumstances surrounding it. It is currently not the case that probation officers are required to report breached conditions. This provision would go a long way in reducing recidivism among violent criminals.

Bill C-325 would also restore the former version of section 742.1 of the Criminal Code, which was repealed in 2022 by the Liberals' Bill C-5. This would reintroduce a list of serious offences for which a shorter sentence of less than two years cannot be served in the community via house arrest. This includes kidnapping, sexual assault and some firearms offences. Bill C-5 should never have been allowed to pass, as it puts communities at risk with violent offenders serving sentences for serious crimes in the comfort of their own homes while watching Netflix. This includes, for example, drug traffickers serving their sentences at home. How convenient is that? This also includes sexual assault offenders who are serving their sentences in their homes in the communities where they have victimized and can now revictimize.

To avoid an argument from my opponents off the bat, I will say that this bill would not bring out stronger sentences or raise rates of incarceration for the sake of it. Breaches of conditions imposed during conditional release, which is after sentencing, are often committed by a minority of offenders. However, when parole conditions are breached, it can be frustrating and damaging to the victims of the crimes committed, not to mention to the community at large in which they live.

The Canadian Police Association said that it is important to effectively target repeat offenders because, as frontline law enforcement officers know all too well, a defining reality of our justice system is that a disproportionately small number of offenders are responsible for a disproportionately large number of offences. In fact, our leader, the member for Carleton, often cites the example of Vancouver, where 40 criminals were arrested a total of 6,000 times in a year.

It is important to note as well that offenders designated as long-term offenders would not be covered in this bill. They are already covered by breach-of-condition language in the Criminal Code.

We need this bill because of offenders like Myles Sanderson. He had been granted statutory release in August 2021, after serving a five-year sentence for assault, robbery, mischief and making threats. He had 59 previous convictions, one of which included assaulting a police officer. He had been charged for 125 crimes, with 47 cases filed against him in the province's criminal courts. He violated his parole conditions 28 times. In February 2022, following a hearing, the Parole Board did not revoke his statutory release despite these violations. He stopped meeting with his case worker in May 2022, which led the police to look for him. Unfortunately, they did not find him before he and his brother murdered 11 people and injured 18 others in a mass stabbing spree on the James Smith Cree Nation and in Weldon, Saskatchewan in September 2022. This horrific tragedy broke the heart of the nation and devastated these communities. It would have been utterly preventable had Bill C-325 been in place and Sanderson had been indicted for violating the conditions of his parole.

While it is important to minimize the potential harm to our communities, we must still respect the rights of those involved. The law currently provides that federal offenders sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment be released under supervision when they have served two-thirds of their sentence. Statutory release is a statutory right and not within the Parole Board of Canada's decision-making authority. The conditions on parole that may be violated include a prohibition on communicating with a person, often a victim; being in a specific place; observing a curfew; not possessing a weapon; and not drinking alcohol, among others that may apply to the specific case at hand. Sanderson's parole conditions included a ban on weapons and a ban on alcohol and drugs. As records indicate, he had a history of drug use since the age of 14 and a history of rage and violence against his partner.

Tragedies like this can be prevented. Our justice system should not allow violent offenders to serve their sentences at home. This view is shared by several organizations, all of which support Bill C-325. The president of the Canadian Police Association, the Fraternité des policiers et policières de Montréal, the founder of Montreal's Maison des guerrières, the Fédération des maisons d'hébergement pour femmes, the Murdered or Missing Persons' Families' Association, the Communauté de citoyens et citoyennes en action contre les criminels violents and others have all expressed their support for Bill C-325. Tom Stamatakis, president of the CPA, says, “The Canadian Police Association has long advocated for statutory consequences for offenders who commit new offences while on conditional release, and this proposed legislation is a common-sense solution that effectively targets those very specific offenders.”

The bottom line is that we absolutely need to be doing more to protect our communities and increase public safety. This is not an issue of partisanship, but a shared need for action on a common goal: a safer and better Canada. We were elected here to uphold the principles of peace, order and good government, but we cannot claim that we are doing so if Canadians do not feel safe in their homes and communities. We have a responsibility to our constituents and the regions we serve. They deserve to be safe and protected. We need to bring home safe streets, and this bill would be an excellent stepping stone on the way to doing so.

I hope all my colleagues share this goal of increased public safety and that they vote to support Bill C-325 on its way to committee.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation was a needed response to a Supreme Court decision, but I feel it could have gone further. It could have been tighter. There are a number of offences now that will not meet the threshold for inclusion in the registry, and there will be people who should have been included who will not be with the passage of this legislation.

Absolutely what happened with the issue around Bernardo's transfer is a travesty. It should have never happened. A witness came to us in our study on the government's obligation to victims of crime, and she said that in Canada we no longer have a justice system. We have a legal system, but not a justice system. I remember her words because I think of what happened with Bill C-75 to change our bail laws to create a revolving door that puts criminals back out on the streets. I think of the fact that Bill C-5 removed mandatory penalties for serious crimes against individuals. I also think of instances like the transfer that was put in place for Paul Bernardo. The government, by changing legislation, made that transfer inevitable. That is laid completely at the feet of the government. When it changed the law to put in a requirement that minimal holdings be implemented for each prisoner, it made that inevitable.

Absolutely we have a lot of work that needs to be done to protect our communities and to protect victims.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

One of the things my hon. colleague highlighted is the fact that what we are dealing with is really a small piece of the overall crime pie. The pie itself, and the difficulty that we are in, really lies with the Liberal Party, whether it be Bill C-75 from the last Parliament, Bill C-21 or Bill C-5. We now have sexual offenders or people who have committed serious gun crimes who can serve their sentence from the comfort of their home.

I would ask my hon. colleague this: How much further do we need to go, and is this going to help in a meaningful and significant way?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, listening to what the member was saying, one can easily draw the conclusion that the private member's bill is fully endorsed, supported and part of the Conservative agenda, with this “tough on crime” attitude Conservatives take on, particularly the far right Conservatives, which is somewhat concerning in itself.

I want to view it from a different approach, and I do not know how many times I heard this from the Minister of Justice himself, that serious crimes deserve serious consequences. There is no doubt the Government of Canada takes very seriously the issue of crime in our communities, our safety and so forth. The actions to date by this government have clearly amplified that.

The question I posed to the sponsor of the bill we are debating this evening was related to the issue of consultation and the work the member has done. Members will notice that, in the response to the question I posed, the member did not work with the different provinces and territories in consultation, or at least report specifically on the provinces' contribution to the debate or the bill the member has brought forward. I do not recall hearing the member say it was provinces X, Y and Z, or a territory or indigenous leadership community supporting the legislation being proposed by the member.

It is important that we recognize, when we talk about our judicial system, that it is a joint responsibility between the provinces, territories, indigenous leaders and Ottawa. To amplify that, I would suggest that one only needs to look at Bill C-48, which is a very important piece of legislation. Prior to it, Conservatives were jumping out of their seats saying that we had to get tough on bail reform, and all that kind of stuff. While they were jumping from their seats, the government was doing its consultations, listening and responding to what the provinces and others were saying about the issue of how we can work together to recognize the importance of having bail reform. There was an opportunity.

Not that long ago we had the discussion in the House. I made the suggestion, and it seemed that members on all sides of the House were supporting the initiatives being taken in Bill C-48. I even cited some very specific quotes because we all know that Bill C-48 is very much a reflection of not only what the provinces and territories in particular were saying, but also what politicians of different political stripes were saying, as well as law enforcement agencies and different advocacy groups. The government did its homework. It did it through consultations. I do not think anyone was coming forward, at least not that I am aware of, saying that conditional sentences should be outright turned into a criminal breach, if in fact there is a violation of a conditional sentence, no matter how minor it might be.

Again, I look to the introducer of the legislation and what we are debating with Bill C-325. Does he realize that, by making it a criminal offence, which is what the legislation is attempting to do, it could criminalize someone on a conditional sentence that does not fall under the Criminal Code? If so, does he not have any issues with that?

One has to question the issue of our judicial system and its independence. They often talk about Bill C-5, which is an important piece of legislation that ultimately enabled judges to have more discretion with things like conditional sentences. The legislation recognized that there are injustices, whether in Black or indigenous communities. There is overrepresentation, and we need to be open to alternatives.

I have more faith in our judges than I do in the Conservative Party members, who tend to want to use the Criminal Code or a tough-on-crime approach in order to generate more money for the Conservative Party of Canada or to appear on a bumper sticker. I believe, as I stated at the very beginning of my comments, that serious crimes deserve serious consequences. I also believe that having conditional sentences for people who do not pose any risk to the public can be a win-win.

Unlike the Conservatives, I recognize the fact that there is a revolving door. We need to recognize that when we lock someone up, eventually, they will come out. Looking at ways in which we can minimize crimes and prevent them from taking place in the first place should be a priority. It is a priority for the government—

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am here today to speak to the private member's bill, Bill C-325, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, on conditions of release and conditional sentences. Let me be clear from the onset. I do not support this bill.

This bill would have significant negative impacts on the criminal justice system, including exacerbating the overincarceration of indigenous people, Black people and members of marginalized communities. This legislation is a backward step toward failed Harper criminal justice policies, which were struck down by the Supreme Court for being unconstitutional. I am proud to have supported the Minister of Justice and our government to reverse these bad policies.

Our approach to criminal justice prioritizes public safety and fairness. We recently introduced Bill C-48, which would reform the bail system to further these same objectives. Bill C-325's goals run contrary to key reforms enacted in former Bill C-5, which aimed to restore judicial discretion to impose fit and proportionate sentences to help address Canada's overincarceration crisis. I was the chair of the justice committee at the time that Bill C-5 was enacted through my committee.

We heard from so many witnesses about the impacts and the importance of judges not only having the discretion of how sentences are imposed, but also having the learning and the awareness of what Canada is, what it looks like and how the diversity of Canada is impacted with our judicial system. That includes ensuring that there is a gender-based analysis plus. That includes ensuring that judges understand and appreciate the lived experiences of people as they are going through the criminal justice system. That gives judges the right and the privilege, appropriately, to ensure that they are providing the right sentences to the people who are going through that system, sentences that are based on rehabilitation, not punishment. That rehabilitation is key.

The numbers really speak for themselves. In 2021-22, indigenous adults accounted for 31% of admissions to provincial and territorial custody, and 33% of admissions to federal custody, while representing only 4.3% of the Canadian adult population. Black adults accounted for 9% of the federal offender population, while representing just 4% of the Canadian adult population. Black and indigenous women are particularly overrepresented, together representing 60% of the federal female offender population.

The overrepresentation of these groups in the Canadian penal system is absolutely unacceptable. It has gone on for way too long. On this side of the House, we believe in the expertise of our judges. Our criminal justice system works better when judges can tailor punishments to suit the crimes and not when Ottawa creates overly broad policies that force judges to rule against their best judgment and their evidence. Bill C-325 would revert elements of our system back to failed Harper-era policies that clogged our prisons, wasted our resources and increased recidivism. This is dangerous, and it cannot pass.

The Conservatives' approach to public safety is one dimensional, unfortunately. They prey on fear to gain support for policies that would unduly lock more people in prison while voting against programs that address the root causes of those crimes. This is a recipe for more crime, not less.

Bill C-325 would endanger communities. I am not sure why the Conservatives think they know better than judges to evaluate public policy risks, public safety risks, but judges know best as they go through each individual crime. Conditional sentences can save lives and rescue families from division and despair. Criminal justice is not a one-size-fits-all exercise.

However, short-sightedness and fearmongering are the Conservative way. Take their opioid crisis strategy, for example. They would prefer to do away with evidence-based policies that target prevention, enforcement, treatment and harm reduction. They would prefer to build new prisons rather than solve the problem. Liberal policies have saved 46,000 people from overdose since 2017. The opioid epidemic is a health crisis, and it must be treated as one.

Restoring restrictions on the ability of judges to issue conditional sentences in appropriate situations would be a step backwards. We know that policies like Bill C-325 produce negative, disproportionate impacts on indigenous people, Black people and marginalized offenders. We refuse to undo the good work of former Bill C-5, which fights this overrepresentation and creates a fairer Canada. Allowing judges greater flexibility to order conditional sentences does not create a risk to public safety, because the current framework requires sentencing courts to ensure that the sentence would not endanger public safety and that it would be consistent with the purpose and the principles of the sentencing.

When former Bill C-5 was studied before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the Canadian Bar Association lauded the removal of restrictions on conditional sentences as “one of the most important reforms in the criminal law over the last decade.”

It is important to understand that giving judges greater flexibility in their ability to impose conditional sentences does not mean that all offenders will receive them. Individuals who pose a risk to public safety will continue to serve their sentence of imprisonment in jail. Serious crimes will have serious consequences.

Removing these restrictions on judges allows them to issue sentences to lower-risk offenders that not only aim to punish and denounce their conduct, but also focus on rehabilitation within the community. Evidence suggests this approach reduces future criminality.

Further, these proposed reforms are contrary to the government's commitment to fully implement the calls to action made by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, including call to action 30 to eliminate the overrepresentation of indigenous people in custody over the next decade and call to action 32, which speaks to removing restrictions on the availability of conditional sentences.

I realize I am out of time. I will say again that judges need to have the discretion to give better sentences towards the aim of rehabilitation. That is why I cannot support this bill.

Sitting Resumed

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to close out debate this evening on Bill C-21, and it is an honour, as always, to stand in this House and represent the constituents from the great riding of Fundy Royal who elected me. Many of those constituents enjoy hunting, farming and sport shooting and maybe have inherited a firearm from a relative. Hunting in my riding certainly is something many people like to partake in and enjoy.

