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.

Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2024-25

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

Mr. Speaker, I would be very open to looking at what is transpiring in California. Centring victims at the heart of our criminal justice strategy is important, and we have been attempting to do that with respect to victims of hatred, through the online hate bill; victims of child sex predation, through Bill C-63; victims of intimate partner violence, through our changes to the bail regime, not once but twice, through Bill C-48 and Bill C-75; and fundamentally, victims of gun violence in this country, through bills like Bill C-21, which would put a freeze on handgun sales and ensure tougher penalties with respect to things like gun trafficking. These are important provisions, but I am definitely willing to entertain suggestions about what California is doing and look at whether the model could be brought over.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just outline the tremendous courage, bravery and service of people like Constable Pierzchala and Constable Yang. We are in debt, as always, to men and women in uniform who serve in this country. With respect to Constable Pierzchala, his murder started a very important conversation over a year ago about bail reform, which we responded to with pace, in conjunction with law enforcement and with provincial and territorial governments around the country. That produced Bill C-48, which we passed in a short amount of time, ensuring that we changed bail laws in this country.

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

Madam Chair, again, for his edification, I would point the member toward Bill C-48, which may have been passed before he arrived. It talked about serious, violent, repeat offenders being subjected to a reverse onus, so instead of being presumed to receive bail, they are presumed not to receive bail and have to convince a justice of the peace otherwise.

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

Madam Chair, our commitment to victims, including victims of intimate partner violence, is steadfast, and that is witnessed through our reforms in Bill C-48 and Bill C-75, which dealt with the reverse onus on bail for people who are victims of intimate partner violence. That is demonstrating our commitment to victims, and we will continue to do so.

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

Madam Chair, on bail reform, we passed Bill C-48 with the co-operation of that member opposite.

I would hope that with future Criminal Code reform, which would help keep Canadians safe, he would offer the same level of co-operation.

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

Madam Chair, bail reform is critical, and that is why we passed Bill C-48. That is why we are always looking to protect Canadians from serious violent repeat offenders.

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

Mr. Speaker, there were a number of points in there, and I will respond to all of them.

The first point would be that in respect of Canadians' safety, what I would put to him is that Bill C-21, which he voted against, also dealt with intimate partner violence and things like red flag laws. Those have now become law, no thanks to him and his party and their voting pattern. The red flag laws actually allow the police to intercept firearms from the home of someone who is deemed to be a threat to their partner or to other individuals. That is called keeping Canadians safe, so I reject outright the premise of his earlier question.

With respect to bail, he will be aware that bail is a determination that is made by actors in our justice system, including justices of the peace. We have taken steps to strengthen the bail system to keep Canadians safe. On that piece, I will credit the member. He did vote in favour of Bill C-48, which deals with serious violent repeat offenders, on whom there is now a reverse onus for procuring bail. That is a step in the right direction in keeping Canadians safe.

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

Thank you, Mr. Garrison, for your leadership on the first part of what you talked about and the courage that you continue to show as a parliamentarian, and also for your leadership and that of Laurel Collins on coercive control.

In terms of supporting victims, we are constantly and actively thinking about how to better support victims, including victims of intimate partner violence. Please take a cue from what we did in Bill C-75 and in Bill C-48 with respect to the reverse onus on bail for survivors of intimate partner violence. Issues about support and funding are always on the table.

Also, please understand that when you talk about a 24-hour takedown of things like revenge porn, you're dealing with an aspect of coercive control that exists right now. That's in Bill C-63.

You also mentioned, in your opening, hearing from voices. I think two of the most salient voices that I heard from were the two that were at the press conference with me: Jane, the mother of a child who has been sexually abused and repeatedly exploited online, and Carla Beauvais, a woman who has been intimidated and has retreated from participating in the public space.

I would also suggest taking your cues from the groups that were also there beside me. The National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs have, in the last six months, not seen eye to eye on a lot of issues. On this bill, they do see eye to eye. They both support this, as do the special envoys on anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. Those are important voices to be hearing from, and that's what I will continue to do.

[Commr Thomas Carrique]

Thank you for your question.

Certainly the prevalence of auto theft and of repeat violent offenders not being incarcerated is creating a danger for my officers and for officers right across this country. There are great improvements with Bill C-48, and there's the five-year period to evaluate it. We're looking forward to seeing what improvements come as a result of that.

However, there's absolutely more we can do, as I've highlighted in my recommendations.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question.

Domestic violence and intimate partner violence is a top priority on this side of the House. We addressed this issue twice, in Bill C‑75 and in Bill C‑48 with respect to bail conditions for persons charged with or involved in this type of crime.

We will always fight domestic violence and protect women and men across Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague across the way.

I want all Canadians watching us right now to know that crime in our communities is a priority for every parliamentarian in the House.

That being said, with Bill C‑48, which was just enacted two months ago and deals with bail, we focused specifically on the most violent offenders who used a firearm in the commission of their crime. We are aiming for a situation where these individuals will stay in prison.

Opposition Motion—Auto Theft

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to rise in this House after question period and see so many of my colleagues.

I would like to start my remarks by acknowledging the vote that just took place in the House of Commons in support of our friends and allies in Ukraine, the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian government. I am very proud to have voted yes on the free trade agreement. We should all be proud, as members of Parliament who voted yes and supported it. We will continue to support the brave men and women fighting against the unjustified, tyrannical Russian government that invaded Ukraine. We will continue to be there, much as the European Union was there for them this week in its €54-billion aid package. We will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukrainian people in Ukraine and the over 1.5 million Ukrainian Canadians who call Canada home. God bless them all.

