Bill C-48

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) create a reverse onus provision for any person charged with a serious offence involving violence and the use of a weapon who has been convicted, within the last five years, of a serious offence involving violence and the use of a weapon;
(b) add certain firearms offences to the existing reverse onus provisions;
(c) expand the reverse onus provision for offences involving intimate partner violence to ensure that it applies to an accused person who has been previously discharged for such an offence;
(d) require the court to consider if an accused person has any previous convictions involving violence and to include in the record a statement that the safety and security of the community was considered; and
(e) require the court to include in the record a statement setting out how the court determined whether the accused is Aboriginal or belongs to a vulnerable population and, if so, how the particular circumstances of the accused were considered.
This enactment also makes further clarifications and provides for a parliamentary review of the provisions it enacts or amends to commence on the fifth anniversary of the day on which it receives royal assent, or as soon as feasible after that anniversary.

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, indeed, these are debates that speak to us and that may be why we end up spending more time on them than on other bills.

That being said, I must say that this bill seems not only welcome, but essential. The sex offender registry helps police officers in their work. It allows them to better monitor repeat offenders and serious offenders.

The Bloc Québécois will support Bill S‑12. Are we going to propose amendments in committee? We will see. Essentially, I think that it is a good bill. The first thing I will do is thank Senator Gold for introducing this bill last spring and ensuring that the Senate moved quickly.

Two months can seem like a long time, but it can also seem short. In parliamentary life, bills that are introduced and adopted at third reading at the end of two months are few and far between. I think there was some diligence on the Senate side. I want to commend that diligence and thank the hon. Senator Gold for his work.

After it was passed by the Senate on June 22, the bill is now before us this fall. I spoke about it in the questions I asked earlier. I would have liked to hear from the minister. I understand that that will not be possible today. I hope that we will be able to get some clarification on the timelines over the next few days.

That being said, it is a good bill that will provide better safeguards and strike a better balance between the rights of victims and the rights of the accused. It is important to remember that we have a legal system where people are presumed innocent until proven otherwise. We want offenders to be rehabilitated, especially in Quebec, where a lot of legislation has been passed in that regard. We want these people to be able, in many ways, to improve the behaviour and attitude that caused the problem and reintegrate into society. We want them to become or get back to being active members of society. We believe in rehabilitation.

In that sense, one could argue that the sex offender registry could, in some ways, thwart rehabilitation efforts by sending offenders the message that, not only are we going to punish them for the crime they committed, but we are also going to add their name to a registry for a certain period of time. How do we resolve that dilemma? I think that exceptions need to be made for some crimes.

We can see that in the bill, when we talk about sexual assault, we are not talking about someone who drank a little too much in a bar and patted their boyfriend or girlfriend on the behind. We are not talking about a crime that could be described as accidental or even trivial, as some might say. We are talking about repeat offenders who have frequently been convicted of sexual offences, or people who have sexually assaulted children.

I do not know of anyone in society, at least among my friends and contacts, who claims that sexually assaulting a child is not a serious crime. I know people who were sexually abused as children. I can say that it leaves a mark on people for their entire lives. That said, it does not always mess them up. Not everyone ends up on medication for the rest of their lives. Yet it does leave a mark in all cases.

I believe that someone who is unable to control their behaviour and takes the liberty to assault a child deserves an appropriate punishment and also that society protect itself a little better from them. In that sense, the sex offender registry allows police to track and monitor those individuals. I think that is a good thing. That said, not everyone is registered the same way.

The Supreme Court made a ruling last year. In about a month, it will have been a year since that ruling was handed down. The court indicated in that ruling that the automatic registration of all sex offenders contravenes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I think that ruling was well founded. Bill S-12 seeks to remedy the problem by saying that offenders will not be automatically registered, indiscriminately, in every situation. Only offenders who have been sentenced to more than two years in prison for this type of crime, including offences against children, and repeat offenders will be subject to mandatory or automatic registration. That covers automatic registration. I think that, in such cases, automatic registration is a good idea.

Now, for the other offenders, we are told there will be a presumption. That means that the Crown will not be asked to prove that an individual needs to be registered. There is a presumption that the individual has to be registered. The individual will be asked to prove that there is no need to register them on the sex offender registry because their offence is completely unrelated to the objectives set out in the legislation that creates this registry or, still, because their registration would be completely disproportionate to the crime they committed.

I will give an example. A person who touches someone else's bottom at a bar has committed sexual assault and could be sentenced for it. Does that warrant adding this person to a sex offender registry for life? I do not think so, but it is debatable. We have to make a distinction between that crime and the crime of raping a 12-year old girl, for example.