What is the problem we are trying to go after? It is gun violence. What the facts tell us is that 80% of the firearms used in violent crime are illegal. What are some of the figures? Violent crime is up 32% in Canada in the last eight years. Gang-related violent crime, the stuff Canadians are talking about, seeing in the news and hearing about in their local newspaper, is up almost 100% in the last eight years. What about crimes that are committed with firearms? Eighty per cent of the firearms used in violent crime are obtained illegally. We have an illegal firearms problem in Canada.

What is the solution when we have an illegal firearms problem? We should go after the illegal firearms. The last thing we should do is spend valuable resources going after law-abiding, licensed firearms owners in this country. However, we should not be surprised that this is the approach the government took. We have to remember this is the same Liberal government that brought in Bill C-68, or the long gun registry, and that spent, according to the Auditor General, over $1 billion registering the firearms of law-abiding Canadians while having no impact on crime.

It is the same government that brought in Bill C-5. What did Bill C-5 do? I mentioned that we have a problem with illegal firearms. Bill C-5, which was introduced and passed under the current government, repealed mandatory prison penalties for many firearms offences. They include robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm and weapons trafficking. These are the types of offences that Canadians would expect someone convicted to go to jail for. Unfortunately, Bill C-5 removed mandatary jail sentences for those crimes, so we are not going after the illegal guns and we are not going after the criminals.

The figures should get the attention of all members, no matter what side of the aisle they are on. In Toronto alone, one half of murder suspects this year are out on some type of release. In 17 of 44 homicides in Toronto last year, the individual was out on bail. We have a major problem in this country when it comes to gang-related violence and firearms violence with the revolving door, the catch-and-release, of our bail system.

The government had an opportunity with this bill to tackle some of those things. Instead, what it did is went after everyday, law-abiding Canadians, the type of Canadians I represent in my riding of Fundy Royal.

As parliamentarians, we need to take the issues that confront us in this country seriously. This bill does not do that. The government showed its hand when it brought it an amendment that would have banned all kinds of hunting rifles, rifles that have been in families for generations. These are not the problem. Law-abiding Canadians are not the problem. Licensed firearms owners are not the problem. Spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to buy back and confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens is not the solution.

When this bill is fully implemented, Canadians will not be one bit safer. Until we have the courage to tackle the revolving door of catch-and-release bail and until we have the courage to say that those who do serious crimes are going to get a jail sentence, we will continue to have these problems in Canada. We need to leave law-abiding people alone and go after the bad guys, and that is what the Conservatives will do.

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.

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?

Opposition Motion—Bail Reform

[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.

[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—

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two quick points. The member said a factually incorrect statement. Under Stephen Harper, the days spent in prison by an average individual in prison went from 126 days to 105 days, so he is factually incorrect on that part.

I am disappointed in the Bloc Québécois, actually, because in Quebec a woman was violently raped. She fought her rapist. She was violently raped by a man. How many days in prison did that rapist get for violently raping that woman? Because of Bill C-5 from the Liberal government, it was zero days. The Bloc Québécois party supported Bill C-5. Now her rapist will see zero days in prison because they allowed conditional sentencing for rapists. He is going to serve his sentence for violently raping that woman from the comfort of his home, so I will take no lectures from that member about being tough on crime and the results we are going to see.

Judges Act

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I understand that I have about 18 and a half minutes left. I will do my best, but I cannot promise that I will use up all of that time. I am just pointing that out for the benefit of the person who is speaking next.

Now that all the Christmas wishes and greetings have been sent, I want to come back to Bill C-9, which I spoke about in June, as I mentioned. It will come as no surprise to anyone that the Bloc Québécois will support this bill at third reading for a number of reasons. One of them is that the community has been calling for this bill for quite a long time. It has been calling for a review of the system for removing judges who engage in conduct unbecoming of the profession.

This bill will also help shorten the process and, incidentally, reduce the cost associated with assessing judicial misconduct, while still maintaining sufficient procedural equity that a judge who is facing sanctions can make their case and ultimately exercise their right to full answer and defence. In a way, this bill is streamlining a process that, in the past, was unfortunately inconsistently applied and abused, as in the case of Judge Girouard, who has been mentioned quite a bit in the House. It took nearly a decade to come to a final decision on the acts he was accused of.

It is worth mentioning that this bill introduces a mechanism to deal with less serious complaints that would not necessarily require removing a judge who has committed wrongdoing. This mechanism would still allow the judge to be punished for their actions. It is no longer a purely black-and-white system where there are only two possible outcomes to a sanction: either to reject the sanction outright or to remove the judge from office, which is the ultimate sanction for misconduct. Under the old law, there was no in-between. The new bill allows for a slightly fuller range of options, with different shades of grey—not that I am naming a particular book—in terms of the sanctions that can be imposed.

Realistically, we cannot expect Bill C‑9 to change much on a day-to-day basis, because not that many judges face possible sanctions, which is a good thing. My colleagues have said that about eight cases have come under the microscope. This is not something that happens very often.

However, the bill will affect the way people perceive the justice system. If a judge is put under the microscope, we can expect the process to elicit far less criticism and complaint from the public, because it will presumably be much more effective.

As I said, we will vote in favour of the bill. Based on what my colleagues have said, most if not all members of the House will do likewise. The only real criticism we heard during members' speeches had less to do with the content of the bill than with the timeline of its passage, which should take place in the coming days.

This is not our first time studying a bill like Bill C-9 in the House. We saw a previous version, Bill C-5, which ended up dying on the Order Paper because the government decided to call a basically useless election in August 2021, so again, this is not the first time we are indirectly talking about Bill C-9 in the House. However, there is so much consensus on it that, hopefully, this will be the last time.

Bill C-9 upholds a principle that is absolutely critical in our democracy, namely, the principle of security of tenure for judges. This principle is set out in section 99(1) of the Constitution. I think section 99(1) bears quoting.

It states:

the judges of the superior courts shall hold office during good behaviour, but shall be removable by the Governor General on address of the Senate and House of Commons.

With respect to this aspect, Justice Dalphond, who is now a senator, spoke to Bill S‑5. He said the following:

By imposing a process that makes it the responsibility of judges, first and foremost, to deal with allegations of misconduct against a judge, the Judges Act protects judges from acts of intimidation or retaliation by the executive power or litigants. In addition, since the act provides for parliamentarians to exercise their constitutional power to remove a judge only after having received the report and recommendation of the council in this regard, Canadians can rest assured that this measure, intended to be exceptional, will only be taken when it is truly justified.

This essentially separates the different branches of democracy, namely the executive, legislative and judicial branches, by ensuring that if a judge is removed, it is not for purely political reasons, for example.

Although the current system for removing judges in cases of wrongdoing is recognized as one of the best in the world, there was room for improvement. I will name a few of the drawbacks that have been identified.

As I mentioned, the current process can be extremely long. Along the way, there is always the possibility of countless appeals and judicial reviews. Under the act, the review panel was seen as a sort of administrative tribunal that opened the door to using the regular court system, meaning filing an appeal, reviewing a decision or applying for a judicial review. As a result, some cases dragged on for over a decade.

One of the problems that was identified is that a judge who may be at fault could have a financial interest in dragging out the proceedings with stalling tactics, because the judge still gets paid while the process is underway. They can keep contributing to their retirement fund, so the benefits continue to add up. The judge therefore has an incentive to make sure the final decision on their alleged conduct does not come out too quickly.

That is something that has been corrected through proposed section 126 of the new bill. Proposed subsection 126(1) states:

For the purposes of calculating an annuity under Part I, if a full hearing panel decides that the removal from office of a judge who is the subject of a complaint is justified, the day after the day on which the judge is given notice of the full hearing panel's decision is the day to be used to determine the number of years the judge has been in judicial office and the salary annexed to the office held by the judge at the time of his or her resignation, removal or attaining the age of retirement unless

(a) the decision is set aside by a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, or by the decision of an appeal panel if the appeal panel's decision is final;

(b) the Minister's response under subsection 140(1) provides that no action is to be taken to remove the judge from office; or

(c) the matter of removal of the judge from office is put to one or both Houses of Parliament and is rejected by either of them.

Should the complaint be rejected, the judge could retain all benefits associated with their office. From now on, pension and benefits accumulation ceases as of the day on which notice of the decision is given. That removes any incentive for a judge to draw out proceedings.

As I also mentioned, one of the benefits of the bill is that it now offers a wider range of sanctions than was available under the old act. The act did not, for example, allow for mandatory sanctions, so it made them seem like half-measures. The parties could make them mandatory by mutual agreement, but there was no real possibility of imposing anything. That is no longer the case. There is now a range of different measures.

Let me read some more of the bill. Proposed section 102 of the new bill provides as follows:

If the review panel does not refer the complaint to the Council under section 101, it may dismiss the complaint or take one or more of the following actions if it considers it appropriate to do so in the circumstances:

(a) issue a private or public expression of concern;

(b) issue a private or public warning;

(c) issue a private or public reprimand;

(d) order the judge to apologize, either privately or publicly, by whatever means the panel considers appropriate in the circumstances;

(e) order the judge to take specific measures, including attending counselling or a continuing education course;

(f) take any action that the panel considers to be equivalent to any of the actions referred to in paragraphs (a) to (e);

(g) with the consent of the judge, take any other action that the panel considers appropriate in the circumstances.

It uses the word “order”. That means it would be mandatory, and the panel has a lot of latitude.

There are plenty of measures that can be taken to improve the quality of a judge's work in the future, without having to resort to the extreme punishment of removing their right to sit on the bench. The bill improves what can be done within the system while also reducing the burden of what is required to make the review process work.

In the past, under the Judges Act, no fewer than 17 judges might be needed to convene a review panel to examine a case. There is currently a shortage of judges. The courts are operating at a slower pace. If a judge were to be accused of something, we cannot afford to take 17 judges out of the system when there is a shortage everywhere.

Under the new version of the act, a panel can be formed with slightly fewer judges than what was required in the past. The bill also creates an internal appeal process, which will limit reliance on external courts and therefore limit the possibility of invoking the legal system for disciplinary matters involving judges.

I am making an aside on this aspect because the issue of tying up courts and judges cannot be solved by Bill C‑9 alone. We had a discussion about Bill S‑4 and the possibility of making greater use of virtual tools to hear cases. This debate may continue in the days to come. That would help, but even if we add the option of virtual hearings, if there are no judges to hold these hearings, it does not matter that platforms like Zoom are available because the system will not work.

That is why, in addition to Bills C‑9 and S‑4, it is important that the Minister of Justice quickly appoint judges to fill vacancies. Currently, there are nine vacancies. The chief justice of the Quebec Superior Court is even recommending that a dozen judges be added to those currently sitting. This would increase the minimum number of justices that can sit on the Quebec Superior Court. Let us hope that this message will be heard by the Minister of Justice.

Basically, Bill C‑9 is about improving people's trust in the judicial system. However, as I said, it may be relatively limited in scope, because most people will not read the contents of Bill C‑9. If a judge were to commit a wrongful act, people might be interested in this new process that exists to reprimand judges.

Beyond the possibility of reprimanding a judge who has already been appointed, if we really want to improve public trust in the system, we must also address the issue of judicial appointments. Some work has been done. The Liberals have mentioned that they are going to abandon the infamous Liberalist, but that may not be enough. The process is still potentially partisan. The power to select and recommend who will be appointed as a judge is still in the hands of the executive branch of government.

That is why the Bloc Québécois recommends creating a truly all-party committee tasked with evaluating candidates for judicial positions in courts under federal jurisdiction, such as superior courts.

This is what Albania did in hopes of joining the EU. It had to change a lot of its judicial practices to meet EU standards and bolster public confidence in its institutions.

At present, Albania's justice minister has no power over judicial appointments. An independent committee is in charge. The justice minister's primary responsibility is to oversee sound administration of the courts. The minister monitors statistics to ensure that hearings are progressing without wait lists or undue delays, but is not actually responsible for appointing judges. That allows for true separation between the powers of the executive and the judiciary. The House may consider following suit as it develops a different judicial appointment system.

It is on this wish that I will end my speech. Bill C‑9 is a good thing. It is an improvement that has long been called for. It may have taken a long time for it to come to fruition, but we commend the initiative nonetheless. There is still work to be done on the judiciary. The Bloc Québécois will always be a very approachable partner when it comes to improving the legal system. I think that begins with a review of the judicial appointment system.

Criminal Code

[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.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5, the soft-on-crime bill, actually allows for lesser sentences for those who commit crimes with guns. I was wondering how the hon. member can reconcile what he sees in Bill C-21 with this soft-on-crime approach by the Liberal government.

Judges Act

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. member wholeheartedly that we need to put more emphasis on victims. What is really troubling is that in past versions of this bill and past versions of Bill C-5, we had commentary from the office of the victims ombudsman. It is important for us to have someone who speaks for victims. It should not be up to victims only to speak for themselves.

Unfortunately, in the last nine months that voice, which is so important, has not been there to speak to this, other legislation, or Supreme Court of Canada decisions, all of which greatly impact victims and their families, and the position remains vacant. I am urgently calling, and have been for months now, on the government to fill the position of ombudsman for victims of crime.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here today, back in our nation's capital again for another sitting week.

I rise today in support of Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code. This bill is a key step to ensuring that each individual who interacts with our justice system is treated with the dignity, respect and compassion they deserve. I am eager to see this important bill continue to move through the legislative process.

Bill C-3 would amend the Judges Act to ensure that all newly appointed provincial superior court judges take part in training on social context and sexual assault law. This bill would also propose that when the Canadian Judicial Council develops seminars on sexual assault law, it does so following consultations with groups that the council considers appropriate, such as sexual assault survivors and organizations supporting them.

Bill C-3 also seeks to have the council report to the Minister of Justice on the seminars offered related to sexual assault law and social context. Finally, this bill would require judges to provide reasons for decisions under certain sexual assault provisions of the Criminal Code.

I am proud to note that Bill C-3 continues to be an example of parliamentary collaboration on key issues that have an impact on Canadians. The bill before us today is identical to Bill C-5, which was referred to committee before Parliament was prorogued.