I take the floor to discuss the important issue of auto theft, something the Government of Canada is deeply concerned about. Our government is addressing the issue, with over $120 million in additional funding announced last week in the region of York; it is cracking down on repeat violent offenders through Bill C-48 and attacking organized crime through anti-money-laundering measures.

In addition, the government is playing a key role—

Public Safety

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, over the past several weeks, my colleague and I have had many productive conversations with Brampton residents about the importance of keeping our community safe. This is why this government responded to the request from law enforcement agencies and municipalities to organize a summit on combatting auto theft on February 8, to define real actions and implement impactful solutions with partners in policing, government and industry across Ontario.

This week, the Minister of Public Safety made a federal investment of $121 million to help prevent gang violence and auto theft in Ontario. This is yet another step to continue supporting law enforcement agencies on the ground, resulting in criminals behind bars and more successful operations. We are also strengthening Canada's Criminal Code, keeping repeat violent offenders in prison with Bill C-48 and supporting the—

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

If I could just finish quickly, that just raised another question.

There has been much discussion around the standard around bail. Bill C-48 amends the bail provisions for certain offences. Bill C-75 brought in a presumption that involved individuals receiving bail, which many would argue shouldn't be there.

Is the test, then, identical to that for bail?

What do we make of moving this decision to the appellate court, which is removed from the facts of the case that would have been dealt with at trial? It's a level removed from that. What was the counter-argument, I guess, to just leaving it at the trial level?

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Alfred-Pellan for his question and his dedication.

As a minister, a father and a Canadian, community safety is one of my top priorities. Bill C-48 has now received royal assent. This bail reform bill will keep repeat violent offenders off our streets. Our government will continue to fight crime and its root causes to keep communities safe.

All of Canada's premiers, police forces and municipalities called for action, and we acted.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

December 5, 2023

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 5th day of December, 2023, at 5:11 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Ken MacKillop

Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates the bill assented to was Bill C-48, an act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform).

[Chelsea Moore, Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Just to clarify, the motion G-1 would actually remove two proposals from this bill. I believe that might be a source of some of the confusion.

The first proposal that would be removed is the proposal to ask the prosecutor if the victim has been consulted, and the second proposal that would be removed is the proposal regarding electronic monitoring. They both fall under the first clause. The one motion deals with both proposals at the same time.

On electronic monitoring, as the committee is certainly aware, there was a specific condition added to the Criminal Code that, at bail, judges must consider imposing a condition of electronic monitoring in cases of intimate partner violence and other cases—other serious charges. That did receive royal assent in former Bill C-233. That's with respect to the second proposal.

The first proposal, with respect to the obligation to ask the prosecutor if they've consulted the victim about their safety and security, is not currently in the Criminal Code; however, there are a few related provisions, which have a similar intent to this proposal and would be added by Bill C-48, which was adopted by both Houses last week.

Hopefully that clarifies a little. I think there's been some discussion about both proposals, maybe mixing the discussion together, so I just wanted to clarify that there are two different ones.

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I believe if you seek it you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, the motion respecting Senate amendments made to Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform), standing on the Notice Paper be deemed adopted.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑48 is not the type of bill we are used to seeing in a democracy, at least not here in Canada, and even less so in Quebec. We firmly believe in the presumption of innocence, that a person who is accused of a crime, whatever that crime, should be presumed innocent, and that the Crown must provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt without compelling self-incrimination.

There are, however, exceptions. I do not want to repeat what I said around 10 weeks ago about the same bill when I was announcing the Bloc Québécois's support. I still support the bill, and for the same reasons. I think that there are indeed situations in which the burden of proof should be reversed, for example when a person accused of certain serious crimes is asking for bail.

What Bill C‑48 proposes is that we reverse the burden of proof for serious offences involving violence, firearms offences, offences involving intimate partner violence, and offences for which the accused person has been found guilty and convicted within the past five years. In those cases, even if reversing the burden of proof is a little off-putting, I think we should do it in the case of conditional release to ensure public safety and avoid the commission of other, similar crimes. That, in a nutshell, is what I said about 10 weeks ago, and I am saying it again today. We think it is necessary in those types of cases.

Now we are studying the Senate's report. What is the Senate saying? Essentially, it is saying that it agrees with everything, but would like to add two conditions. I am summarizing a bit here, but one of the two conditions is that, if a judge decides that there is cause to reverse the burden of proof, they must “include [in the record of proceedings] a statement indicating how they considered their particular circumstances, as required under that section.” The judge must take the victim's situation into consideration and, if they do, the Senate tells us that they have to include in the record not only a statement that they did so, but an explanation of what motivated their decision.

In this respect, I agree, because many of these cases will find their way to appeals courts, and many of these situations will give rise to pleas based on the provisions of the charter, which effectively guarantees the presumption of innocence and that, as a result, the Crown, not the defendant, must prove that the defendant is guilty. In this case, the Crown must prove that the defendant has to be detained in order to maintain public safety.

Seeing as this violates the provisions of the charter, the courts may have to decide whether the trial judge made an informed decision in the circumstances. Should that occur, it is important for the judge to have noted the reasons for his or her decision in the court records, which could provide insight for an appeal board on whether the ruling was sound. I think that is wise. I still believe in the importance of Bill C‑48 and the reverse onus in situations like the ones indicated in the bill. For that reason I agree with the Senate's proposal, which I support almost enthusiastically.