Bill S-12 will in some way balance the process of adding offenders to the registry by making registration automatic for serious crimes, while allowing individuals who commit less serious offences to show the judge that registration is unnecessary for a given reason. If it is shown that this registration would have absolutely no bearing on the registry's objective of assisting the work of police officers or that it would be completely disproportionate, the individual will not be added to the registry. This does not mean they will not be convicted. A trial will be held, and if the individual is found guilty, they will be sentenced. In this case, the offender would be sentenced but not added to the registry.

I think this is an acceptable and honourable compromise that would let us improve the registry provisions. In this regard, I think we can only applaud the Supreme Court's ruling last year, as well as the introduction of this bill by the hon. Senator Gold.

Now, Bill S‑12 does more than that. It also enhances victim participation in legal proceedings. I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for some time. We have done studies on this issue, including a review of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Many victims testified that some of them wanted to be more involved in the trial, to be better informed and to be called upon by the Crown prosecutor when there were important decisions to be made. Other victims said they would rather stay home and not be involved in their attacker's trial. Both positions are valid. I think we should respect the victim's right to participate or not. That is what this bill provides for.

I was talking about participation in the broad sense, but there is one thing in particular that victims want a say in, and that is publication bans. A number of years ago, provisions were adopted whereby, in some cases, the judge can order a ban on publication of proceedings. In such cases, the identities of those involved remain unknown so as not to identify the victims. The goal was to prevent victims from being identified if they did not want to be, from being stigmatized and from having to answer for acts that were not theirs, but their attacker's. The intent was to ban publication of proceedings. There is also another point at which in camera proceedings can be ordered, but we are not talking about that right now; we are talking about publication bans.

At the time, that was done in good faith to help victims, and everyone likely agreed it was a good idea. Victims now tell us that, in some cases, they are glad there is a publication ban. In other cases, however, they do not want one. There are victims who want to talk about the crime committed against them, either with journalists, on television, or publicly, through social media and other venues. Then there are victims who feel it is therapeutic to talk about their experience. However, as things stand, if they do so when a publication ban has been issued, they are contravening the ban and could face consequences. Victims have told us we should let them decide. If we are doing this to protect them, as we claim, we should ask for their opinion. If they do not want to be under a publication ban, one should not be issued. If they want to seek a publication ban, then one can be issued.

I think this is a wise approach that will help improve federal criminal legislation, in other words, the Criminal Code. I can only applaud this provision of Bill S-12. This is consistent with the report tabled by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights last December. I can confirm that this is consistent with what we heard from witnesses in committee. I think it makes sense.

What this provision will do is require the Crown to consult with victims before issuing a publication ban. As I think the minister said earlier, if there are two victims, and one of them wants the information withheld but the other wants it published, the court will have to take that into account and ensure that the identity of the victim who does not want to be identified is protected, while allowing the identity of the victim who does want to be identified to be released. There will be a process, with the court having to weigh the best interests of the victims when the time comes. I think there is a way to do it. Victims will then have a say on whether a publication ban is issued or not.

What is more, they will be able to ask to have the publication ban lifted, if one is imposed. Initially the victim may not want to be identified, so a publication ban is a good idea, but after three months, six months, a year or three years, the victim might say that enough time has passed for them to have processed their thoughts and that they feel like talking about the crime that was committed against them. That was not the case before, but now victims will be able to ask for the publication ban to be lifted, which, again, seems reasonable to me.

Lastly, this bill will allow victims to get updates on their attacker's case. Is the offender in prison? Where is the offender? Victims will be able to get information from correctional services and will then be informed about the individual's release date, parole conditions, and so on. This will help victims prepare themselves for the possibility that the offender might be released, enabling them to protect themselves or intervene when the time comes.

I feel these are reasonable, desirable provisions that are consistent with what victims asked for and with the report tabled by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in December.

I will now come back to the current government's inaction. I do not know how to say it anymore, because I feel like I am repeating myself, and people will think that the member for Rivière‑du‑Nord is like a broken record that just keeps repeating the same thing over and over. That is not it. The member for Rivière‑du‑Nord has been dealing with the same government for eight years, and he feels that the government is dragging its feet on this issue. I say this with all due respect for the Minister of Justice and his predecessor, because I am convinced they mean well, but I have no idea what the holdup is. Nothing was done for six months. My colleague from the Conservative Party was asking earlier what they have done, and rightly so.

I would like to hear a member of cabinet, or even the Prime Minister himself, offer an apology for the delay and the fact that this has fallen through the cracks. I cannot even imagine what excuse they could possibly come up with. I would like an explanation because this has become a nasty habit, one that causes enormous harm, especially to victims. Right now, there is a distinct possibility that we will no longer have a sex offender registry as of October 29. It is going to expire. The Supreme Court said so last year. We cannot blame this on the court. It gave the government a year to take action. That took six months, and even then, it was not the government that took action, it was a senator.