Like Bill C-5, Bill C-3 reflects the private member's bill introduced by the former interim leader of the Conservative Party, the Hon. Rona Ambrose. I want to thank her for her work and her commitment to these important issues. I look forward to continuing our collaboration to ensure that this bill is brought before the other place and that Canadians can benefit from the important changes it seeks to make.

This evening I would like to focus my remarks on the importance of social context training for judges. In particular, I would like to address how the social context education provisions in Bill C-3 would help ensure an inclusive justice system that is free from systemic racism and system discrimination.

Each individual who appears in court is more than a claimant, respondent or witness. They are not just a name on a legal document or a face in a courtroom. An individual's engagement with the justice system is deeply intertwined with their life outside of court. They bring with them to court their experiences, their stories and their context. To ensure that all people who engage with the justice system are treated respectfully, fairly and equally, judges need to understand the realities of these individuals who appear before them. Bill C-3 recognizes this need.

By requiring candidates to superior court benches to participate in continuing education on social context, Bill C-3 would help ensure that new judges are aware of the many factors that can affect a person's involvement in the justice system.

Bill C-3 would amend the Judges Act to restrict eligibility for judicial appointment to a provincial superior court to persons who undertake to participate in continuing education on matters related to social context after their appointment. This means that every new provincial superior court judge would begin their tenure on the bench with this important training.

Social context refers to a range of factors that impact an individual's reality and experiences, including experiences leading up with their interaction with the justice system, their first contact with the justice system and their experiences before a judge. The factors that make up social context intersect an individual's life. Social context includes systemic racism and systemic discrimination.

Bill C-3 reflects this reality. During the clause-by-clause study of this bill, the member for Hull—Aylmer proposed an amendment to specify that systemic racism and systemic discrimination are part of social context. I was pleased to support this critical amendment and see it pass at committee.

For too many Canadians, notably indigenous peoples, and Black and racialized Canadians, systemic racism and systemic discrimination are lived realities. We see this in health care, access to economic opportunity and our justice system. We know that indigenous, Black and racialized Canadians are overrepresented in the criminal justice system. We also know that Canadians who experience systemic racism and systemic discrimination face structural barriers to access to justice, barriers that have sadly been worsened by the pandemic.

Amending Bill C-3 to specify that social context includes systemic racism and systemic discrimination reflects where we are as a nation, where we are as a country. We have work to do.

Our government is committed to doing that work. We released Canada's anti-racism strategy for 2019 through 2022. We are investing in economic empowerment for racialized communities. We are combatting online hate, and we are creating a unified approach to better collect disaggregated data. Through these and other actions, we are taking concrete steps to combat systemic racism and systemic discrimination in their many incarnations, including in the justice system. Bill C-3 will help us achieve this critical goal.

Bill C-3 focuses on the importance of providing training for judges that addresses racism and systemic discrimination. When appointed, judges should be aware of the reality lived and experienced by the people who will come before them. The requirement for social context education set out in Bill C-3 would ensure that new judges have this awareness.

Learning about social context will ensure that newly appointed judges are aware of systemic racism, systemic discrimination and the ways these pervasive problems impact individuals' experiences with the justice system. When judges have this fundamental awareness, courtrooms are more sensitized, hospitable and inclusive. A judge who is aware of social context is, for example, better prepared to ensure that a racialized young woman with a disability appearing in court experiences a justice system that is respectful and responsive to her reality. Social context training supports understanding, empathy and appropriate judgments for all Canadians.

By bolstering judges' awareness of the context in which they fulfill their functions, social context training ensures myths and stereotypes or personal societal biases do not play a role in their decisions. Social context shapes the experiences of all individuals who interact with the justice system, whether they are before a judge, in superior court, or in provincial or territorial court. That is why our government is also working with our partners to improve the availability of training on social context for provincially and territorially appointed judges.

We must ensure that our justice system treats everyone with respect and dignity. The team work involved requires the collaboration of all parties and potential stakeholders in the justice system.

Together, we must work to ensure that Canadians have access to a justice system that is responsive, inclusive and free from systemic racism and systemic discrimination. This bill is an important step toward these goals, and I am eager to continue to work with my colleagues to move Bill C-3 forward.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice in support of moving Bill C-3 to the next stage of review.

I wanted to start by recognizing the work of my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in conducting the clause-by-clause study of Bill C-3 in an expeditious and efficient manner so this important bill can continue to move forward. The version we have before the House today reflects a number of amendments that were adopted by the justice committee, and I will speak to those amendments in due course.

At the outset, I would like to acknowledge the important work that was done on a previous iteration of this bill during the 42nd Parliament by Ms. Rona Ambrose, the then interim leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. She presented this bill as a private member's bill, which gathered support of all members of Parliament and proceeded expeditiously through the House of Commons at that time.

It is unfortunate that it was not able to be passed in the 42nd Parliament and, as a result, has ended up before this current Parliament. In light of our belief in and support of this bill, we committed to tabling this legislation as government legislation, which is what we have done. We have seen it through now to this third reading debate.

The end goal of Bill C-3 is to bolster public confidence, particularly among survivors of sexual assault, that our criminal justice system will treat all individuals fairly. This fundamental objective was unanimously agreed to at second reading by the members, with a number of them speaking about painful personal experiences or their work with survivors of sexual assault.

These important statements bear witness to the fact that the sexual assault of women remains a scourge that is an affront to our society's reputation. It is a thorny and pervasive problem that every member of society must take seriously and that requires us to commit to making changes.

The bill, importantly, is not a panacea to this complex problem. However, Bill C-3 represents a small but important step toward transforming our justice system into one in which survivors of sexual assault are treated with dignity and respect at all stages of the justice system process.

I strongly believe that as parliamentarians it behooves us to take whatever steps we can to move toward a fairer, more just and more accessible criminal justice system. If passed, the bill will enhance public confidence. It will demonstrate to survivors of sexual assault and to all Canadians Parliament's commitment to ensure they are treated fairly and with dignity and respect, and that the proceeding will be decided in accordance with the legal framework provided by Parliament, not influenced by misguided or outdated myths or stereotypes.

To this end, Bill C-3 proposes three key measures relating to judicial education and one relating to the Criminal Code of Canada. Let me outline these provisions.

First, the Judges Act would be amended to require that to be eligible to be appointed to a provincial superior court, candidates must commit to participate, following their appointment, in education on matters relating to sexual assault law and social context. It is important, and I want to open a parenthesis here, that we are dealing as a federal Parliament with judges that are within federal jurisdiction. The bill does not purport to direct, indicate or outline aspects of judges who are nominated by provincial attorneys general and provincial governments in provincial courts.

This remains an important point. The notion of sexual assault law and awareness of social context is important for all judges. However, we are committed to leading by example on this important legislation and also continuing to work at federal, provincial and territorial tables to ensure the concept of the importance of this kind of sensitization is imparted upon judges at all levels within Canada and by all provinces.

The second point is that Bill C-3 would amend the Judges Act to provide that sexual assault and social context training established by the Canadian Judicial Council be developed after consultation with survivors, the groups that support them or with other groups and individuals who the council considers appropriate.

The third key element in Bill C-3, touching on judicial education, is the provision that would seek to have the Canadian Judicial Council provide an annual report to the Minister of Justice, for tabling in Parliament, containing details relating to the judicial education offered. This is intended to enhance accountability in the education of sitting judges on these matters and act as an incentive to encourage their participation.

The final element in Bill C-3 is an amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada that would require judges to provide reasons in writing or on the record of proceedings for their decision in sexual assault matters. This provision would help to prevent the misapplication of sexual assault law. It would also help to improve the transparency of sexual assault decisions, because recorded and written decisions can be reviewed. We heard about this extensively during the course of the two iterations of the bill and in the various committee studies. Not only must justice be done but it must be seen to be done, and a record of the proceedings and reasons provided help ensure this critical objective is obtained.

Taken together, these amendments would increase the confidence of the public and survivors in our criminal justice system's ability to handle sexual assault matters in a fair and respectful manner, by treating the victims with dignity and, above all, by respecting the law that has been carefully designed to that end.

Just as importantly, the bill will send Canadians, especially survivors of sexual assault, the message that Parliament is committed and ready to take action so that all Canadians, especially the most vulnerable, can have confidence in our justice system.

With this outline in mind, I would like to now turn to the amendments adopted at committee, which I am very happy to say our government is pleased to support.

The first key amendment made by the committee was to include the terms “systemic racism” and “systemic discrimination” within the idea of social context. Colleagues will recall that in 2017, in its consideration of Bill C-337, the private member's bill by Ms. Rona Ambrose which I mentioned at the outset, our government proposed an amendment in the House of Commons to include social context education within the scope of that bill in the 42nd Parliament. That amendment ended up being passed unanimously by the House of Commons.

Adding social context to the judicial education provisions of the old Bill C-337 was considered essential to ensuring that important institutions like the judiciary be able to respond to the realities, needs and concerns of all Canadians. This was intended as explicit recognition that knowledge of substantive law was insufficient on its own. Individuals aspiring to appointment to Canada's superior courts must also be willing to undergo continued education following their appointment to ensure they are sensitive to and informed about the evolving nature of Canadian society, particularly marginalized and vulnerable groups. The language that was chosen was very deliberately drafted to be as encompassing as possible without going down a path of enumerating certain concepts, classes, groups or demographics, which could open up parliamentarians to the possibility of having unwittingly or, indeed, inadvertently excluded some persons or groups.

This is not an idle concern. As I noted earlier, it is imperative that all Canadians see themselves in the institutions that are created to serve them and support our democracy. It is our role as parliamentarians to ensure this when considering legislation. I also fully expect that this issue will receive careful consideration in the Senate. I look forward to hearing the views of all Canadians and stakeholders to ensure we meet the expectations of Canadians and get this accurate.

It is important to outline for the members of the House that Canada's superior court judiciary was one of the first in the world to insist on the importance of integrating awareness of social context into all its substantive programming. Going back to 2018, the Canadian Judicial Council explicitly mandated that the professional development of judges include awareness of the social context in which they performed their functions.

I will quote from the Canadian Judicial Council's professional development policies and guidelines, which can be found on the council's website. The document states:

Judges must ensure that personal or societal biases, myths and stereotypes do not influence judicial decision-making. This requires awareness and knowledge of the realities of individuals who appear in court, including an understanding of circumstances related to gender, race, ethnicity, religion, culture, sexual orientation, differing mental or physical abilities, age, socio-economic background, children and family violence.

This being said, the bill is a nuanced bill and an important one. We need to be careful in our approach. I say this because judicial independence is constitutionally protected. If I am allowed to digress a moment, this is an area in which I spent a large amount of my practice litigating in the 15 years I spent as a constitutional lawyer prior to entering Parliament.

Judicial independence is sacrosanct in any westernized democracy. It contains tenets that are obvious but often go unstated. We cannot influence the financial security of members of the bench. We cannot influence their tenure or seek to remove them of their tenure as a way of exercising influence. We also cannot, as a third hallmark of judicial independence, affect their administrative independence. A tangible example would be the government inserting itself in electing which judges hear what types of cases. That would clearly be offside our notion of democracy, but also offside the charter and the Constitution Act, 1867.

The administrative component of judicial independence requires judicial control over the training and education of judges. This ensures that judges in our country are not, and are not perceived to be, subject to arbitrary interference or influence in their decision-making. This is a critical concept, and that is why it is entrenched in the Constitution.

Bill C-3 and its predecessor, Bill C-5, were carefully drafted to ensure ultimate judicial control over judicial education.

I will turn to the amendment that was proposed, expressing Parliament's view that systemic racism and systemic discrimination are included within the idea of social context does not upset this very careful balance. The judiciary would still retain the direction and delivery of judicial education in a manner that fully respects judicial independence. At the same time, Parliament is able to fulfill Canadians' expectations that it has a role in addressing issues of pressing public importance. The issues of systemic racism and systemic discrimination are long standing, particularly with respect to our justice system. However, it goes without saying that public awareness of these concepts has clearly come to the fore during this pandemic.

I want to outline two specific instances and thank two specific members who participated in those committee proceedings: the member for Hull—Aylmer and the member for Sydney—Victoria. They talked eloquently about the pernicious aspects of systemic racism and systemic discrimination vis-à-vis Black people and indigenous people in Canada. I salute them for their work in with respect to the Black caucus and the indigenous caucus, but also for their contributions at the committee by suggesting amendments that are very targeted but very necessary in expanding out the idea of what social context includes.

I will now turn to the next set of amendments that were proposed by members of the third party, the Bloc Québécois. Members will note that some of the provisions have been slightly altered. For example, the word “shall” has been changed to “should” in certain contexts. Minor changes have also been made in relation to other provisions. These amendments were intended to address the possible perception that Parliament, in potentially enacting Bill C-3, could be purporting to direct the judiciary in respect of judicial education. While this perception, in my view, is improbable, our government is prepared to support these amendments out of an abundance of caution.

At this point, I want to briefly bring the attention of members to the government motion to amend Bill C-3 at the report stage to correct an unintended inconsistency between the English and the French versions of the amendments proposed by the Bloc members. These amendments are clearly necessary and uncontroversial, and I would expect all hon. members to vote to support them to ensure the amendments intended by the committee are reflected in both our official languages.

Again, the principle of judicial independence cannot be overstated. As I have emphasized, Parliament's efforts to bolster public confidence in our justice system cannot at the same time undermine this constitutionally protected principle. I fully expect that our esteemed colleagues in the Senate will likewise give this issue their careful attention, and I look forward to that for two reasons: first, because a vigorous public debate is essential to a healthy democracy; and, second, because in this instance such a debate will, in and of itself, serve to reassure the public of the strength of judicial independence in the country and the regard that our Parliament has for this important constitutional principle.