The other provision the Senate mentions states that five years after the bill comes into force there will be a review of the question to determine whether the bill should be amended and decide whether it furthers the interests of justice.

The bill provided that this review would be done by a committee of the House of Commons. The Senate says it agrees, but that it too wants to participate. The amendment proposes that Bill C‑48 be referred to the “standing committee of the Senate and the standing committee of the House of Commons that normally consider” these matters.

I really do not see any reason to oppose the Senate's request. For these reasons, I am also in favour of the second aspect of the Senate's report. I know I am entitled to speak for 20 minutes and that I have been speaking for five or six minutes, but I do not think I will ask the House to listen to me repeat what I said about 10 weeks ago, in late September, nor will I repeat what I have just said using different words.

We are in favour of this motion and want Bill C‑48 to be passed and to come into effect as soon as possible.

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

Madam Speaker, I would say that the member needs to dig a little deeper into the testimony and into the words being said.

Again, Bill C-48 would fix a small part of a very big problem in this country. It is not the end. It is not that we just pass the bill and walk away and clap, saying that it is a job well done. There is a lot more that needs to be done. There are many examples, as I cited in my speech, of repeat violent offenders getting out through a revolving door, over and over again.

The Liberals are taking a narrow approach that would not fix the problem and would not get crime rates and the crime wave addressed in this country. The NDP always does this. New Democrats go along with the Liberals; they go along with the plan, and now, they are just as responsible for the backtrack. They pushed the initial bill, Bill C-75 every step the way. They are admitting, just as much as the Liberals are, that they were soft on crime and that they are wrong in their approach. They need more humility. They need a little more water in their wine, and they need to do a full backtrack.

Law enforcement, Canadians and numerous experts are saying that this is one step, but many more steps are needed to fix the problem. The work is not done yet.

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

Madam Speaker, after eight years of the current Prime Minister, Canada is not as safe these days. Canadians know that and they feel that. They hear example after example of that fear right at home. Members need not take my word for it. Canadians can share, sadly, many personal examples of that. However, I want to start my comments by framing the context of why we have this bill before us in Parliament again.

Earlier this summer, the government's own numbers agency, Stats Canada, released some staggering numbers that show just how bad the crime wave in Canada is after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government. It summarized a scary national breakdown of public safety in this country for an increase in occurrences of crime since 2015. Total violent crimes are up 39%. Homicides are up 43%, and are up for the fourth year in a row. Gang-related homicides are up 108%. Violent gun crimes are up 101%, and have been up every single year the Prime Minister has been in office. Aggravated assaults are up 24%. Assaults with a weapon or bodily harm are up 61%. Total sexual assaults are up 71%. Sex crimes against children are up 126%. Kidnappings are up 36%. Car thefts are up 34%.

When we look at the violent crimes severity index, under the previous Conservative government, it decreased by nearly 25%. Under the current Prime Minister and his NDP-Liberal government, it has gone in the total opposite direction. We can do a regional breakdown. I am taking the time to put this data from Stats Canada into the record for a specific reason.

In the city of Toronto, the total number of violent Criminal Code violations increased to 57,896 in 2022. That is a 30% increase since 2015. Homicides are up. After eight years, they are up 65.85%. In Toronto, violent firearms offences increased to 655 in 2022. That is an increase of 64%. Last year, 44 murders were committed with a firearm in Toronto. Twenty-four of those were by someone who was out on bail.

In the city of Winnipeg, the total number of violent Criminal Code violations increased to over 14,000, a 48.5% increase in eight years. Homicides increased by 136% in the city of Winnipeg.

In Calgary, the violent Criminal Code violations increased to nearly 16,000 last year, a 40% increase over eight years since the Prime Minister came into office. Violent firearms offences increased by 42.8% in Calgary.

Let us go a little bit further to Edmonton. Violent firearms offences increased by 97%.

Let us go a little further west to Vancouver. Violent Criminal Code violations increased to nearly 32,000 in 2022. That is a 22.5% increase since the Prime Minister and the NDP-Liberal government took office. Homicides are up 55% in Vancouver and violent firearms offences are up 22% in that city alone.

Coming back here to the nation's capital, the Ottawa-Gatineau region, the number of violent crime violations is just shy of 14,000, which is a 37.1% increase over eight years. Homicide has increased in the nation's capital by 112%. Violent firearms offences have increased by 115%. This is the situation after eight years of the Prime Minister and the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies. This is the record they sadly own.

Just over my shoulder behind me is my colleague for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, which is in rural Manitoba. I have highlighted the stats of many of our major cities, but rural crime is also out of control. My colleague has raised this, I would say, at least a couple of dozen times. I have heard him tabling multiple petitions in the House from Canadians begging the Prime Minister to understand the public safety threat and the crime wave that has been unleashed in this country because of the government's policies, but it is to little or no avail. This is what is so frustrating for Canadians.

The Prime Minister is the best at photo ops. He loves selfies. He loves making announcements about the things he will do, how great it is, and how it has never been so good for Canadians. This is what we hear him talk about often, but any time the going gets tough, or we read the data and statistics as I just did, the Prime Minister heads for the hills. He goes up to the cottage and refuses to answer questions.