What is going on with this government? Is there anyone still at the controls? I would really like to know.

Earlier, the Minister of Justice said he hopes the opposition will collaborate because the bill needs to pass by October 29. I completely agree. I want to say that we will collaborate in order to once again ram the provisions through so they come into force quickly. This week, the bail provisions in Bill C-48 had to be rammed through. However, ramming things through has negative consequences. The procedural rules and principles we have adopted do serve a purpose.

Do not try and tell me that studying bills in committee is pointless, because I will take it personally. If that is the case, our work over the past eight years has been for nothing. Others have been here longer than eight years. For example, my colleague, the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, has been here for almost 40 years. Who is going to tell him that his work has been useless all this time? I doubt it. People worked to draft these rules and have us adopt them. Was their work all for nothing? I do not think so. The rules must be followed.

There are exceptions, of course. This week, Bill C-48 was one of them. It was an exception to the principle of presumption of innocence. The bill would involve keeping someone in prison before they are even convicted. That is far from the presumption of innocence, but we agreed that this was an exception that was justified in certain cases. That is what we did, and the bill was passed.

Now we are being asked to do the same for the sex offender registry. I am not suggesting that the registry is not important. It is very important. We would like the registration requirements to be amended, as proposed in Bill S‑12. However, I am very upset and worried about yet another government attempt to ram things through the parliamentary process.

I do not want to refer to the presence or absence of a member in the House, but maybe the minister could stand up here at some point and explain to us why, for the second time in two days, parliamentary procedures are being rammed through.

How come the government twiddled its thumbs for six months in this case, until a senator suddenly said it needed to be done, and now, we are being told to wake up, agree with him and pass this as quickly as possible?

They cannot be serious. I would like the government to take this seriously because the government is asking us to take it seriously. I feel like saying that we will take it seriously if the government could also take things kind of seriously when it comes to passing bills that are introduced in the House.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important because we see who is behind this bill. We have women's advocates such as LEAF behind the bill. We have the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police saying these proposed legislative amendments recognize the rights of victims, promote public safety and respect the rights of the accused. We have the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime behind this bill.

I am very proud to say that, in my first week in this role, I have had the ability to address community safety and the protection of victims in two different instances. On the bail reform piece, Bill C-48, I am thankful for the co-operation that we had to get that passed and sent over to the Senate quickly. Today is no less important. In fact, it is critically urgent given the court timeline we have.

It is a proud day when I am able to stand in the chamber to say that we are doing everything we can to work as expeditiously as possible to protect people's safety and respect victims while promoting their protection and their autonomy. That is fundamental to my job, and that is what I will continue to do.

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

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

Madam Speaker, every so often, when we bring in legislation, there are some surprises.

Yesterday, it was quite encouraging when we brought in Bill C-48 on the bail reform issue and we saw parties come together to recognize the value of the legislation and understand and appreciate how important it was to get it passed.

In fact, later yesterday, after a few hours of debate, a Conservative member suggested that we go ahead with unanimous consent and pass it through the system.

That was a bit of a surprise. I was quite pleased about it. I thought it surprised a number of people. It was quite encouraging because it shows that, if the House recognizes something of great value, collectively, where we have all parties onside, we can accomplish things very quickly inside the House.

I look at Bill C-49, which we are debating today. I am not from Atlantic Canada, as we all know, but I understand the importance of regional development. The Atlantic accord is of critical importance to Atlantic Canada, to two provinces in particular, Newfoundland and Labrador, along with Nova Scotia.

We understand and appreciate all of the efforts. I have had a number of Conservatives stand up and ask why it took so long to bring it before the House. It is not like one can snap one's heels together, wave a wand and make legislation appear. There is a lot of work that is done prior to bringing the legislation forward. There is a timing issue. There is a great deal of consultation that takes place.

As for my quick readthrough, in terms of the legislation, and the passion that I have seen from my Atlantic colleagues in dealing with this legislation, and they are a passionate caucus, as we know, this is good solid legislation that should be supported.

What surprises me today with Bill C-49 is that it is one thing to say one does not want to pass it today. It is another thing to come out saying one opposes the legislation. That is what we are hearing from the Conservative Party today.

The Conservative Party of Canada does not support the principles of this legislation. This is legislation that has the support of every other political entity, from what I understand, inside the House. It also has the support of provincial jurisdictions of different political stripes. We have heard member of Parliament after member of Parliament, at least from some opposition benches and the government benches, talking about how important this legislation is.