We are very fortunate in Canada to have one of the most, if not the most, robustly independent and highly regarded judiciaries in the world. This is in no small part due to the availability of the excellent publicly funded but judicially controlled continuing education to which the superior court judiciary has access.

Members heard me refer to some of the contours of what that education looked like as of 2018. This is a step in the same vein and direction to ensuring that education continues to be robust and indeed among the best standards, literally on the planet, for the judiciary in a westernized democracy.

I also applaud those parliamentarians before us who had the foresight to embed the availability of funding for judicial education in the Judges Act, and the Canadian Judicial Council for its leadership in recognizing that professional development and lifelong learning are critical to ensuring a judiciary that is well-educated, professional and, indeed critically, independent.

The commitment of the Canadian Judicial Council to excellent continuing education is manifested in its professional development policies and guidelines, which I know explicitly recognize that the public rightfully expects judges to be competent and knowledgeable in the law. Bill C-3 seeks only to support and build on this notion and thereby move toward a better, more humane and more inclusive justice system.

I am going to conclude my remarks where I started: by acknowledging the challenges faced by survivors of sexual assault. Those challenges go well beyond the scope of the bill. We must recognize that in order to effect meaningful and substantial changes to the manner in which survivors of sexual assault are treated in our criminal justice system, every actor in the justice system, and every level of government, must take responsibility. That is what I referred to regarding the passage of the bill in the context of working with federal, provincial and territorial partners, and ensuring that the actions we may take through the bill, with respect to judges appointed to Superior Courts, are replicated in actions we may see, and hope to see, in provincial appointments to the bench.

It also goes without saying that the bill would not have had its genesis without the leadership of Ms. Rona Ambrose. It is important to note that when a member of the official opposition presents a bill that the government gets behind, it truly demonstrates the non-partisan nature of what we are speaking about when we speak about sexual assault law, the importance of ensuring public confidence in our judiciary, social context, and confronting systemic racism and systemic discrimination. These concepts should never be partisan. I am thankful that in the context of the bill in its current iteration, partisanship has not entered into the discussion. This is representative of how important these concepts are for all of us as parliamentarians. I would urge all members to take the small but important next step to vote to move the bill into the next phase so that it can be addressed by the Senate. On that note, I conclude my remarks.

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I give my first speech in this session of the 43rd Parliament, I would like to thank the amazing people in my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra for allowing me the privilege to stand here today. I want them to know that it is my joy and honour to serve them, especially during this unique and challenging time in Canadian history.

I am grateful to stand here in the House of Commons as a woman speaking on Bill C-3, legislation that I trust will mark one step forward in the healing and empowering of women and girls to thrive and beautify the world with their vision, wisdom and love. I would like to thank the Hon. Rona Ambrose, former interim leader of the Conservative Party of Canada and the official opposition. She originally introduced it as Bill C-337 on February 27, 2017. I am encouraged to see this legislation adopted by the Liberal government earlier this year as Bill C-5 and reintroduced in this session as Bill C-3. I am happy to see many members contribute their ideas, thoughts and feelings during the course of debate on the bill.

One in three women around the world is victim to physical or sexual violence. In Canada, young women aged 15 to 24 years have the highest rate of sexual assaults, 71 incidents for every population of 1,000. The impact of COVID-19 has created an environment of an increase in violence against women and girls, but I know there is hope because of counsellors, social workers and community outreach programs on the front lines across Canada that provide a safe oasis for vulnerable and victimized women.

On that note, I would like to thank Tri-City Transitions, a shelter for domestically abused women and children in my community. The unconditional love and caring work of women like Carol Metz and her counsellors help the women in my community find hope to heal and the courage to break free from the cycles of abuse and violence.

I am also grateful for the tireless work of champions like Mary O'Neill and recovery programs like Talitha Koum that provide caring mentorship to help women reclaim their lives, not only from addiction but many times the trauma behind their substance abuse. I thank them for being beacons of hope to women who are hiding in the shadows of fear, broken will and shattered self-image. The sad truth is that the fact that we need more shelters and programs for victims of domestic violence and assault, and the fact that they exist, shows a broken system that allows the cycle to perpetuate. This cycle must stop.

I support Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code, because it is one step in a long series of many steps we must take to break the cycle of violence and abuse against women. Bill C-3 addresses the lack of justice for women in the court of law by seeking to improve the interactions between sexual assault complainants and the justice system, specifically the judiciary. Bill C-3 seeks to amend the Judges Act to restrict eligibility of who may be appointed a judge of a superior court by requiring them to commit to undertaking and participating in continuing education on matters related to sexual assault law and social context, including attending seminars.

This bill also requires the Canadian Judicial Council to submit an annual report to Parliament on delivery and participation in the sexual assault information seminars established by it. Bill C-3 also requires judges to provide reasons for their decisions in sexual assault cases.

We need only look at a couple of incidents as prototypes of court decisions that show reviling misogyny and biases. Robin Camp, a former federal judge, in 2014, when the alleged rape victim was testifying, asked her why she could not just keep her knees together. Throughout the trial, he criticized her for not screaming while the alleged assault took place and suggested she wanted to have sex. Camp later acquitted the defendant, Alexander Wagar. After acquitting him, he told the defendant, “I want you to tell your friends, your male friends, that they have to be far more gentle with women.” This is absolutely disgusting.

Cindy Gladue, an indigenous woman, was paid for sex by Bradley Barton, the alleged killer, and was found dead in a pool of blood in a motel room after a violent death. I dare not repeat how graphic that picture was because it is just so reviling. The judge presiding over the trial repeatedly referred to her as native and a prostitute. Barton was acquitted because of biases formed against Gladue's history. Such appalling incidents further victimize and silence women from speaking up. It is also unjust for families of victims.

The majority, 83%, of sexual assaults are not reported to police. These two examples alone illustrate very clearly the cause of this hesitation: 67% of women in Canada have no confidence in the justice system and of the 20% of women who take their cases to court, only 10% that make it to court come out with convictions. Among those convicted, only 7% of the perpetrators actually get punished with jail time. Others get probation or fines at the judge's discretion. There is no justice, so why would these women pursue it?

Insult is added to injury when they are left to walk away, feeling like the ones who were sentenced. When an agent of authority like a federal judge gaslights a woman before the court, where does that leave her? There is no justice for that woman. That little seedling of self- esteem she fought to salvage is trampled, but the chain of injustice is long.

There is fear of retaliation from perpetrators when they are not locked up in jail and are free to stalk and repeat their offences, and perhaps even go further and murder the victims. The lack of support, condemnation, shaming and shunning that victims experience from taboos and cultural stigmas prevent women from speaking up. If the perpetrator is someone she knows, like a friend, acquaintance or neighbour, as is the case in 52% of sexual assault incidents, it is even harder.

The court's decision can take away a victim's credibility in the community and inevitably put a toll on the mental and physical health of that victim. It takes a lot of courage for women who have experienced sexual assault to speak up.

I just want to pause here and commend and congratulate the women who have taken steps to speak up and go to the courts. This is why we are standing here as parliamentarians. They inspire us. It takes a lot of courage for women who have experienced sexual assault to speak up and seek the justice they deserve. They have to relive the trauma when speaking about it. If they go forward to the courts, they risk being condemned for speaking up.

Similarly, it does not help when families of victims like those who came forward with testimonies for the report on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls have to relive their traumas through the retelling of their stories and now still await action from the government. However, I hope that these discussions will inspire the government to take action more quickly.

I am very proud that my Conservative colleagues in the last Parliament supported the “JUST Act”, because we recognized that the justice system failed to respect the experiences of victims of sexual assault far too often. I would like to thank Ms. Ambrose again for her work on this important file.

As I support Bill C-3, I do so with a hope that it is an important step among lawmakers in Canada to improve the justice system to work for all people, including women and girls, and not against them. Bill C-3 is a positive beginning, but simply that. I hope the passage of the bill will not give license to the government or my colleagues across all aisles to simply relax, because the bill does not get to the root of violence against women.

If we are to break the cycle of violence against women, we need to get to the root. The root begins with the family and the way women are treated by their intimate partners and their parents. Domestic violence breeds abuse and violence. There needs to be more education, awareness and a breaking of the code of shame and silence. Speaking with women's shelters, men also need mentoring and accountability. They are a missing part of the puzzle that is necessary to make the healing journey for families and society fulsome.

Indigenous communities need all the support they can get to help their women, and the provinces cannot do all of this alone. We need all tiers of government and all community front-line agencies to work together to create long-term solutions. Prevention will save lives.

My mandate as a member of Parliament is to contribute to the making and passing of laws and policies that will help heal individuals, families and society, so each person will prosper, so Canada will prosper and that personal peace will help build a strong and free nation. Bill C-3 is a bill that I am happy to support and reminds me why I am here. However, let us not applaud too loud, lest we become complacent and fail to do the daunting work that lies ahead: to heal our women and our nation.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, one in three Canadian women will be a victim of sexual assault in her lifetime. What an awful statistic for women and fathers to contemplate.

I have three children, two daughters and a son. To think or imagine that one of my daughters could one day be a victim of sexual assault, or that maybe she has been already but kept silent, or has been a victim of sexual harassment and kept it to herself, is simply awful. It is awful to think that in our society, one in three women will experience sexual assault in her lifetime.

Sunday is International Day of the Girl. I think many parents will take the opportunity to ask questions. I hope we can take that day to reflect on the fact that one in three girls, one in three women, will be a victim of sexual assault in her lifetime.

Sunday will be a day to think about this issue as a family and to reflect on and discuss it with our children to find out what is going on, to make our boys and girls aware, to show openness in order to encourage people to talk, to try and ensure that nothing gets bottled up and that this is something that can be talked about more openly. Unfortunately, if we do not talk about it and it remains hidden, it will continue, and the statistics will not get any better.

For one in three women to be a victim of assault shows that there is a problem with trust in our society. My colleague from Sarnia—Lambton said it so well yesterday.

“Because of a studied lack of trust in our criminal justice system, many women feel unable to even report the assaults they suffered to the police out of fear they will not be taken seriously. They will continue to suffer re-traumatization, and if their cases do advance, their attackers will not face serious repercussions.”

More than two-thirds of women say they are not confident in the police, the court process, or justice itself. As a result, 83% of sexual assaults go unreported. Of the remaining 17% of cases, one in five just gets dropped. The other four are subjected to intense scrutiny. The victims are caught in the middle of a difficult and stressful process that unfortunately has small chance of success. Of these remaining cases, just one in five will go to court. Just one in 10 cases ends in a conviction resulting in a fine or jail time. That means if we start with 100 cases, that number gradually gets whittled down.

We understand that women are afraid to go to court and that they struggle to trust the criminal justice system. That is exactly what the bill before us is meant to address.

Three versions of this bill have been introduced in the House. It was first introduced as a private member's bill by our former interim opposition leader, Rona Ambrose, as Bill C-337. It was reintroduced as Bill C-5, and it has now been introduced as Bill C-3.

Every chance we get to debate the bill is an opportunity for all parliamentarians to educate Canadians, judges and everyone about the reality that women face in this country.

It is important that we talk about it. It is important to talk about it tomorrow, next week and as often as possible. The culture of secrecy, the fear of speaking up, the fear of being ridiculed and the fear of not being believed are all reasons why women choose not to report their assailants.

This is what we are trying to stop. This is what we are trying to do with Bill C-3. Progress may be slow, but we are taking logical, meaningful action.

Madam Speaker, the government rightly reintroduced the Hon. Rona Ambrose's bill, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code, also known as the “just act”. This bill includes the amendments that were passed by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs before the last election, which delayed the passage of the bill.

What will this bill do if it is passed? As I said, it will help by requiring new judges to take continuing legal education on sexual assault law.

We have been talking about this bill since the beginning of the day, but those who are watching at home may not be aware of its content. They may not know exactly what this bill is about. I will therefore read part of the preamble to give a good overview of the bill.

The preamble states that “survivors of sexual assault in Canada must have faith in the criminal justice system”. It also states that “Parliament recognizes the importance of an independent judiciary”. Parliament does not want to get involved in cases that are before the courts because Parliament's role and duty are to ensure that people can have confidence in the justice system.

The preamble also indicates that “parliamentarians have a responsibility to ensure that Canada’s democratic institutions reflect the values and principles of Canadians and respond to their needs and concerns”. In the past, we have seen too many cases where judges have rendered decisions based on myths or false precepts. That is not what today's society demands of judges. We, as parliamentarians, are the voice of Canadians across the country and we therefore have a duty to remind judges of these new principles. That is what we are doing right now with Bill C-3.

The preamble also says, “...sexual assault proceedings have a profound effect on the reputations and lives of the persons affected and present a high possibility of revictimizing survivors of sexual assault.” Having to go through the judicial process and relive everything that happened, in front of many people, and strangers at that, can deter women from seeking justice.

The preamble also states that “...Parliament recognizes the value and importance of judges participating in continuing education.” With this additional training, our judges will be better equipped to do their jobs, which could result in greater access to justice for women.

The preamble of Bill C-3 also states, “...it is imperative that persons seeking to be appointed to the judiciary undertake to participate in continuing education on matters related to sexual assault law and social context.” That all makes perfect sense.

I was impressed, and actually very touched, by the speech given by my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill, even as we go about proposing changes and trying to improve things. Here is some of what she had to say:

...there is something about this bill that really makes me angry. It is absurd to me that we have to spend time figuring out how to train the men in Canada's systemically misogynistic justice system to be sensitive to sexual assault. In so many ways, it is blindly the wrong approach because it is so paternalistic in its design. ... If men want to be honoured with a judicial appointment, why can the hiring criteria not be what they have done in their career to remove the systemic barriers women face? Why do we have to train the idiots in society, and why could we not just hire the allies?