I have never, in my 36 years of life, seen somebody skirt from accountability based on their own record. It is always somebody else's fault. When we watch debate in the House and watch question period, we never see the government take an ounce of responsibility for the problems of this country. The Liberals will blame the provinces. They talk about law enforcement. They talk about everything but what they are actually responsible for and the policies that are doing this to every part of the country.

Before I get to Bill C-48 specifically, it is important for Canadians and the House to be reminded why we are talking about Bill C-48, and for the Liberals and the NDP to be humbled. It all emanates from an idea they had less than five years ago with Bill C-75, which made significant, major and wrong reforms to the bail process in Canada. It was passed in 2019, and it legislated a “principle of restraint”, which is what they called it, concerning bail. This was for police and courts to ensure that release at the earliest opportunity would be favoured over detention. Bail by default is a simple way of explaining this.

However, make no mistake about it, I read all those comments into the record about the severity of public safety in this country, which is being felt by millions of Canadians in their communities. This is not because of some random chance. It is not because of some phenomenon that just came along. It is because the Prime Minister passed Bill C-75 and wrecked our bail reform process. A revolving door of bail is happening in every part of this country.

Now, with Bill C-48, the Liberals have admitted it. This was after immense pressure from Conservatives, premiers of all parties in every province, territorial leaders and law enforcement officials who are working on the front lines of this crisis day in and day out. They were polled and forced to make this change to backtrack on their soft-on-crime policies. However, let me make it clear that this is only one small step of what needs to happen when it comes to bail reform in this country. They have gone back an inch, but they need to go back a heck of a lot further to solve the problems we are facing. It is simple, as members have heard us say before: jail not bail for repeat violent offenders.

I will nip this in the bud right off the bat. The Liberals always say that people make mistakes. Now I am not perfect, and I have made some mistakes, believe it or not. We all have. Canadians are concerned and frustrated that there are these repeat violent offenders in all those crime stats I just talked about. They are also seeing that law enforcement is extremely frustrated because, when someone gets arrested, they go in, and within a day or so, they are out on bail.

We are seeing a correlation. Law enforcement statistics are showing that repeat violent offenders are out causing chaos. They are causing numerous police interactions, numbering in the thousands. We are not talking about a speeding ticket, a small amount of substances or even a first offence. It is repeat violent offenders, and Canadians are getting tired of the revolving door. Our law enforcement is demoralized at how the government is ignoring the very valid concerns it is raising.

The Vancouver Police Union had an unbelievable statistics. I had to reread it probably two or three times just to comprehend the magnitude of how broken the bail system has become under the Liberals and the NDP. The Vancouver Police Union said that the same 40 offenders last year had 6,000 police interactions. Members can think of the resources of the revolving door, which is, over and over again, deferring police resources from keeping our communities safe. There were 6,000 times involving the same 40 people. That is insane. That is a broken Liberal soft-on-crime policy.

The frustrating part about all this is that the Liberals still do not get it. This bill goes nowhere near far enough to reverse the damage they have done and the public safety crisis, the crime wave, they have unleashed across the country.

The Prime Minister is in trouble. He was in trouble back in the summer. He desperately wanted to reset things. He is down in the polls, and after eight years, Canadians realize he is just not worth the cost, the corruption or the lack of safety we have in this country. He shuffled his cabinet. A few people announced their retirements and went to the backbenches or the side benches. New fresh faces came into cabinet.

There was a new justice minister, who I am going to guess on the very first day, after visiting Rideau Hall and heading to the Department of Justice for a briefing, was given a summary of the same Stats Canada data I just read. The first opportunity is not a full reversal on the failed Bill C-75.

We will fast-forward to the new justice minister going on CBC, of all places, for an interview. When he was confronted about those stats and how devastating they were, with the rapid increase of violent crime in this country, his response to Canadians was to say that it was all in their heads. He said, “empirically it's unlikely” that Canada had become less safe. That is the reset. That is the new justice minister advocating for public safety in this country saying that it is just in Canadians' heads and that it is just a thing you hear on TV. He is out of touch.

This is what we have seen time and time again with the government's approach to bills such as Bill C-48. Premiers, law enforcement and millions of Canadians who have become victims of crime and/or know somebody who has become a victim of crime are saying that enough is enough.

The justice minister gave a slap in the face to victims of crime. To have the Prime Minister double down, denying just how bad the public safety crisis is in this country, shows us where the Liberals are starting from. The Liberals should frankly be embarrassed about Bill C-48 because they are admitting that the approach in their previous bills was absolutely wrong. They have backtracked.

As I said before, Conservatives have been clear that this does not go far enough to fix the revolving door of bail in this country. This bill is before us only because of the efforts of Conservative members of Parliament at committee, of provincial premiers who were united against the federal government and the Prime Minister and of courageous frontline law enforcement in every part of this country. They have all had enough. We owe it to them to not just pass Bill C-48 but to do the full fix to protect law enforcement and Canadians and keep people safe. This bill is an admission of failure by the Liberals and NDP. It is an admission that they were soft on crime, and it is proof that they are failing Canadians in keeping them safe.

I want to highlight the months of testimony that was heard at the justice committee on Canada's broken bail system. There were many key points raised that need to be brought into the debate we are having on the floor of the House. Comprehensive bail reform is urgent. Repeat and violent offenders are becoming a bigger problem for law enforcement. The public's right to be protected against violent repeat offenders must outweigh the violent repeat offenders' right to bail. That, as we would say, is common sense.