Even the Minister of Labour and Seniors came forward, in a very passionate speech. He was not the only member of the caucus who spoke passionately about the importance of this legislation to their respective provinces.

Renewable energy is so critically important when we talk about economic development into the future. I know that first-hand from being a parliamentarian for over 30 years, first as an MLA in Manitoba, and the impact that Manitoba Hydro has had on the residents of Manitoba, to the benefits of Canada as a nation.

It is a renewable energy. It is one of the reasons why, and I do not know if it still is today, and if not, it would be very close, the cheapest energy price in North America, in terms of electrical rates, is in Manitoba. It now might be two or three. I know that when I was a MLA, for a long period of time it was number one, the cheapest rate.

I can tell members that here is an opportunity. When we talk about Canada reaching its climate targets and looking at offshore renewable energy projects, one can very easily get excited to think of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador and other coastal communities, because the opportunities are great.

However, I do not understand why, in looking at the legislation, the Conservative Party of Canada wants to say “no” to Atlantic Canada. It makes no sense whatsoever. When I listen to the energy that is coming from the government benches, which is being driven by my Atlantic colleagues, like the member for Avalon talking about how important this legislation is, there seems to be a disconnect with the Conservative Party.

It was interesting when the member for Avalon posed a question earlier to a Conservative member asking why he did not support the bill. The Conservative member stood up and said that the it is the principle of the legislation and that it is about the carbon tax. Really? I do not think that a number of the Conservative speakers who have stood up really understand what the legislation would do, as they were trying to rope in the issue of a price on pollution and, as that one member implied, base an opinion on a price on pollution to not support the bill. It seems to me that they are being somewhat misguided. I have not heard from any Conservative member, and I have been here all day listening to member after member speak on the legislation, specifically why this legislation cannot be passed.

We had the former Conservative member stand up and speak for 20 minutes about, based on the past, we are going to see time allocation and that we are going to see some opposition parties working with the government in order to get the bill time-allocated in order to pass. Well, I can assure the Conservative Party that there will be time allocation on this bill if the Conservatives are going to filibuster it, because we on the government side see the value of this legislation to Atlantic Canada and to Canada as a whole, which is the reason we will fight tooth and nail to ensure that we see this type of regional economic development take place. If that means working with New Democrat and Bloc members in order to ensure we get time allocation so that we can get legislation passed, I am game for that.

We recognize that we are talking about our environment. We are talking about future jobs and opportunities. I want to see Newfoundland and Labrador continue to be a “have” province. I want to see the prosperity of all regions of our country. I recognize the value of renewable energy, because of the example of Manitoba Hydro. I see where government does play an important role. What I do not see is why the Conservative Party would take an issue such as this and deny two provinces the opportunity where there was an agreement.

After this legislation passes, with the support of at least some opposition parties, and it will pass, it will receive mirror legislation from provincial legislatures in order to enact and make sure that it turns into a reality so that the people who live in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia will have wonderful renewable energy resources being developed and opportunities well into the future.

Criminal Code

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It being 7 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, Bill C‑48, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to bail reform, is 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.

(Bill read the second time, considered in committee of the whole, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed)

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on behalf of my constituents of Brantford—Brant. In particular, it is very meaningful to me to have this opportunity to opine and provide some thoughts with respect to Bill C-48. In light of the UC motion that was passed, much of my commentary is now moot.

The time I have available provides an opportunity for me to share with this House that Bill C-48 is not the be-all and end-all to addressing the concerns that Canadians, premiers of provinces and territories, police chiefs and presidents of police unions have had for years. The escalating crime rate is out of control, and serious repeat violent offenders have ruled our streets. Bill C-48 is a step, but it is a small step on the path to pure bail reform.

I want to correct a misnomer. I have listened for several hours to several of my colleagues who have the view that the legislation itself is tabled as bail reform. This is not bail reform. This is a legislative amendment to the Criminal Code as it relates to the provisions regarding bail hearings. It takes four additional offences that put the onus on the Crown to prove to the court why detention should be necessary and reverses that onto the accused.

That may sound like a good idea. In fact, it is a good idea. However, it is small comfort, and I will tell the House why. I posed a question to my colleague a few minutes ago about the vast majority of the offenders we have heard about, read about, watched on television and heard about anecdotally from a number of people. They are creating chaos and havoc, killing officers, killing innocent bystanders, killing innocent people and maiming and wounding innocent people who were simply trying to catch a bus or a train, were walking a child to school or were going for lunch. These are individuals who are already subject to reverse onus provisions in the Criminal Code.