Those are harsh words, but they are the words of a woman who, like many of our colleagues here and many women I know, has herself gone through all kinds of ordeals. We need to take this seriously. That is the point we are at. I applaud the women who have had the courage to speak up in the House in support of Bill C-3.

Personally, I fully support this bill. I hope that more and more of our colleagues will talk about it and seize every available opportunity to do so because the more we talk about it, the closer we get to a solution.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-3. While important and something I was happy to support in the 42nd Parliament, I am afraid it is just a drop in the bucket in what we as a society must do to fight sexual violence against women.

Bill C-3 will, I hope, like its predecessors Bill C-5 and Bill C-337, find unanimous support as this legislation is a rare product of bipartisan support.

I thank the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada for sponsoring this reintroduction of the bill that found its genesis in a private member's bill created by the Hon. Rona Ambrose, former member of Parliament for Sturgeon River—Parkland and also former leader of Canada's Conservatives and the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition.

This legislation is about ensuring that trust is maintained in the judicial system, that survivors of sexual assault are respected by the judicial system when they step forward. The bill, when passed, will require federal judges and those seeking the office to participate in continuing legal education with regard to sexual assault law. It also strives to combat the myths and stereotypes that often cause victims of sexual assault to hesitate to come forward.

Federal judges will also be required to provide written reasoning for their decisions in sexual assault cases in order to promote transparency in the reasons that lead to their decisions. The bill would require the Canadian Judicial Council to submit an annual report to Parliament on the delivery and participation in sexual assault information seminars established by it.

In my mind, to be truly effective, provincial court judges should be required to take this training. I encourage those provinces to take a serious look at the work that has been done by parliamentary committees and listen to the words spoken in the House with respect to this issue and to strongly consider passing complementary legislation in their respective jurisdictions.

It is a shame, though, we find ourselves in this place at this time where we must pass legislation to train arguably the highest educated group of individuals in the country on sexual assault awareness. Where we should be focusing our energy is educating the next generation of men and women to be advocates, especially men, for ending sexual violence and not perpetuating the myths and stereotypes that enable others to think it is acceptable.

Yesterday, the member for Calgary Nose Hill made one of the most impassioned and important speeches I have heard in this Parliament. Our colleague stood here and challenged men to stand up and be a voice for women and men who are victims of sexual violence. Far too often it is women who are forced to stand on their own and shout enough is enough.

Statistically, women constitute the overwhelming numbers of victims of sexual assaults. Adding to the personal trauma, they must often rely solely on their own strength to report these heinous crimes. As men, we have historically dismissed women's voices on these issues or left it to them to demand action. It is time for men to recognize their role in preventing sexual violence in all its forms. Let me be clear: It is not enough for a man to say, “Well, I would never do that so I've done my part.”

We need to do more. We all need to do more. We need to stand with those incredibly brave survivors who are taking a stand to end sexual violence, and not just for women. Men are victims of sexual assault as well and it needs to end for all victims. Men need to challenge the myths and stereotypes about how survivors of sexual assault are expected to behave.

As a father of a young boy, I have a responsibility to guide him in his journey to become a man. There are many things I must teach him, and for him to learn from me and I from him. However, in order for him to take his place as a productive member of society, I need to be that role model. I need to be putting forward the messages and encouraging him to be better.

One of the most fundamental things I need to impress upon him is to respect others. He needs to understand that men should not feel entitled to sexually harass people or perpetuate sexual violence, that every person has power over his or her own body and how to give and receive consent. He needs to understand that men and boys must never obtain power through violence and that the notion that sex is a right of his gender is false. Sexual violence ends when all of us understand the fundamental truth that no one is permitted to sexually harass or invade another individual's body or personal boundaries.

Girls and women are given advice about rape prevention, and we heard this from many members in this place in the ongoing debate today and the debate yesterday, such as not letting their drink out of sight, not wearing revealing outfits or high heels and not walking alone at night.

As a society, we must go beyond what girls can do to prevent being victims. We need to focus on the attitudes that boys have about women and their own masculinity. The next generation of men needs to promote mutual respect for women and embrace equality for all people, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation. Working toward ending sexual violence is a constant collective effort and, as men, we all need to do our part.

While Bill C-5 is just a ripple, it is my sincere hope that it will eliminate victim blaming, an attitude that suggests a victim rather than a perpetrator bears responsibility for an assault, that victims' sobriety, or the clothes they were wearing or their sexuality become irrelevant in the courtroom. To end sexual violence, perpetrators must be held accountable. By trying sexual violence cases, we recognize these acts as crimes and send a strong message of zero tolerance.

Canada's Conservatives were proud to support Bill C-337 and Bill C-5 in previous Parliaments. We recognize that far too often the justice system fails to respect the experiences of victims of sexual assault.

The Canadian bench must be held accountable and ensure that judges have the updated training that Canadians expect them to have. That is why we committed in the last election to ensure that all judicial appointees take sexual assault sensitivity training prior to taking the bench. We will always look for ways to stand up for survivors of sexual assault and ensure they are treated with dignity.

I would like to thank Rona Ambrose for being such a passionate advocate for victims of sexual assault and for her work on this very important file. This bill addresses the simple fact that victims going to trial should expect that judges are educated in the law, yet what it does not address is the absolute necessity that all of us, every single person has the same responsibility to be educated in what it means to be human and protect and respect the dignity of our fellow citizens.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that the Conservatives voted against a motion to pass the bill and refer it directly to the Senate. That is what we did with Bill C-5, which was more or less the same bill.

The Conservatives argued that they wanted the training to also be provided to parole officers. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.

Do the Conservatives have any other objections to the bill being passed quickly?

Since everyone officially supports this bill, does my colleague agree that we should pass it as quickly as possible?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code. I have a lot to say about this bill, so I hope I do not run out of time.

First I want to thank my friend, the Hon. Rona Ambrose. I was with her from the inception of this bill. She did me the honour of making me the chair of the status of women committee. Watching her lead this bill through the House was a real learning experience for me. We know that she is an accomplished businesswoman and accomplished politician. She was also our interim leader and a cabinet minister. I heard she is writing a book, so I look forward to that. I would like to thank her again for recognizing the importance of this issue and bringing it forward.

I want to talk a bit about the history of the bill. We have heard in some of the speeches that this is the third time it has been before the House. It received unanimous consent when I was here and went to the Senate. Although I cannot explain what happened there, I was told that at the last moment the government woke up and realized it had passed no legislation and loaded up government legislation into the queue. That was the responsibility there for that failure.

Then we had Bill C-5. It was reintroduced, and I was happy to see that. Then the government decided not to sit all summer, so that was a wasted opportunity, and then on top of that it prorogued Parliament and delayed another six weeks. Everything fell off and had to be restarted, so here we are again.

It is disconcerting when we think about the statistics that we have heard. I know that many people have quoted them in their speeches, but I want to add a few comments to them. It is astounding when we hear that 83% of women who have been sexually assaulted do not even report it. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

We heard some testimony at the status of women committee. We were studying violence against women and girls at the time this bill came forward. The Ottawa Police reported that, of the women who show up at the police station to claim that they have been sexually assaulted, the police do not even write a report for 40% of them. Think about the humiliation for women, of being sexually assaulted and having the courage to go to the police knowing that, if they show up, only one in five cases is even reported, which then may go to trial. A very small percentage of those ever come with a conviction.

Once they come up with a conviction, it is astounding to see the small sentences that people receive in this country for sexual assault. When we look at it on paper, we can see that there are supposed to be minimum sentences of 10 and 14 years for these kinds of offences, but the reality is that it is up to the judge of the day to determine whether he wants to go with a summary conviction, probation or a fine. In fact, in many cases, even for the very small percentage convicted, the punishment for the crime is measured in months, or people are allowed to be on probation or they pay a fine for sexually assaulting a woman.

When one in three women in this country is going to be sexually assaulted in her life, this is totally unacceptable. We know, and it has been pointed out, that indigenous women and members of the LGBTQ community are even more at risk for this kind of sexual violence. It is all the more reason why we need to have training in place that could address parts of this.

I liked many of the recommendations I heard today that said that we have the purview, here in the House, over federal judges. However, that is not the whole story. There are provincial judges. This bill was brought forward and shared with all of the provinces. The report on violence against women and girls in Canada, which brought 45 specific recommendations to address this issue, was shared as well across the provinces. I am sad to say there has been very little uptake of that. Therefore, I was encouraged to hear my colleagues from Quebec tell me that they are starting to look at this and address the issue, because that will be very important.

Police sensitivity has been pointed out as a factor in the murdered and missing aboriginal women and girls recommendations, as well as 40 other reports that went before them on similar terms.

We heard testimony as well that training is needed there, but the reality is we have limited sway. This bill would address training for lawyers who want to become judges. We really wanted to have it address all the justices who were going to hear sexual assault cases, but unfortunately, that was not something we were able to make happen.

Justice Kent showed up at committee. As soon as Rona had tabled this bill, she was very enthusiastic and implemented training for lawyers who wanted to be judges in the federal judiciary, and recommended training to all those who were existing justices. She was unable to force them to take it, but at least there was immediate action taken. While there has been lamenting about the amount of time to pass the bill in full, people have stepped up to the plate and have been able to address some of the needs without even seeing the legislation.

Some of the statistics I find really troubling have to do with young people. Young people aged 15 to 24 are twice as likely to be sexually assaulted. When we were at committee, we heard testimony that 30% of women who attend Canadian universities would be sexually assaulted in the first eight weeks. This is unacceptable and unbelievable. Imagine these young girls in that state of trauma, not understanding the judicial system and having no guidance of any kind to help them manoeuvre through the police, and of course the peer pressure that exists on campus. We can see why we really need to have sensitivity.

The study we did came up with a lot of recommendations, and I am disappointed to see the government did not end up doing much with those. If I look at the importance it placed on addressing this issue, $100 million was put into one of the budgets to address violence against women and girls. If we think about the four million women, plus or minus, who have experienced sexual assault, it works out to 25 bucks for each one. That is not very much when compared, for example, with the government's response to the COVID pandemic, where some $240 billion has been rolled out to date for about 106,000 cases. That is $2.2 million per case of COVID compared with 25 bucks per sexual assault. I just wanted to put that into perspective. Sometimes the math tells us a lot.

Obviously, with this legislation we are trying to address some of the really egregious comments that have been made by judges in sexual assault trials. We know the most infamous one: Robin Camp's comments asking a survivor if she could not just keep her knees together. That was totally unacceptable. We know there was another case in the Atlantic provinces. A woman who had been drinking was assaulted, and the comment from the judge was that she was drunk, as if somehow that justified her being sexually assaulted. Maybe the most egregious to me personally were the comments made about Cindy Gladue, who was sexually assaulted and murdered, and when she was not even there to defend herself, the judge referred to her continually as the aboriginal prostitute. That is unacceptable in the extreme. We absolutely need to see change.

I have pointed out why the bill is needed. I want to spend a few minutes talking about what the bill would do and some the things that have changed over the evolution of the bill. The bill's purpose is to improve the interaction between sexual assault complainants and the justice system, specifically the judiciary. It would restrict the eligibility of who could be appointed to become a judge in Superior Court by requiring them to commit to undertaking and participating in continuing education on matters related to sexual assault and social context, including attending seminars.

It requires the Canadian Judicial Council to submit an annual report to Parliament on the delivery of and participation in the sexual assault information seminars established by it, and it requires judges to provide reasons for their decisions in sexual assault cases. It is really important that we understand why written decisions were necessary. When the decisions were not written, there was some evidence that perhaps they were less well thought out, or less likely to be appealed because the wording was not on record. Therefore, that was important.

In the bill itself there is more robust language about the consulting that needs to be done with other organizations for the training. We want to make sure that the training gets at the things it needs to address, so it needs to be “developed after consultation with persons, groups or organizations that the Council considers appropriate, such as sexual assault survivors and groups and organizations that support them; and include instruction in evidentiary prohibitions, principles of consent and the conduct of sexual assault proceedings, as well as education regarding myths and stereotypes associated with sexual assault complainants.”

Earlier we heard the member for Oakville North—Burlington recite the history of the legislation that went into place in 1983, which was the rape shield provision. That prohibits someone from bringing up someone's past sexual history as any kind of information that would be relevant to a sexual assault trial. In addition to that, the principle of consent is important and is something that does not just belong in training for judges. I agree also with an earlier member who talked about how it is important to educate children from the time they are young about consent.

If anyone has not seen a very short clip on YouTube called “Tea Consent”, I would encourage members to look at it, because it uses a cup of tea as an example of when we could expect sexual advances to be acceptable or not. We do not give someone tea if they are unconscious. We do not give someone tea if they say they do not want tea. I really think that is an excellent short video, but the education needs to be ongoing.

I am happy to see the consultation here and my hope is that they would consult as well intersectionally to make sure that concerns from the LGBTQ community as well as indigenous communities are heard, who as I already pointed out are more likely to experience assault. The training can be sensitive in all ways.

One of the things I do not like about the current revision is the metrics for tracking how well this is going. Originally, the tracking was going to be the number of sexual assault cases that were heard and the number of cases that had judges who had the training, so we could get a sense if it was working. Do we have judges, 100% being the goal, who have had the training actually presiding over cases?

Instead, the metric has been changed to the number of judges who attended each seminar. It is important to measure the number of people taking the training, but I am more interested in something very specific, which is that the people who are presiding over sexual assault trials have had the training. That is one of the things that brought this forward. The other justices who were somewhat insensitive did not have the training. I do not know if that metric is really where it ought to be, but I am sure that will get hashed out as well when it gets to committee.

I want to talk about some of the other issues that contribute to the whole problem of sexual assault and the ramifications of it. If we think about the victims who have been raped, there is a range of sexual assault that goes from the extreme on down. However, in every case there is trauma.