There is agreement among numerous individuals with a background in law enforcement and public safety who testified that Bill C-75 has failed to help victims of intimate violence. The current bail system now has put frontline officers at risk, and the Liberals, with their efforts, have sadly eroded the integrity of Canada's bail system. Judges have to apply the Criminal Code as written, and now people who pose a risk to public safety are too often receiving bail. The government is sending the wrong message to Canadians.

It did this only after all of this pressure, whether it was at the justice committee, in question period, in the letter that the premiers signed, from numerous police unions and provincial and national chiefs of police associations or, most importantly, through the devastating stories from way too many Canadians about how they have become victims of crime and about living in neighbourhoods where, for generations and decades, they felt safe in their hamlets, subdivisions, communities and small towns, and now that has been eroded.

It is important in these debates to humanize what is going on. The sad part that is not in Bill C-48 is the devastating and sad story from only a few months ago of OPP Constable Grzegorz Pierzchala. His killer was out on bail. We now know that, based on this bill and its small fix, which is not the full fix but a partial fix, that individual would have still been out on bail. It is extremely frustrating. The list goes on of media story after media story that highlight the crisis we are in.

It was the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police that begged for an urgent meeting with premiers and national leaders about this bill. It does not go the full way that it has been asking for. It says easy bail policies make “much of our work pointless”. That is what the chiefs of police are saying about the Liberals' legislative record on justice and public safety.

The BC Urban Mayors' Caucus compiled data showing more than 11,000 negative police contacts by just 204 offenders who “rarely faced any consequences for their criminality”. I spoke before about the Vancouver Police Union. Police officers in Vancouver themselves have released data on the 44 most recent stranger attack suspects, showing that 78% of them had already been charged in a previous criminal incident.

Most notably, the law requires that the top priority in any bail hearing is “the release of the accused at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions”. That has got to change. Again, jail, not bail, for repeat offenders must be the goal of the government. After eight years, Canadians cannot afford any more of this nonsense from the Liberals, propped up every step of the way by the NDP.

I want to end my comments tonight with a reflection on where we are at when it comes to the priorities of public safety of the Liberal government and the Prime Minister. I want to talk about the benefit of the doubt, and have Canadians reflect on something that would tell them everything they need to know about the broken approach the Liberals have and the contrast on this side of the aisle with Conservatives, which could not be more clear.

With respect to bail reform, with Bill C-75 in the Liberals' legislative record, they want to give the principle of restraint, the least onerous bail conditions, and give those who are accused the benefit of the doubt so they can get out on bail. Even if, over and over again, they are being arrested or charged, or are having interactions with the police, by default, by benefit of the doubt, they get out. The result has been a crime wave, with skyrocketing numbers from Statistics Canada on where we are at in this country.

By contrast, when we talk about the benefit of the doubt, what is the solution for the problem, in the minds of the Liberals? It is to take away hunting rifles and go after law-abiding hunters, farmers, indigenous communities and sport shooters alike. There is zero benefit of the doubt for those who are law-abiding, have their PAL, have a criminal record check and have never had an issue or an interaction with police whatsoever. The Liberals and the Prime Minister do not think they deserve any benefit of the doubt; they just want to confiscate and waste billions going after Canadians who are of no concern with respect to public safety. That benefit of the doubt tells us everything we need to know about the Prime Minister. There is no common sense there.

It is time, not just to pass Bill C-48, a small fraction of a solution, but to do the right thing for Canadians who are tired either of being the victim of crime or of hearing of a neighbour, a friend or a co-worker who has been the victim of crime. Do it for the frontline law enforcement members in this country, who deserve the resources to keep repeat violent offenders behind bars. We need jail, not bail, for repeat violent offenders.

It is time in this country for common sense. It is time for a real plan for public safety. It is time for the Prime Minister to put a little water in his wine, have a little humility, listen to premiers, listen to law enforcement and bring change, not only with Bill C-48 but also with the full fix this country needs in order to be protected.

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-48, an act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform).

[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 do 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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill C‑48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform).

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will debate the Senate amendments related to Bill C-48 on bail reform.

Tomorrow morning, we will call Government Business No. 31, which concerns Bill C-50, an act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy. Tomorrow afternoon, we will call report stage and third reading of Bill C-57, which would implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine.

Next week, priority will be given to the motion relating to Bill C-50. We will also call report stage and third reading of Bill C-56, the affordability legislation, and second reading of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement, which was introduced earlier today. Thursday will be an opposition day.

For the following week, I will circle back to the member opposite.

Opposition Motion—Passage of Bill C-234 by the Senate

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, part of the debate here today on the motion at hand is about the Conservatives trying to have the House dictate to the Senate what bills it should pass. Bill C-48 is a bill that is incredibly important to provinces and territories, including B.C. The Conservatives have not been too concerned about it in the Senate, shown by the fact that it has taken them two months to get through it.

Could my hon. colleague speak to the fact that Conservative games in the Senate are stopping the passage of crucial legislation that provinces, such as British Columbia, have asked our government to implement?

[Catherine Latimer]

Well, I think there are technical reasons as well as substantive reasons for not proceeding now with Bill S-205. The primary one is that Parliament has already looked at almost the exact wording of the provision in the judicial interim release reverse onus provision, so it will already have made a determination. That bill, Bill C-48, includes a review provision so that the effect of those particular provisions can be looked at and changed more if need be.