I want to explain very briefly that just because there is a reverse onus provision does not mean it is difficult in practical terms to discharge. The whole goal of a bail hearing presided over by a judge or a justice of the peace is to have an assessment of risk, whether it is the Crown trying to establish detention or suggest appropriate terms of release to alleviate that risk, or it is up to the accused and their lawyer to discharge the onus by saying they have a risk but the risk could be mitigated by this particular plan. That is the test.

If the judge or the justice of the peace, after hearing the evidence and submissions, determines that the plan of release proffered by the accused through their defence counsel is reasonable and could satisfy the test within the Criminal Code under section 515, a release is fashioned. That is what has been happening for years. It has allowed serious repeat violent offenders to get arrested and, within hours of being released, commit the same type of crime or other serious crimes, continually getting arrested and released. All of this has its genesis, its origin, in the Liberal soft-on-crime approach. I am not going to get into those details, because I have very limited time.

I also want to address another false narrative that I have heard from the government: that it has heeded to the calls of the premiers of provinces and territories and police chiefs. The government has to a certain degree. Those officers and those premiers did want reverse onus provisions for those four criminal charges. However, they wanted more.

For instance, the Liberals have still not answered the call from all premiers and territories asking for the federal government to conduct a thorough review of Canada's bail system. I have not heard anything from that side of the House. Second, they have ignored calls from law enforcement agencies who are pleading for a Criminal Code definition of a violent repeat offender and a serious prolific offender, and for improvements to the bail hearing process so that serious violent offences are dealt with, with the urgency they require, without bogging down the rest of the court system.

What I wanted to share with the House is that this past July there was a meeting of the National Police Federation. Together with that federation, speakers met with a number of premiers in Winnipeg, Manitoba. They produced a paper called “Smart Bail Initiatives: A Progressive Approach to Canada's Bail System”, which makes a number of recommendations. I hope the Liberal government will listen very carefully to them in facilitation.

For instance, the paper reads, “Recommendation 1: The Government of Canada, in coordination with provincial and territorial governments, should establish a national standing committee on Canadian criminal justice system (CJS) data sharing, which would collect, analyze, and report on current trends, challenges and best practices.” The second recommendation is as follows: “The Government of Canada, provinces, and territories should invest in deploying technologies that are proven effective at monitoring bail condition compliance. This would include an in-depth review of all existing available post-release monitoring technologies, and potentially the development of new technologies.”

One recommendation I highly endorse is recommendation 3: “Any jurisdictions using a Justice of the Peace (JP) to preside at bail hearings should establish a standard qualification for those bail JP positions, which are based on education and legal background, such as a law degree and five years of legal practice experience.” The sad reality is that the vast majority of justices of the peace we have in Canada are not legally trained. They come from myriad backgrounds. When dealing with serious, prolific violent offenders, they need, in my respectful submission, to have a legal understanding. They need to understand all the nuances and to understand how to read and interpret case law to determine what the best practices are in terms of finding that balance between protecting the rights of the accused and protecting the victim and communities. Sadly, that is not done enough.

Recommendation 4 is that “The Government of Canada undertake a national, systematic study of the CJS bail system which examines the most effective bail provisions that promote public safety and meet the CJS' objectives, including ensuring future court appearances and preventing the commission of new offences while on bail.”

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

Madam Speaker, it is encouraging to see the House come together and recognize the valuable contributions that Bill C-48 would make to Canadians. It would make our communities safer places to be. We know that because of the types of support at the many different levels that I referenced earlier. I would like to emphasize that law enforcement officers are also in support of the legislation.

Would the member across the way not agree that by working with law enforcement agencies and provincial and territorial jurisdictions, we have before us sound legislation that would, in fact, make our communities safer?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Brantford—Brant. I will keep my remarks somewhat short so that I can hear all that he has to say, which I always appreciate.

First of all, I want to welcome everybody back to the House as we continue our role in supporting our constituents. I am especially proud to be able to speak on behalf of the wonderful residents of Red Deer—Mountain View, many of whom I have had the privilege of reconnecting with this summer.

This summer, we all heard messages regarding things like housing affordability, but one of the other main messages that resonated with Canadians has been the message of safety. On this first day back in this fall session, we finally have a bill in front of us that speaks, even though in a somewhat fleeting fashion, to the issue of bail reform. The concept of bail reform is important. The reality is that there is much more to do in the reformation of our criminal justice system if Canadians are to truly feel safe in their homes and within their communities.