Many of the women and men who have been assaulted and experience this trauma have mental health issues as a result. Many turn to addictions of various sorts. The opioid crisis and the methamphetamine crisis we studied at health committee, if we look to the root cause of these things, it comes back to sexual assault in many cases. The cost to society is huge and it cannot be overlooked when we look at the importance of getting the legislation in place.

The other thing I wanted to talk about is rape culture. We were studying this whole issue of violence against women and girls and how we get to all of the different solutions. Rape culture is actually a pyramid where at the top we have sexual assault as the most heinous act. However, at varying levels below, there are behaviours that will walk somebody in that direction, starting with the catcalling, heckling and harassing of women and people on buses, for example.

There was an organization locally that came and did a very good presentation on the different behaviours and all the steps that would be needed to make sure people understand these small behaviours become more and more egregious and can, if not interrupted, lead somebody to cross the line and commit sexual assault. That is one thing that definitely needs to be looked at.

The other thing I want to talk about is the length of time all of this takes. We have talked about this particular bill being introduced for the third time, but that is not the only thing. I get very frustrated when I look at the work done at committees, which is very valuable and produces very detailed recommendations on what the government needs to do with violence against women and girls. Members should read the report.

There are 45 recommendations, some of them specific to those young women on university campuses and what we need to do to prevent sexual assault, help these women and guide them through the process. Each university should have a protocol in place to make sure they follow up correctly on the incident without shaming the victim, and to make sure the victim has support as they go through the police and judicial system. There are a lot of good points in there. It takes a long time to get anything to happen and I have not seen much happen with that.

The same is true for many issues affecting women, such as human trafficking, pay equity, corporate boards and systemic discrimination of women during the COVID pandemic. We have had a lot of discussions about how women are disproportionately impacted by the pandemic and how many of the programs rolled out did not really hit the mark there.

We need to be more nimble and agile. I heard that word in the throne speech. I am a fan of agility. Some folks in my past have said that I ram things through, but that is not true. I am a person of action and I like to see things done quickly.

In this case, it is something that is very serious. I am definitely going to support Bill C-3 and I am happy to have the opportunity to speak to many of the new members who may not have known the history of the bill as it came through the House, or who may not have been familiar with all of the statistics as to how bad the situation is in our own country.

I do not want to get away from the theme that one of the members talked about in terms of the government's approach of prevention, support and justice. I do think those are the right pillars to move forward with some action. We talked about education and some of the supports, but justice is something I would like to talk about for one minute.

We met with women from other countries who were parliamentary representatives. I remember sitting with a woman from another country and I asked what the sexual assault frequency was in her country. She told me that it is not really an issue for them. When I asked her why that was, she said that there is a mandatory 10-year sentence with no exceptions. That is the take-away.

We need to do something in our judicial system in addition to this bill that actually puts a punishment in place and does not leave it to the discretion of the judges who are preferentially choosing to go with punishments measured in months for the sexual assault of teenagers, people who may have trauma for the rest of their lives.

I thank members for listening and I thank Rona Ambrose for bringing the bill forward. I look forward to questions.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is nice to see you in person. I want to say hello to my colleagues on video conference.

I want to take a moment to pay tribute to my father, who died from ALS three years ago and whose birthday was October 7. I mention this because there is a lot of talk about these issues and about how to support caregivers.

I am pleased to be here today to speak to Bill C-3. We have been talking about this bill for a long time, but we are finally coming to the end. This is reassuring, because now we will able to move forward. There are more steps to come.

No one here will be surprised to hear that the Bloc Québécois will support the bill. Our party supported the original version of the bill that was introduced by Ms. Ambrose, the former interim leader of the Conservative Party. My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord was eager to support the bill and sought leave of the House to move a motion calling on the Senate to promptly adopt the bill, since the parliamentary session was coming to a close.

Unfortunately, what we feared came to pass. Our colleague's bill died on the Order Paper. That was not the first time. I also saw this when I was a political staffer about 10 years ago. We hope that Bill C-5 will not suffer the same fate. I would hope that we will get there in this session of Parliament with Bill C-3, and that after two failures, the third time will be the charm. I am speaking to all members. This is what I hope for us, so let us hurry up and support it.

Bill C-3 is important. It is a short bill, only a few pages long, and we all seem to agree on it. Despite its apparent simplicity, this bill is of paramount importance, because it has to do with the confidence the general public has in the justice system. As everybody here knows, the justice system is the backbone of any society. If people can no longer trust the justice system, what will they do? The excesses we see from time to time, including right now, the excesses that turn our stomachs, would only multiply. That is why we must act.

As legislators, experienced or newly elected, it is on us to ensure that the justice system in place is credible and that it has the approval and support of the entire, or the majority, of the population.

In the interest of justice, those dealing with the system and the rule of law that we are tasked to protect, we must in my opinion pass this bill as soon as possible. What are the effects? The answer is simple. We are talking here about training judges. Bill C-3 specifically addresses sexual assault, which we have been especially ill-equipped and ill-informed to deal with, not to mention that our judgments on this issue are often biased.

It is up to us as legislators to bolster this trust by rectifying the situation. We must give our judges as many tools as possible, so that they may do their job with the professionalism they already bring to it and want to continue to bring to it.

In almost all cases, a judge must assess the credibility of witnesses, that of both the victim and the accused. This is often where a judge can be influenced by preconceived notions that do not stem from malice, but from our lived experience and culture.

Bill C-3 seeks to address this situation by providing better training for judges and making everyone aware, including legislators, of the reality of sexual assault. We must understand how a victim may react in a given situation and why the victim may not recall the events surrounding the sexual assault. This is reiterated in practically every speech.

If we want the justice system to work, we need to ensure that the courts have a firm grasp of these issues. When asked to assess the credibility of a witness, a judge must have sufficient academic and practical knowledge to deliver a judgment that is sound and, above all, that Canadians can trust.

I hope that Bill C-3 will somehow open the door to the possibility of including, in sexual assault cases, a restorative component more common in the civil courts of Quebec and the provinces. We want to enhance people's trust in the courts, and not just criminal courts. It is normal for rulings to be overturned. Every day, rulings are handed down by the courts, and every day, rulings are overturned by the court of appeal. Sometimes the decision is two against one, as the judgment is not unanimous. Those cases go to the Supreme Court, which also often quashes appeal court rulings. Those judgments are not always unanimous either.

What is more, we are hearing that Quebec wants to establish specialized courts to hear sexual assault cases. Given that judges in all kinds of courts will receive this training, they may take it upon themselves to promote such avenues of recourse. In some cases, this could be done by improving legal aid so that people who rely on legal aid can seek redress through the civil courts.

That is why this bill must be passed quickly. Training is a driver of change because it seeks to increase awareness of the situation and to ensure that real needs are taken into consideration so that the work is done properly. We hope that no one has to experience sexual assault before having empathy for victims.

This training is essential for our current justice system. For all of these reasons, and for the reasons cited by all of my colleagues over the past few hours, we will be voting in favour of Bill C-3. I want to reiterate for the fourth time that I hope it will be passed very quickly.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.

This week, I got to see a comedy called How to Be a Good Wife. The movie made me realize that, not so long ago, women could not wear pants or dress how they liked. I am getting to the point, so please be patient. There is a connection. They were seen as creatures whose marital duty was to submit and be beholden to men. Of course, society has evolved. A woman who wears a short skirt or a low-cut top or who drinks should not be seen as a cheap piece of meat, nor should anyone interpret her attire or actions as signalling that she wants to be raped.

I have worked with women's groups, so it means a lot to me to speak to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code. Everyone seems to agree on this bill.

There are three parts to my speech. First, I will situate the bill in the context of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Then I will contextualize it from a uniquely Quebec perspective. I will conclude by explaining why I want to see it passed as soon as possible.

Bill C-337, which amends the Judges Act and the Criminal Code with regard to sexual assault, was introduced in the House of Commons on February 23, 2017, by the Hon. Rona Ambrose. It was studied by the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women, which, in its report on the bill, recommended amendments to three clauses and the deletion of one clause. The House of Commons passed the bill with the committee's amendments over two years ago on May 15, 2017. Bill C-337 received first reading in the Senate on May 16, 2017, and was referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on May 31, 2018. Unfortunately, I was not yet a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women at that time.

Bill C-337, whose short title is the Judicial Accountability through Sexual Assault Law Training Act, has three central purposes:

First, it adds a new eligibility requirement for lawyers to qualify to become a judge of a superior court in any province, namely, that they must have completed recent and comprehensive education in sexual assault law to the satisfaction of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs.

Second, it requires the Canadian Judicial Council, or CJC, to submit an annual report to Parliament through the Minister of Justice on the delivery and uptake of sexual assault law seminars established by the CJC.

Third, it requires reasons for decisions in sexual assault cases to be entered in the record of the proceedings or, if the proceedings are not recorded, the reasons must be provided in writing.

Of course, improvements were made to Bill C-337, which is considered to be the forerunner of Bill C-3. However, it is important to remember what was going on in the media when the bill was proposed and what problems it was trying to address.

The legal system's handing of sexual assault cases was often in the news. When she appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women, the Hon. Rona Ambrose explained that she decided to introduce the bill after noting that a disturbing number of sexual assault cases had shaken the public's confidence in our justice system.

She was referring to statements made by judges in sexual assault trials or in their decisions. Some felt that these comments were based on discredited stereotypes about victims of sexual assault. In one case, the judge resigned after the CJC recommended his removal because he made comments or asked questions evidencing an antipathy toward laws designed to protect vulnerable witnesses, promote equality and bring integrity to sexual assault trials.

In a case from 2016, a new trial was ordered on appeal after the judge was found to have used myths about the expected behaviour of sexual assault victims to justify an acquittal. In 2017, another judge was roundly criticized for his insulting language towards a woman who was intoxicated at the time of the alleged sexual assault. “She had a pretty face”. “She should feel flattered for getting attention from an older man”. “What were you wearing?” “You should have just kept your knees together”. “He was just a kid”. “She's forgotten bits and pieces, so her testimony isn't credible”. These are the kinds of comments we have heard, but this is 2020: These comments should not be coming out of the mouths of judges during a sexual assault trial.

Senator Raynell Andreychuk, who sponsored Bill C-337 in the Senate, explained that those cases only add to factors that discourage victims from reporting sexual assault.

She pointed out that Bill C-337 seeks to prevent further court cases from being decided on the basis of stereotypes about sexual assault victims and to restore victims' confidence in the judicial process. I would like to quote from the letter sent by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women in 2017.

Based on the testimony heard during the study of the bill, the Committee encourages the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to express to her provincial and territorial counterparts the need to make training in sexual assault law and social context more broadly available. Witnesses appearing before the Committee have highlighted the importance of training for all persons who play a role in the administration of criminal justice....

Additionally, the Committee wishes for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to strongly encourage provincial and territorial governments to make the transcripts of the proceedings of sexual assault cases for all courts under their jurisdictions available online in a searchable database....

The committee was serious about making this more transparent.

The Committee heard from Professor Elaine Craig, Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law at Dalhousie University, that “it's inarguable that written decisions provide a degree of transparency and public accountability that's not available with oral decisions.” The Committee requests that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada inform and advise the Committee at the earliest opportunity of the results and outcomes of these discussions with her provincial and territorial counterparts.

The excerpts I just read are from 2017. Already in 2017, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women sent a letter calling on the Minister of Justice to take action. Then there was Bill C-5 and prorogation. Today, we are still here debating it.

I will now talk about Quebec.

In the meantime, an all-party group of women parliamentarians at the National Assembly are addressing the issue of violence against women. I recently asked one of those members how important the current bill is for helping women who are victims of assault and she told me that it was very important.

This is a very important bill. As I have already discussed this issue with some CALACS, I know that women hesitate to come forward because they do not wish to relive painful memories of an assault at a trial that forces them to relive these moments before a judge that lacks compassion or makes derogatory and inappropriate comments in their presence.

Let me be clear. I am not making generalizations or indicating that all judges are insensitive in sexual assault cases. Most already write very good decisions. That is not the case, and I am not making generalizations.

I believe it is high time that the bill be voted on and studied in committee especially in the context of a pandemic that has exacerbated the problem of violence against women.

During the pandemic, I had the opportunity to speak to someone from the Australian consulate about the importance of training for judges with respect to sexual assault. It is a question of dignity for the victims because it is important to have a good understanding of the sensitive issues involved in sexual assault cases. It is important to place them in their social and family contexts.

During the pandemic, I also had several conversations with a survivor from Quebec. She told me that she has received comments on her blog from women who, like her, have had difficult experiences in court. Here are some of the comments: “They cannot judge something they do not understand”. “They do not understand the victim's emotional state as a result of post-traumatic stress”. “Fragmented memory means people cannot clearly remember the order of events. Memories come back in bits and pieces. It is not deliberate. It is how the brain goes into survival mode”. “Judges need to be able to adapt to the victim's state, not vice versa”.

In many cases, these women are still in a state of shock. The courts expect them to maintain their composure, but how can they? It is not realistic to expect them to calmly testify and provide all the details. That is impossible for a victim of sexual assault.

I can only hope that, in the near future, the bill will be passed and brought into force as quickly as possible. We need to forget about partisanship and pass this bill now so we can fight the myths and stereotypes associated with sexual assault, which is far too common.

There are 600,000 sexual assaults in Canada every year. On average, one in two women will be assaulted at least once in her lifetime. That rate is even higher for women with a disability, not to mention the MMIWG issue.

There are far too many assaults happening. Rape culture has no place in 2020. We must act.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. I had the opportunity to work with her on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women this summer, until Parliament was prorogued. I still think that prorogation was the wrong decision, for one, because that committee was looking into the need to examine how COVID-19 is impacting women, particularly with respect to violence.