[Catherine Latimer]

In conclusion, the John Howard Society of Canada urges the committee not to pass Bill S-205 at this time, as the House has unanimously passed Bill C-48 and the bill is now in the Senate, which gave attention to the issue of intimate partner violence during the bail process and already includes a key measure that is proposed in this bill. Further, the range of section 810 recognizance orders is already adequate to deal with the fear of intimate partner violence, and the proposals in Bill S-205 are disproportionately harsh.

I agree with what the witnesses had to say before. The criminal justice system has a very limited range of tools that it can use to assist with intimate partner violence. The better answers lie outside the criminal justice system.

[Catherine Latimer, Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, committee members. It's a great pleasure to be here. I want to thank you very much for seeking the views of the John Howard Society on Bill S-205.

As a charity, we're committed to effective, just and humane responses to the causes and consequences of crime. The John Howard Society is concerned about preventing crime, and about appropriate and effective consequences for having committed crimes.

Preventing intimate partner violence is a shared goal, but our assessment is that there's very little in Bill S-205 that would make a difference in preventing violence.

Bill S-205 amendments really pertain to two areas. One is the judicial interim release provisions, or bail provisions, and the other is the new category of recognizance orders relating to the fear of domestic violence.

In terms of the judicial interim release provisions, there is a heavy reliance, as the other witnesses have mentioned, on electronic monitoring as a condition of pretrial release if it is sought by the Attorney General.

We would first point out that the research on electronic monitoring has been inconclusive in terms of its effectiveness in preventing crime.

Second, the technology is very expensive, and it is important to note who would be paying for the device and for its monitoring. Given that it is the AG who is seeking it, can we safely assume that it would be the AG who is paying for it? That's not always the case; often, individuals who are released on bail or on community sentences are being asked to pay for the monitoring. This actually worsens a class bias in the criminal justice system through which the affluent are more likely to benefit and the marginalized and impoverished, including members of the indigenous and Black communities, are more likely to be denied.

The reverse onus provisions that are being proposed in paragraph 515(6)(b.1) mirror the contentious provisions that were included in Bill C-48, which make prior discharges equivalent to convictions, triggering the reverse onus provision for bail for prior intimate partner violence offences. Many witnesses appearing before the Senate on Bill C-48 cautioned that including discharges would raise charter concerns.

There is almost a retroactive application to this provision, which is troubling. Many accused, including women who are also often charged when it is unclear who initiated the domestic conflict, might have agreed to plead guilty to an offence that might otherwise have been successfully contested at trial on the understanding that the discharge would have no future negative criminal justice implications for them. Now it would.

In any event, the equivalent of this section will have already been accepted or dropped in Bill C-48, making this section duplicative or possibly inconsistent with the will of Parliament.

The second major area is the recognizance orders. Our view is that the proliferation of section 810 orders to reflect the fear of certain types of future crimes is unnecessary and bad policy. Existing sections 810 and 810.2, which specifically refer to intimate partner violence, are adequate to cover those fearing domestic violent offences.

It should be noted that the proposed intimate personal violence recognizance in this bill is triggered by a fear of a personal injury offence, yet section 810.2 recognizance is triggered by a fear of a “serious personal injury offence”. This indicates that the latter category applies to persons who pose more of a threat of serious harm, yet Bill S-205 proposes much harsher treatment of the former for the 810 order than for the 810.2 orders, and this will create a sense of a disproportionate, unfair response based on the severity of the risk posed.

There are also some amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, but I won't get into those for fear of running overtime.

Public Safety

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, making sure Canadians are safe and feel safe in their community is a priority for our federal government. It is not optional; it is not political.

In my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, public safety is at the centre of many conversations. We know the federal government has a leading role to play. Vaughan residents support the co-operation and collaboration seen from all levels of government, law enforcement and victim advocates working together to crack down on crime, keep guns away from our streets and protect Canadians.

Canadians asked that we strengthen the justice system to keep repeat offenders behind bars. As a response, our government introduced Bill C-48 on bail reform, which would amend the Criminal Code and reinforce public confidence in Canada's justice system.

We also introduced a national freeze on handguns, supported the Province of Ontario with $120 million to combat guns and gangs, and provided over $500 million to CBSA to protect our borders. By providing the funding, working with all levels of government and passing impactful bail reform legislation, we are doing everything it takes to keep Canadians safe.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, keeping our communities safe is important to Brampton residents. While community safety is a shared jurisdiction with the provinces and municipalities, this government has been working hand in hand with law enforcement and other partners. We are strengthening Canada's Criminal Code and our community safety by keeping repeat violent offenders in prison with Bill C-48 and supporting the CBSA with historic investments that make our border secure.

Most importantly, we are working collaboratively with our law enforcement partners in Peel and right across the country to combat auto theft. I know that fighting car theft is an important issue. This is why, earlier this year, we made an important investment of $120 million in Ontario to combat gangs. In partnership with CBSA and other agencies, Peel Regional Police has successfully recovered over $130 million worth of stolen vehicles this year and put many criminals behind bars.

We are committed to continuing to work to strengthen measures to combat auto theft to ensure a safe environment for Brampton.

Criminal Code

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the second reading debate of Bill S-205, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another act. I am pleased to reiterate the government's support for Bill S-205. This legislation has the important goal of better protecting victims of intimate partner violence.