As we have heard multiple times today, the fact that 40 criminals in Vancouver have been charged 6,000 times baffles the minds of Canadians. Not only does this make a mockery of the bail system, but it ties up precious resources of both the courts and our law enforcement agencies. This precious time and money could truly be used to expedite trials, put more officers on the street to protect the public and, if these offenders were actually put in jail, make our streets safer, not just for the general public but for the unfortunate people living on our streets who also deserve our full attention. I also believe it is high time that governments respect the job that our law enforcement officers do and then ensure that those arrested are dealt with swiftly, that their hearings are done in a timely fashion and that appropriate penalties are meted out.

The Conservative leader has a strong message as to how we should work toward making our communities safer. “Jail not bail” is more than a catchphrase. It speaks to taking violent repeat offenders off the streets. It speaks to the enforcement of the rampant gun smuggling that has made many cities a war zone and it speaks to recognizing that these criminals have one thing in common: They hurt our fellow Canadians.

To this end, the Liberal government has introduced legislation that mirrors our concerns about serious repeat offenders. The question is: Can it be trusted to see this through to its logical conclusion? There must be more than just comforting words if this legislation is to have any meaning.

In conclusion, the point is that if we deal early with the real bad actors and mete out the appropriate punishment as required by the Canadian Criminal Code, two things are accomplished. First, it keeps criminals off the streets and disrupts those who organize to terrorize our communities and, second, it tells other would-be hooligans that we will not be tolerating this type of behaviour and their unruly actions will have consequences.

We have given the Liberals that opportunity by unanimous consent on Bill C-48, and I am hopeful that this legislation can make a real difference for the safety of all Canadians.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, the bottom line is that it would, because there was a gap and through consultation and through the agreements across all the provinces and territories and all the chiefs of police we agreed that this is the logical next step to take. Is this the end solution to all the crimes? It is absolutely not, but this is a good step forward, and I am sure that as we roll out the new bill, Bill C-48, it will highlight other opportunities for us to be able to enhance and strengthen the bill. I look forward to working with all members of this House to further strengthen any bills that come to this House that protect Canadians and their trust in their government.

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

Madam Speaker, I have heard for several hours now from the Liberal bench, the NDP and the Bloc how Bill C-48 is going to be an answer to improving community safety from coast to coast. As a former practising Crown attorney who has run thousands of bail hearings dealing with the individuals who we have read about and seen on television committing heinous crimes across this country who are already facing reverse onus scenarios and still getting released, how on earth does the member reconcile Bill C-48 by adding four new reverse onus provisions? How is that, in the face of what happens day in and day out in our courts, going to make Canada safer?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, like all my colleagues, I had the opportunity to talk to my chief of police and hear from many of my constituents. The beauty of this bill, aside from the fact that it is amending and the fact that it is really focusing on repeat offenders and strengthening the bill is the fact that it had unanimous support. Why it has unanimous support and why it took some time, as I know the number of 200-some days was shown, is that this was collaborative and fact-based, and that we talked to all provinces, all chiefs of police and all stakeholders. This is what signifies Bill C-48, and that is why our colleagues across the aisle agreed with us and unanimously passed it.

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

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague can provide his thoughts in terms of the degree to which the Conservatives might try to simplify things. I will point to some contrasts. For example, we think of judicial independence through our courts, the process of our crowns and so forth, and the role that provinces, territories and indigenous communities play in terms of the whole legal process. Is it fair to say that it is not quite as simple as it is portrayed, but that when we take a look at Bill C-48 all of the stakeholders I just listed are very supportive of Bill C-48?

I am wondering if the member can provide his thoughts in terms of it not just being the federal government that is responsible.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for showing candour and acknowledging the candour I have shown. However, let us remember what the focus of Bill C-75 and the focus of Bill C-48 are. They are to ensure that we keep Canadians safe. They are to ensure that we put the right legislation in place. Naturally, no legislation is perfect, and we have to make sure that as time comes and as evidence presents itself, we amend the existing laws to ensure that we continue to keep Canadians safe and ensure that our laws are representative of the facts of the day and are strong in protecting Canadians.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I noted in his speech that toward the end the member did acknowledge that there were shortcomings in Bill C-75, and it was refreshing, because that is about as close as we have come today to hearing that the necessity of Bill C-48 is in large part due to the disaster that the government has been on criminal justice since it came into force. I congratulate him on his candour and thank him for it.

I would ask if he would go a step further and admit that Bill C-75 was a mistake.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today in support of Bill C-48, an act to amend the Criminal Code, otherwise known as bail reform.

It looks like my intervention is going to come after the unanimous motion that was tabled by the Conservatives and passed by all members of this House. First of all, let me congratulate all parties and all members of the House for passing this bill and getting it to the Senate. It is my desire to see the Senate pass it in an expedited manner as well.