We all seem to agree on the importance of the bill, and I was wondering why, in the previous Parliament, all parties in the House were prepared to vote in favour of Bill C-5 except the Conservatives. I wonder how my colleague might justify the fact that we are still debating a bill that seems to have unanimous support, at least in terms of its importance.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real honour for me to participate in the debate today on Bill C-3, to give the position of the NDP in my role as the deputy justice critic.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues from the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois for their interventions. The nature and tone of today's debate on the bill and the sensitive subject matter it deals with shows how well this Parliament can work and the seriousness with which we can treat these particularly sensitive subjects.

It is a little strange to be back at second reading on the bill before us. As members know, it is the reincarnation of a previous bill, Bill C-5, which was debated in the first session of the 43rd Parliament. Of course that bill was passed in one day and made its way to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights where we did have two days of witness testimony. It feels like we are reversing things and going back in time, but it is good that the bill is being brought forward in short order by the Minister of Justice. I have to thank him for placing it on the priority list. Hopefully, we can see the second reading debate stage not take up too much time so we can get back to that all-important committee work.

When the previous bill was debated on February 19, we heard much of the same comments as has been evident in the debate today. I hope that after maybe a few more interventions, depending on how many other members can speak, we can find some kind of unanimous consent to not go to a recorded division but pass the bill on a voice vote, as was done on February 19 of this year, so the justice committee can get back to its work.

I want to also acknowledge the incredibly important role that judges have in our society. I do not think the jobs they do get enough credit because of the gravity of their decisions. Indeed, judges have an incredibly important job. They not only have to be well versed in the facts of law, but they have to interpret that law and apply it to the facts of the case before them, knowing full well that their decisions are going to have profound consequences either for the accused or for the person who brought forward the complaint. It is something that we should not take lightly and it is a position that deserves our utmost respect.

I want to acknowledge the role of the former interim Conservative Party leader, the Hon. Rona Ambrose, who brought forward the original version of the bill back in the 42nd Parliament through her private member's bill, Bill C-337. At that time, she recognized how important the bill was. In that 42nd Parliament, it was good to see that unanimous consent was given to send the bill to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, which did some very important work as well.

We have the bill before us because there is a wide body of evidence of a lack of trust in the justice system, particularly by people whose experiences have been marginalized and so on. We are very much supportive of the intent behind Bill C-3. We do indeed want to see it get to committee, because it is at committee where that all-important witness testimony will highlight why the specific sections of the bill are necessary. I know there is debate at committee as to whether the bill in its present form is properly worded, but that is something for a later stage.

However, it is important at this second reading stage of the debate to acknowledge that complainants in sexual assault cases are provided inadequate social supports, inadequate information about court processes and they are often confronted by a system that ignores their wishes. We should acknowledge that Bill C-3 will not solve those problems by itself. The bill is very narrow in its scope. It looks at the training that judges receive.

It is really important that in the context of the debate of the bill, we as parliamentarians take every opportunity we can to apply pressure to the government, to remind the government, that there is still much work to be done to ensure our justice system fully lives up to the expectations of everyone who has to use it. The fact that so many women, so many persons of colour, Black or indigenous members of those communities, have their experiences marginalized by the justice system and do not have the kind of confidence that others do. That is a real shortcoming and that has to be identified and fixed with appropriate funding and resources to ensure people have that confidence. In other words, a systemic review is needed to ensure we have a system that lives up to those needs.

There are other actors. It goes beyond just judges. We have seen problems before with our police services. We have seen problems with how lawyers behave in the courtroom. Therefore, many different actors could also benefit from this type of training.

To highlight these points, it is helpful at this stage of the debate to really illuminate some of the statistics out there. It is estimated that only 5% of sexual assaults are reported to the police or that one in three women will experience sexual violence in their lifetime. In 82% of these sexual assaults, the offender is known to the victim, and 28% of Canadians have said that they have experienced workplace sexual assault or violence.

We know, in breaking down the statistics further, that transgender people are far more likely to experience intimate partner violence. Women who are living with physical or cognitive impairments are two to three times more likely to experience sexual violence. Indigenous women are far more likely to experience this sexual violence, and of course senior women. The statistics are there. They are not a secret. They have been well known for decades now. The fact that we are in 2020 still speaking about the need for this training is rightly construed as a source of national shame, but also an important focal point and an impetus for us as parliamentarians to redouble our efforts to ensure we are building that system.

I remember from the previous debates in the first session on Bill C-5 that my Conservative colleagues had raised concerns at that time about some of the actions of the Parole Board of Canada. We know full well also that the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada has also had problems. Those judicial bodies, because they do fall under federal jurisdiction, the members of those particular boards could probably also benefit from this mandated training. I urge the government and the Minister of Justice to possibly look at ways we can expand this type of mandatory training to the appointees who sit on those boards.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my comments, the previous version of this bill in the 42nd Parliament was Ms. Ambrose's Bill C-337 and that bill was referred to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women in March 2017. During that time, the Status of Women committee had five meetings on the bill. It had 25 witnesses come before the committee and the bill was reported back to the House with some amendments. One of the big things to emerge from the committee study of that bill was to try to find a definition and exploration of the term “social context”.

Social context in the meaning of this bill will require that judges take into the account the context of the cases they hear and not be, and this is really important, influenced by attitudes based on the stereotypes, myths or prejudice that exist in our society.

Many of those same witnesses who before the Status of Women committee in 2017 also appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We had two meetings on March 10 and March 12, right before COVID-19 shut everything down for us. Those groups of witnesses in those two meetings included the Canadian Centre for Gender and Sexual Diversity, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, the DisAbled Women's Network Canada, the Canadian Judicial Council and the National Judicial Institute. The testimony we heard mirrored a lot of what was heard back in 2017.

When this bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights again, I hope it will take into account that previous testimony and perhaps pass a motion to accept it as part of the study on the bill so we do not have to go over old steps. However, there will be some debate on the particular wording of the bill, which I will go into a bit later in my remarks.

When we look at the substance of the bill, it seeks to ensure that judicial candidates have a full and current understanding of sexual assault laws, that they know the principles of consent and the conduct of sexual assault proceedings, that they are educated on the myths and stereotypes of sexual assault complainants and that it will all be done through training seminars. This is needed because we have seen through the actions of various judges that this training is sorely needed.

With respect to what the Canadian Judicial Council and the National Judicial Institute have said, this type of training is already happening. However, because we have this evidence of judges making inappropriate statements at trial, of following outdated myths and stereotypes, these have profound impacts on the victims of sexual assault and further erode the general trust in our judicial system.

When Bill C-337 was sent to the Senate, the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee made some amendments to it. I understand the government's version of the bill we have before us today is a lot more in line with the Senate's version of the bill because of the constitutional concerns in place.

A big focal point of the bill will be the struggle between the role of Parliament and our judiciary. I understand that it is extremely important that our judges remain free of any type of political influence. As parliamentarians, we have a role to introduce legislation that falls within the social context we operate within. Therefore, our bills are often the product of the demands of society, of the members of the public who we serve.

When it comes to specific federal statutes like the Judges Act, there is a careful and considered role for Parliament in mandating the types of training we expect our judges to have. We escape any constitutional conundrums, because once the judges have taken that training, that is where Parliament's role ends and it is where it should end. We do not want to have any type of influence over how the judge uses that training. We simply want to know that the judge has taken the training and understands the full scope of sexual assault laws and outdated myths and stereotypes so we can build up the confidence that is sorely needed.

These comments have been argued in the public sphere. I know concerns have been echoed by Michael Spratt, who is no stranger to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and has often written quite lengthily on the subject, and I appreciate his views. His concerns with respect to this legislation absolutely need to be taken into account.

We have also seen a commentary from Emmett Macfarlane, who is a constitutional law professor at the University of Waterloo. He believes Parliament has a legitimate role to step in and mandate that there are substantive qualifications for the judges of our land as well as, through legislation, mandate the type of training we want to see.

The government has provided a charter statement that addresses some of the concerns that fall under this, particularly section 11 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and so on. I think that is a good guideline for parliamentarians to use as a road map when we continue our deliberations at the justice committee. However, I do not think there is going to be any kind of disagreement that this bill is needed, especially from parliamentarians. What I am seeing already is that there is, in fact, going to be unanimous consent that this bill is worthy and that it warrants being sent to committee. If the actions of the 42nd Parliament are any guide to this one, I suspect that we may hopefully see this bill clear both Houses of Parliament and be sent to the Governor General for royal assent.

In the few minutes I have remaining, I think it is also important to talk about some of the other problematic areas that we have in our justice system. For this particular section, I want to reference the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, particularly call to action number 27, which called upon the Federation of Law Societies of Canada to:

...ensure that lawyers receive appropriate cultural competency training, which includes the history and legacy of residential schools, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Treaties and Aboriginal rights, Indigenous law, and Aboriginal–Crown relations. This will require skills-based training in intercultural competency, conflict resolution, human rights, and anti-racism.

I acknowledge that this is beyond the scope of Bill C-3, and we certainly might run into problems in an attempt to fit that kind of training into a future bill, but I think the concerns that indigenous people in Canada have with the justice system, and concerns that Black Canadians and people of colour have with the systemic racism that is in existence, must remain top of mind, even if it is not possible for us to bring forward a legislative fix to them. I know they were referenced in the Speech from the Throne. I also want to thank all members of the Parliamentary Black Caucus, which put forward that statement as a road map for the action we need to take. I think those concerns are entirely appropriate to highlight during our debate on this bill, because it is following through in the same vein of people whose experiences have been marginalized through the justice system.

In conclusion, I would like to say that myths and stereotypes continue to have extremely negative impacts on people. It is extremely important that we as parliamentarians listen to the voices of people who have been marginalized by the justice system. Women's and LGBTQ organizations specifically must be consulted in developing the continuing education program on issues of sexual assault and social context. The Liberal government accepted all the findings in the Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, and the report noted that apathy from police services is indicative of ongoing colonial violence, racism and sexism, revictimizing indigenous women, girls and two-spirit peoples, so that must be paid attention to. As well, we must understand that sexual assault and gender-based violence disproportionately impacts women, minorities, poor people, persons living with disabilities, LGBTQ+ communities, sex workers and other marginalized communities.

I will conclude there. I appreciate having this opportunity to give my thoughts on Bill C-3, and I look forward to my colleagues helping to pass this bill in short order and sending it to committee.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to see you in that chair. With all due respect to the usual Speaker who does exceptional work, I commend you on your excellent interventions.

To answer the question from my colleague from Saint-Jean, I agree with her that there is an urgency here. We just finished an oral question period during which the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons answered our questions—asking him to intervene on urgent economic matters—by saying that we would soon be facing an election. It seems our colleagues in the government are anxious to spar again and call all Quebeckers and Canadians back to an election even though it has not been a full year since we were elected. We have that threat hanging over our heads.

I agree with my colleague that it is truly a shame that Bill C-3 is suffering the same fate as Bills C-337 and C-5, its predecessors. I think we should show the public some respect.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Jean.

We cannot talk about Bill C-3 without first highlighting the outstanding work being done by the members of our justice system.

In both Quebec and Canada, as far as we can tell, the justice system meets society's needs quite well.

I feel this is worth mentioning, because the main, if not only, criticism we had about Bill C-3, the former Bill C-5, was that we needed to move carefully with regard to judicial independence. I was concerned about this, and I will come back to it later.

That being said, I think our judges are doing an outstanding job, but they need more tools. This is important in our society. This is not to criticize their work, but we need to make sure they have the necessary tools on hand to get the job done.

The justice system is the backbone of any society. It enables citizens to resolve all disputes together through the courts, instead of taking the law into their own hands. Both civil and criminal matters are brought to a judge, who is expected to be impartial and competent.

Bill C-3 does address the issue of judicial competence, and I think we should give it our full attention to ensure that it comes into force as soon as possible.

This bill was first introduced in 2017 by the Hon. Rona Ambrose, the interim leader of the Conservative Party at the time. The Bloc Québécois enthusiastically supported what was then Bill C-337. At one point, I even moved a motion in the House to have the Senate deal with Bill C-337 quickly so that it could come into force as quickly as possible; the motion passed unanimously.

Then Parliament was dissolved, which meant that Bill C-337 could not be brought into force and we had to start back at square one last fall after the 2019 election. The same bill was reintroduced as Bill C-5, and committee hearings began. It got through first and second reading. The committee heard from a number of witnesses, and that was when everyone realized that, although most civil society stakeholders thought the bill was fine, essential even, the judiciary had some concerns.

The Hon. Justice Kent and the Hon. Justice MacDonald, former chief justice of Nova Scotia, appeared before the committee and made suggestions. I liked their approach. They never criticized the entire bill but provided constructive criticism and warned us to be careful. We must not throw the baby out with the bathwater, as they say. There is some work to do on how justice is administered in cases of sexual assault. That is what Bill C-3 proposes to do, but let us be careful that we do not undermine the authority of the courts over society in our attempt to improve the judicial process.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, the justice system is very important in our society. If we cannot benefit from judicial independence, if we can no longer rely on the independence, impartiality and competency of our courts, it will have major negative consequences for our society. We cannot let that happen.

I urge us to proceed with caution, but to do that, we need to go back to committee as soon as possible. We need to take into account the criticism that we have heard. It seems to me that the suggestions of Justices Kent and MacDonald deserve our attention and that some amendments should likely be made.

I believe it was Justice Macdonald who talked about minor adjustments regarding how these matters should be dealt with. Rather than imposing obligations on the Canadian Judicial Council or on judges, tools should be brought in and the Canadian Judicial Council should be asked to support the measures and ensure that judges appointed to the various courts of federal jurisdiction have access to those tools to be better equipped to hear sexual assault cases.

That is not to say that they are not well equipped to hear them now, of course, but when it comes to sexual assault, I believe exceptional sensitivity is needed in the administration of justice.

The courts should take a special approach to these types of cases. We need to remember that testifying is usually a traumatizing experience for victims of sexual assault. They are reliving the tragic events that brought them to court. Judges need to be aware of this, and the bill will help judges and give them the tools to understand this reality and better deal with these kinds of cases.