In light of last week's tragic instance of intimate partner violence in Sault Ste. Marie, we are reminded of the devastating impact these crimes have on individuals and communities. My heart breaks for the senseless loss of life in Sault Ste. Marie, and I am thinking of the victims' loved ones. Intimate partner violence and gender-based violence in general have no place in Canada. I know my colleagues from all parties share this sentiment.

Bill S-205 would make changes to the Criminal Code's bail and peace bond regimes in order to address intimate partner violence. The bill would also make consequential amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. These are important objectives. Today, I will elaborate on some concerns that we have with this bill and how we think it can be improved. I will also discuss our government's most recent complementary efforts to support victims of intimate partner violence and victims of crime in general.

As my colleagues have mentioned, Bill S-205 would require prosecutors to ask courts whether the victim has been consulted about their safety and security needs prior to making a bail order for an individual who is charged with an intimate partner violence offence. In addition, Bill S-205 would require courts to ask prosecutors whether victims have been informed of their right to request a copy of the bail order made by the court.

The next element of Bill S-205 that I would like to highlight is the expansion of a reverse onus for bail on intimate partner violence crimes. The reverse onus would be expanded so that it applies not only to accused persons who were previously convicted but also to those previously discharged, conditional or absolute, for an intimate partner violence offence. This particular measure is also contained in our government's bill, Bill C-48, which already passed this House and is awaiting third reading in the Senate. We were certainly concerned to see that the senators voted to remove this measure from the bill, and I hope that my colleagues agree that we should reinstate it in Bill C-48. This provision builds upon previous government legislation that enhances our federal response to intimate partner violence, including former Bill C-75. I hope this House rejects the amendments to Bill C-48.

Next, Bill S-205 would require a justice to consider, on request of the Crown, whether the accused should wear an electronic monitoring device as a condition of release. I want to point out that this provision would also undo an important change made by Bill C-233, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act, violence against an intimate partner, which received royal assent on April 27. If Bill S-205 is passed, electronic monitoring would be identified as an explicit condition of bail that could be imposed in all cases, and not just in cases involving violence against an intimate partner as is now the case because of the changes enacted in Bill C-233.

Last, this bill would create a new peace bond specific to cases involving intimate partner violence with a duration of up to two years, or three years if the defendant was previously convicted of an intimate partner violence offence.

I want to reiterate that I support the objectives of this bill, but I believe that changes should be considered to better align the proposed amendments with its objective. These changes could also minimize the potential for unintended negative impacts on groups who are already overrepresented in the criminal justice system, and ensure coherence with existing criminal law.

Next, I want to discuss how Bill S-205 fits into a broader framework of our government's support for victims of crime. I have already mentioned Bill C-48, which passed here on unanimous consent of all members. I want to thank colleagues across the aisle for their support and for recognizing the importance and urgency of Bill C-48. It is a direct response to requests made by the provinces and territories, as well as law enforcement agencies from across our country. This piece of legislation would strengthen Canada's bail laws to address the public's concerns relating to repeat violent offenders in offences involving firearms and other weapons.

Bill C-48 would introduce a reverse onus at bail on the use of dangerous weapons such as firearms, knives and bear spray. Bill C-48 would also create a reverse onus for additional indictable firearms offences, including unlawful possession of a loaded or easily loaded prohibited or restricted firearm, breaking and entering to steal a firearm, robbery to steal a firearm and making an automatic firearm.

Through this bill, we are sending a strong message that crimes committed involving a firearm are unacceptable and represent a dire threat to public safety. We have seen too many lives lost to gun crime.

As I have mentioned previously, Bill C-48 would also strengthen the existing reverse onus that applies to accused persons charged with an offence involving intimate partner violence when they have a previous conviction for this type of an offence. Bill S-205 has this same objective, and I am glad to see members from all parties take intimate partner violence seriously.

Another proposal in Bill C-48 relates to what considerations the court must make when deciding whether to release someone on bail. A former bill, Bill C-75, passed in 2019, amended the Criminal Code to provide that before making a bail order, courts must consider any relevant factor, including the criminal record of the accused or if the charges involve intimate partner violence.

Bill C-48 would expand this provision to require courts to consider if the accused's criminal record includes a history of convictions involving violence. Bail courts would be specifically directed to consider whether the accused has any previous violent convictions and whether they represent an increased risk of reoffending, even when the proposed reverse onus does not apply. This change would enhance public safety, and I am again pleased that my colleagues support the passage of Bill C-48.

A second bill I wanted to highlight is Bill S-12. Just this week, we debated this legislation. Bill S-12 would improve our national response to sexual offences by strengthening the national sex offender registry regime. We have responded to concerns raised by the Supreme Court and law enforcement agencies in this legislation. The list of designated offences that qualify an offender to be registered on the national sex offender registry would be expanded by Bill S-12, and this list would include non-consensual sharing of intimate images and sextortion, two crimes that have had terrible impacts on the lives of Canadians, especially women and children. This would be a very positive step forward.

Bill S-12 is a direct product of conversations with survivors and victims of sexual crime. Bill S-12 would reform the publication regime to recognize the diversity of victim experiences and ensure that survivors have agency to tell their own stories if they so choose. Bill S-12 would also change the process for providing victims with information on their cases to better reflect the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Both of these changes are about one key element: choice. There is no one right way to be a victim. Bill S-12 reflects this reality.

I am happy to support Bill S-205, and I hope that the elements I have raised as potential concerns with the bill can be further studied at committee.