Since the passing of the motion a bit earlier today, a lot of focus has been shifted toward how inadequate Bill C-75 was. It was not a perfect bill, but I can say that it is not as bad as some of my colleagues across the aisle are making it out to be. I think it might not be a bad idea for the sake of Canadians, now that they are reassured that the amendments in Bill C-48 are going to pass, to spend a bit of time trying to understand not only what Bill C-75 was and what some of the challenges were, but also the regime in the bill, which needs a bit of demystification.

I want to start by noting that Canada's bail regime works well, not in all cases but in most cases. However, the government has recognized the growing concerns relating to repeat violent offending and offending involving the use of firearms and other weapons resulting from the recent and horrific acts of violence committed by some individuals while out on bail. This has to do with members of our community: repeat offenders who are out on bail. That issue has to be addressed, and Bill C-48 is addressing it.

Naturally, all Canadians deserve to feel safe where they live and work, during their commute and in the duties they attend to every day of their lives. That is why we have identified problems and are trying to deal with them. The federal government has introduced Bill C-48 in order to address these concerns, promote community safety and reinforce public confidence in the administration of justice.

I am not going to spend a lot of time on the details of Bill C-48, although that was my intent, but I will briefly touch on them. The bill proposes reforms to create a new reverse onus to target repeat offending involving a weapon, add additional firearms offences to the existing reverse onus provisions, broaden the reverse onus targeting repeat offenders of intimate partner violence, clarify what constitutes a prohibition order in an existing reverse onus for offences involving a weapon and require the courts to consider an accused person's history of conviction for violence, and community safety and security concerns, when making any bail decisions.

We have seen examples of violent crimes in communities across our nation. I think colleagues across the aisle raised this to the next level, but the fact is that those offences are happening. I mourn for the families who have lost loved ones through these senseless acts, and I want to assure them that our government cares deeply, not only for them but about protecting public safety. We stand with all Canadians on issues of public safety and their and their families' security. After all, we know that Canada is known as a country of democracy where public safety is at the forefront.

What do safer communities and safety look like? True safety requires both holding criminals to account and attacking crime at its roots to prevent violence from occurring in the first place.

I was glad to hear some of our NDP colleagues actually talk about some of the root causes and how we can address some of them. That was welcome news to me.

Our government believes fervently in both objectives. We will not sensationalize violence. We will not use catchy slogans to argue for draconian measures, and we will lead with evidence-based policies that make a real difference.

My remarks today, as I said, will focus on the core principles that underpin the law of bail in Canada, on clarifying the impact of the former bill, Bill C-75 and on our bail regime, with a very light touch on Bill C-48.

Accused persons are presumed innocent until they are proven guilty of the offence charged, and they have a constitutional right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause. I highlight "reasonable bail". As such, they must be released on bail unless their detention in custody is required in order to ensure their attendance in court; for the protection or safety of the public, including any victim or witness of the offence; or to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice. There are fundamentals in place. I just highlighted the conditions that need to be considered when an individual is requesting bail, and these conditions are reviewed by the judge.

Accused persons who are released on bail may be subject to release conditions linked to the accused's risk related to the three statutory grounds for the detention I just mentioned. For example, the court can impose, and I emphasize this, any reasonable condition that it considers desirable or necessary to ensure the safety and security of any victims or witnesses to the offence. The point here is that the law is there and the court is empowered through the law to be able to consider the safety and the security of the victim and the witnesses and also assess the risk.

Such conditions could include that the accused remain in a specified territorial jurisdiction, abstain from communicating with any victim or witness to the offence, abstain from going to a specific place or geographical area, or deposit their passport as specified in the order. Once again, as we see, the guidelines are clear. The tools have been given to our justice system to be able to find that fine balance between doing the right thing and ensuring that we protect the community.

I will close by referring to some of the decisions that were made in the past. In the St-Cloud decision from 2015, the Supreme Court emphasized that, in Canadian law, the release of an accused person is the cardinal rule and detention is the exception. In its 2017 decision in Antic and its 2020 decision in Zora, the Supreme Court held that for most alleged crimes there should be release on bail at the earliest reasonable opportunity, with minimal conditions.

I am bringing up these three cases because we are trying to say that although Bill C-75 was not a perfect solution, and hence we have Bill C-48, we will see that fine balance, that it protects the rights of individuals in the Charter and that it allows them to benefit from the opportunity of receiving bail if they are a first-time offender and the crime is not extensive. However, all of the tools are provided to the justice system and to the bail law to ensure that repeat offenders can be punished.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Richmond Hill.

This being my first time rising in my new role as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, I hope members will indulge me for a moment. I want to thank the Prime Minister for placing his confidence in me. I want to say how much I look forward to working with our newly minted Minister of Justice, who is my friend and colleague, and in whom I have great faith.