The Bloc Québécois will support this bill, as we did in 2017 and as we did last year with Bill C-5. We look forward to working in committee and proposing necessary amendments to make Bill C-3 a bill that the Hon. Rona Ambrose would be proud of, that I would be proud of and that all parliamentarians in the House will be proud of.

This is an urgent matter, and it was urgent in 2017. I pointed out this urgency in a motion that passed unanimously and that called on the Senate to promptly adopt the bill. It was urgent in the spring. It is even more urgent now. Let us make sure that we do not end up with another election in the coming months, which would force us to start this process all over again.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

moved that Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in support of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code, which is identical to former Bill C-5.

I am delighted to be reintroducing this important piece of legislation today. I know we in the House are all anxious to see the work that was started by the Hon. Rona Ambrose in 2017 with the introduction of Bill C-337 come to fruition with the quick passage of this bill in this session of Parliament.

Regrettably, Parliament's consideration of Bill C-5 was abruptly interrupted and the study of the justice committee halted by a health crisis that has created unprecedented challenges to all aspects of Canadian society, including our justice system. The pandemic has exposed and exploited underlying conditions that have long plagued our justice system. It brought into stark relief the unacceptable barriers to accessing justice for the most vulnerable in our society. The reintroduction of the bill comes at a time when the need to protect our most vulnerable has never been clearer, nor the importance of ensuring a justice system that treats everyone fairly and with respect more critical.

Bill C-3 is designed to enhance public confidence in our criminal justice system, and in particular the confidence of survivors of sexual assault. It is hard to imagine anyone more vulnerable in the criminal justice system than the women who find the courage to report sexual assault.

The bill will ensure that survivors of sexual assault are treated with dignity and respect by the courts and will give them confidence that the judge in their case will enforce sexual assault laws fairly and accurately, as Parliament intended.

It has never been more critical that all of us who serve the public are equipped with the right tools and understanding to ensure that everyone is treated with the respect and dignity that they deserve, no matter what their background or their experiences. This would enhance the confidence of survivors of sexual assault and the Canadian public, more broadly, in our justice system. There is no room in our courts for harmful myths or stereotypes.

I know that our government's determination to tackle this problem is shared by parliamentarians from across Canada and of all political persuasions. The bill before us today will help ensure that those appointed to a superior court would undertake to participate in continuing education in relation to sexual assault law and social context.

As the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, I take very seriously my responsibility to uphold judicial independence, a constitutional principle that is a cornerstone of our democracy. Judicial independence means that judges must be free to decide each case on its own merits without interference or influence of any kind from any source. For this reason, judicial independence requires judicial control of judicial education, and I salute the work that is being done by the Canadian Judicial Council as well as the National Judicial Institute in Canada in the training they have already begun to provide. Applying this principle to the current bill means that our government's efforts to ensure judges participate in education on matters related to sexual assault law and social context must not undermine the independence of the judiciary.

In that vein, I would like to describe the key elements of the proposed legislation. Bill C-3, as noted previously, is identical to former Bill C-5 and essentially the same as former private member's bill, Bill C-337. Importantly, the bill includes the amendments to Bill C-337 passed unanimously by the House of Commons to include social context education within the requirements of the bill. This requirement is specifically aimed at providing those who preside over cases with deeper insights and best practices to help them better navigate the social and cultural factors that they will likely come across in their time on the bench.

Bill C-3 also includes the amendments recommended by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in its study of Bill C-337.

The first key element of the bill is that it proposes to amend the Judges Act to require candidates for superior court judicial appointments to commit to undertaking training in matters related to sexual assault law and social context. This becomes part of the application process. This commitment will become an eligibility requirement for appointment to a superior court.

It is no easy task to bolster public confidence, in particular the confidence of sexual assault survivors, that our criminal justice system will treat victims with dignity, fairness and respect. This is a particularly acute challenge when there are reports in the media of judges doing exactly the opposite. We hear of highly publicized cases in which judges have relied on stereotypes or myths about how a victim of sexual assault should have behaved and have misapplied the carefully crafted law intended to prevent this.

The undertaking to commit to training is aimed at ensuring that Canada's highly developed law and jurisprudence on sexual assault are appropriately applied in the courtroom. It will also ensure that newly appointed judges receive the education and training necessary to understand and appreciate the social context within which they perform their functions, so that personal or societal biases or myths and stereotypes do not have any bearing on their decisions.

Over the past three decades the criminal law has undergone significant reform to encourage reporting of sexual assaults, to improve the criminal justice system's response to sexualized violence and to counter discriminatory views of survivors that stem from myths and stereotypes about how a true victim is expected to behave. As a result, the Criminal Code prohibits all forms of non-consensual sexual activity, provides a clear definition of consent, identifies when consent cannot be obtained and sets out rules for the admissibility of certain types of evidence to deter the introduction of these harmful myths and stereotypes.

Canada's sexual assault law is robust, but is necessarily complex. It applies to the most intimate of human interactions, so to be effective it must be properly understood and applied. This is why judicial education in this area is so significant and Bill C-3 so important.

The second key element is to require that the Canadian Judicial Council develop this sexual-assault training only after it consults with groups and individuals that it considers appropriate, including sexual assault survivors and the groups that support them. This will give the council the opportunity to gather different perspectives on sexual assault informed by the experiences and knowledge of the community.

Transformative change across the criminal justice system will require a sustained collaborative effort by all actors in the justice system, with the support of stakeholders and civil society. Training is needed not only for judges but for all actors in the justice system. We are working with our provincial and territorial counterparts and justice sector stakeholders toward more comprehensive efforts. However, the pivotal public and determinative role judges play must also be taken into account.

The third key component of the bill will require the Canadian Judicial Council to submit to the justice minister an annual report to be tabled in this Parliament about the training on sexual assault law that has been provided and the number of judges who attended. This requirement is designed to enhance accountability in the training of sitting judges on these matters while still acting as an incentive to encourage their participation.

The final element of the bill would amend the Criminal Code to require judges to provide reasons for decisions under sexual assault provisions of the Criminal Code. This amendment is intended to enhance the transparency of judicial decisions made in sexual assault proceedings by rendering them accessible, either in writing or on the record of the proceedings. I would like to mention that this proposed amendment to require judges to provide reasons in the determination of sexual assault matters specifically is complementary to three existing requirements.

The requirement to provide reasons will be placed in the other sexual assault provisions in the Criminal Code. This will help ensure that all provisions related to sexual offending are clear and accessible to those applying them. This is part of the effort to prevent the misapplication of sexual assault law by helping to ensure that decisions in sexual assault matters are not influenced by myths or stereotypes about sexual assault victims and how they ought to behave. This is consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada's finding that such myths and stereotypes distort the truth-seeking function of the court.

Being a judge comes with great responsibility. I would like to quote the Hon. Justice Charles Gonthier, former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada:

The judge is the pillar of our entire justice system, and of the rights and freedoms which that system is designed to promote and protect. Thus, to the public, judges not only swear by taking their oath to serve the ideals of Justice and Truth on which the rule of law in Canada and the foundations of our democracy are built, but they are asked to embody them....

Justice Gonthier then added the following:

...the personal qualities, conduct and image that a judge projects affect those of the judicial system as a whole and, therefore, the confidence that the public places in it.

Since judges play such a crucial role in upholding democracy and the rule of law, the public rightly expects their conduct to be exemplary. To quote the Canadian Judicial Council:

[1] From the time they are considered for appointment to the Bench, and every day thereafter, superior court judges in Canada are expected to be knowledgeable jurists. They are also expected to demonstrate a number of personal attributes including knowledge of social issues, an awareness of changes in social values, humility, fairness, empathy, tolerance, consideration and respect for others.

[2] In short, Canadians expect their judges to know the law but also to possess empathy and to recognize and question any past personal attitudes and sympathies that might prevent them from acting fairly.

In order for judges to be able to meet these public expectations, it is imperative that they keep abreast of developments in the law and the ever-changing social context in which they carry out their duties. To ensure excellence in judgments, judges must have legal knowledge that is as relevant as it is excellent so that they can make the difficult and life-changing decisions entrusted to them. For this reason, legal education is an essential element of the legislation under consideration.

The bill is carefully tailored to uphold the principle of judicial independence. In particular, it includes the recommendations of the Senate committee for amendments to Bill C-337 that were carefully designed to address the specific concerns raised by representatives of the judiciary.

In that regard, I would like to point out that members of the judiciary appeared before the House committee to call for additional amendments to Bill C-5. It is important to note that a respectful dialogue occurred between representatives of the judicial and legislative branches with regard to Bill C-337 and Bill C-5. I trust that this will also be the case with this bill. The partners in this dialogue all want survivors of sexual assault to have faith in the justice system and to be treated with the respect and dignity they deserve when dealing with that system.

Canada is lucky to have one of the most independent, competent and reputable judiciaries in the world. The Canadian Judicial Council, with the support and co-operation of the National Judicial Institute, is a world leader in training judges. The Canadian judiciary is very committed to ensuring the best training for judges. I commend them for their co-operation in this regard. Finally, Canada is a pioneer in social context education in the justice system.

In its professional development policy, the Canadian Judicial Council recognizes that, in order to be effective, training for judges must include social context education so that court decisions are not influenced by personal or social bias, myths or stereotypes.

Given how important this is, the National Judicial Institute seeks to ensure that all programs cover substantive law, skills development and social context education.

It is important to acknowledge the significant contribution of both the Canadian Judicial Council and the National Judicial Institute to ensuring judges have access to the training they need.

We are blessed with a strong and independent judiciary in Canada. We cannot take this for granted. As parliamentarians, we must ensure that we safeguard and promote it. This bill seeks to balance a legitimate need to enhance public confidence with carefully preserving the judiciary's ability to control judicial education.

The government also allocated significant resources to support this undertaking. The 2017 budget contained $2.7 million over five years for the Canadian Judicial Council and $500,000 per year thereafter to ensure more judges get access to professional development with a greater emphasis on issues related to sex, gender and cultural sensitivity.

Our government is also working with stakeholders to ensure that appropriate training is available to all members of the Canadian judiciary, specifically those not appointed by the federal government.

That said, I hope this bill will prompt everyone in the justice system to take a close look at other measures we can take to bolster the confidence of survivors of sexual assault and the public in our justice system.

Finally, following Ms. Ambrose's introduction of the former Bill C-337, a number of provinces followed suit and did just that. At least one province, Prince Edward Island, enacted similar legislation, and I understand that others are carefully considering policy and legislative responses. I note that other countries have already enacted legislation similar to what is being proposed. It is time for all of our jurisdictions to act.

While we believe that reintroducing Bill C-3 is a crucial step, it is not the only action we can take as a government. We have prioritized supporting victims and survivors of crime by a range of different avenues. These include providing funding to provinces and territories to allow them to develop enhanced programs, to provide free and independent legal advice and, in some cases, representation for survivors of sexual assault. Also included is our government's commitment, as emphasized in the Speech from the Throne, to build on the gender-based violence strategy and work with partners to develop a national action plan.

This bill sends a message to all Canadians, and survivors of sexual assault in particular, that their elected officials are listening, that we care about what happens to their cases, and that we are prepared and committed to take whatever action we can to ensure that our justice system is fair and responsive. It is incumbent on all of us: legislators, judges, prosecutors, police and the public.

Right now, there is considerable enthusiasm across the country for meaningful, sustainable changes to our justice system.

This bill is a small but important step toward achieving that. It gives parliamentarians an opportunity to act on their beliefs and show all Canadians, especially survivors of sexual assault, that their voices matter and that anyone who has the courage to report an assault will be listened to and treated with the dignity and respect every member of our community is entitled to.

I urge all of my parliamentary colleagues to take this step toward a more constructive, resilient justice system that is more responsive to the needs of those it serves.

I call on all of my colleagues to support this important non-partisan bill.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to see you in the chair.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a charter statement for Bill C-5, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will resume second reading debate on Bill C-3 on border security.

That debate will continue tomorrow. Next week we will be back in our ridings working with our constituents.

When we return, we will start debate on Bill C-5, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code. Thursday, February 20 will be an allotted day.

I wish all members a good constituency week and hope they enjoy the time with their families.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Bill C-5 on the education of judges on matters related to sexual assault was introduced in the House.

I want to be very clear. We support this bill. Let's not forget that it started out as a Conservative Party bill. However, in light of the brutal murder of Marylène Levesque, we believe it is important to add an amendment to include the education of parole officers and Parole Board members.

Would the Prime Minister agree to such an amendment?

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, 14 years after an individual violently murdered his partner, he murdered another woman because his parole officer permitted him to seek the service of sex workers. The parole officer facilitated a murderer to repeat his offence and take another innocent life by enabling him to satiate his criminal appetite.

Will the government amend Bill C-5 to require Parole Board members and parole officers to receive new sexual assault training so vulnerable women like Marylène Levesque will not die tragically because of bureaucratic incompetence?

Oral Questions

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe if you seek it, you will find consent for the following motion: That notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-5, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code, be deemed read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.

Opposition Motion — Instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very disturbing case. I want to outline the fact that the Parole Board was certainly aware that this individual had been given the permission to meet women, “only for the purpose of responding to [his] sexual needs”, since he had been granted parole in March 2019. It continued over this period of time, and in September the board recognized that they did not agree with the appropriateness of the strategy. However, they went ahead and continued this, so it deserves condemnation.

Bill C-5 was tabled this morning by the government to ensure that judges are familiar with, and have proper continuing education on, matters related to sexual assault law and the social context.

Does the parliamentary secretary agree that it is appropriate for the Parole Board members and for the committee on public safety to insist that there be appropriate training for Parole Board members and officials, to ensure that they are aware of the fact that this kind of case is rooted in misogyny and the devaluation of the lives of women in general and, in this case, sex workers in particular?