I also want to reflect on some personal matters and how I arrived in this position today. I have been very lucky in my life to have a number of mentors. I think of my spouse, Deirdre, who could not be here today.

When I was called to the bar in Ontario in 1996, the Hon. Allan Rock was the minister of justice. He served as a role model to me throughout my career.

I think of my mother, who was engaged in politics her whole life and who taught me more about this process than anybody I have known. I think of my late father, who sat on the Supreme Court of Ontario for 26 years, from whom I learned more about life and law than any other person in the world.

I practised law for 20 years before I took on this role, and I could not be more proud. I will do my best. I commit to the House, colleagues on all sides, to do my best, to listen and to learn from all members.

With that background, I could not be happier to be starting my first day with this bill, something as important as Bill C-48, an act to amend the Criminal Code, bail reform.

This bill is an essential step in addressing growing concerns relating to how the bail system deals with repeat violent offenders involving the use of weapons, offending involving the use of firearms, and offending involving repeat intimate partner violence. The Government of Canada is unwavering in its commitment to ensure that our criminal laws, including our bail regime, keep all people in Canada safe.

I do not think I am alone in asserting that Canada is, for the most part, a very safe country. However, recent acts of violence have shaken the public's confidence in community safety. We stand, on this side of the House, and in all of the House, I dare say, wholeheartedly with Canadians, and I assure everyone we take threats on public safety very seriously.

The premiers of all the provinces and territories support Bill C-48. Police associations across our nation support Bill C-48. I was so pleased to see the Conservatives today stand up a short time ago to join us in support of this bill today, and I thank them for that.

I want to acknowledge the people who are most likely to be victims of violence in this country. Data shows that women are at a greater risk of being victims of violent crime than men. In 2019, the rate of violent victimization among women was nearly double that of men.

Further, indigenous women are especially vulnerable and reported an overall rate of violent victimization that was double that of non-indigenous women. Women with a disability are also at a higher and greater risk as they are twice as likely to be victims of violent crime as compared to women who do not have a disability.

Protecting victims, promoting community safety and reinforcing public confidence in the administration of justice are of paramount importance. This is why the criminal justice system includes mechanisms to support these objectives, including the strong bail system. Our government, as I said, is committed to upholding public safety by addressing the root causes of crime and holding criminals to account.

I have pages and pages of notes here. I was going to chastise the Conservatives for not supporting this bill today, but they pulled the rug right out from under me.

I do want to pause to reflect on something for a moment. I think it is important when we are speaking about any piece of legislation and in particular one that is so critical, vital and important to this one, that we have to tone down the rhetoric.

Making these absolute statements that people know to be false is not productive. They are not true, and they undermine the confidence of Canadians in our justice system, which is one of the best in the world. I am asking my colleagues, on all sides of the House, to please stop it.

We recognize that there is a need for legislative and non-legislative action to ensure that our bail system operates as intended in all cases.

The legislative part of the solution falls under federal responsibility, which is why the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-48 to propose targeted Criminal Code amendments that aim to reinforce the bail system. We are pleased to have the support of all 13 premiers.

The bill proposes the creation of a new reverse onus for accused persons who are charged with a serious offence involving violence and the use of a weapon where they have been previously convicted of an offence with the same criteria within the past five years. This would make it harder for accused persons who have a history of repeat, violent offending to obtain bail.

This bill also proposes to strengthen the existing intimate partner violence reverse onus provision to apply not only to those who have a past conviction but also to those who have a past discharge for intimate partner violence. This amendment recognizes the potential elevated risk of reoffending for accused persons who have a history of intimate partner violence related offences. It also aims to address the risk accused persons may pose to public safety, especially for their intimate partners and other family members, including each partner's children, should they be released.

The bill would also require courts to consider if the accused person's criminal record includes any past convictions for violent offending and to include on the record a statement that they considered the safety and security of the community in relation to the alleged offence when making a bail order. The latter amendment further emphasizes the need to consider the impact of release not only on victims but also on the community.

Given the higher rates of victimization among indigenous people, especially in remote locations, considering community safety and security when contemplating the released of accused persons on bail is especially important. This becomes clear when one considers the recent case from Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation.

The government is committed to changing our nation's bail regime without causing undue harm to communities that are already overrepresented in pretrial detention and in our criminal justice system more generally. These communities include indigenous and Black accused persons and accused persons from vulnerable groups, such as individuals with mental health and addiction issues.

A safe Canada is in everyone's best interest. It is beneath all of us to suggest anyone in this place disagrees. I hope my colleagues across the aisle acknowledge our common goal, and I look forward to working with them, not just on this bill, but on many going forward.