Public Safety

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, over the past few months, as I knocked on doors in my riding of Brampton East, I have had many conversations about public safety. All levels of government have a role to play in keeping our communities safe, and here in Parliament, we are working together to further strengthen our Criminal Code.

After consultations with all 13 premiers and police chiefs across Canada, our government has brought forward a bail reform bill, Bill C-48, which would help keep repeat violent offenders behind bars.

I have had numerous discussions with the police chief, the mayor and colleagues across all levels of government, and I am happy to see this bill being supported by colleagues in this very chamber.

That is not all. We have helped combat guns and gangs, providing $120 million to the Province of Ontario; strengthened border security, with over $500 million to CBSA, which will help prevent contraband coming into this country; and instituted a national freeze on handguns, which means that handguns can no longer be transferred, purchased or imported into Canada.

I remain focused on working with all levels of government to ensure families can live and prosper in a safe environment.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-320, a bill that makes a fairly significant statement. I truly believe that it does not matter what side of the House a member sits on as we all recognize that, whenever a crime is committed, there is a victim, whether it is collectively or individually. We want to be there in a very real and tangible way to support victims.

When I look at Bill C-320, I see a bill that moves us forward in being more transparent, and ultimately more accountable, through providing supports directly to victims. I do not say that lightly because I have had experiences, while I was an MLA a number of years ago in the mid-nineties, where I had the opportunity to participate in a youth justice committee.

For those who are not aware, youth justice committees were an alternative to young people having to go to formal court. I found out something very quickly when young people came before the committee, which in my case was based in a community in the northwest end of the city of Winnipeg. We were classified as honorary parole officers of sorts, and we listened to cases involving anything from shoplifting and automobile theft to some cases of minor assault types of situations. What I found was that, the more we gained experience as a justice committee, the stronger our desire to incorporate victims.

I believe that at the time we were one of the first justice committees looking for restorative justice. In that case, having restorative justice meant that we had young offenders sitting down to work out some sort of a disposition with us along with the victim. We felt that that was a good alternative to having the victim outside of the process. Rather, the victim was on the inside of the process, able to contribute to the disposition of an individual, a young person in the community, to ensure that justice was being served. What I found in a couple of the cases that I was able to participate in was that there was a much higher sense of relief in different ways, in part by the victim.

Since the mid-nineties, I have always had an interest in how we can support victims of crimes. The types of crimes that are out there are obviously exceptionally wide in the spectrum. The ones that have a strong element of violence against a person are, from my point of view, the most offensive. I am more sympathetic to having victim's rights being looked after.

When I look at Bill C-320, what I see are amendments to the CCRA that would require Correctional Services Canada and the Parole Board of Canada to provide victims with an explanation of how dates were calculated initially and at each time there is a change. I think that is the core of the content of the legislation that we are talking about today.

When I think of what we have done as a government to support victims, there are a couple of things that I want to highlight. Whenever we think of the role that the government plays, one can talk about legislation but I would also suggest that one can talk about budgetary measures.

For example, budget 2021 proposed to provide just over $85 million, over five years, to support a national program for independent legal advice and independent legal representation for victims of sexual assault and to support pilot projects for victims of intimate partner violence. I believe this demonstrates that the government is looking at supporting victims in a very tangible way.

I have seen legislation that we have passed that makes it easier for the victim; when a perpetrator goes before a parole board, the victim does not have to appear in order to present what had taken place, thereby making them a victim once again.

As a government, we have acted on budgetary measures and legislative measures to be able to protect the interests of victims.

Through the victims fund, we have made more than $28 million available to provincial and territorial governments and non-governmental organizations to increase awareness and knowledge of victim issues, legislation and available services.

The bill would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. I believe that this disclosure of an offender's parole eligibility dates to the victims also includes the explanation of how such dates would be determined. This is consistent with what that the government has been doing, from a budget process and a legislative process previously.

The government is committed to supporting victims of crime and their families. Their right to information about the individuals who have harmed them should be respected at all stages of the corrections and conditional release process.

This disclosure of information to victims provides transparency and accountability.

We have seen legislation pass when we believed that it would receive unanimous support. I believe that this piece of legislation has wide support, possibly from all political parties in the chamber.

I hope that the mover of the legislation would be open, as the government is when it brings forward legislation that goes to committee, to possible amendments.

I reflect back on Bill C-48, which was dealing with the whole issue of parole and bail hearings, in particular the importance of having the reverse onus in specific areas of proof. I witnessed during the debates of that legislation an overwhelming desire to see it ultimately pass. It received unanimous consent.

I do believe that a vast majority of, if not all, members realize the importance of more accountability and transparency in protecting the victims of crimes. That is why I feel very comfortable in wanting to see this bill go to committee.

Criminal Code

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the chamber to address important issues. There is no doubt that the issue of crime and safety in our communities is of the greatest concern for all our constituents. It is one of the reasons why we saw the universal support of all political entities in the chamber to pass the bail reform legislation, Bill C-48. It passed relatively quickly because all sides of the House saw that the bill would do a good service for our judicial system. That is not necessarily the case with respect to the private member's bill before us.

I have found over the years that members of the Conservative Party talk a very tough line. In reality, it is quite different. I have had the experience of serving on committees such as the Keewatin youth justice committee. When I was a member of the Manitoba legislature, I had the opportunity to be a justice critic. I have recognized how important it is that when we propose changes to the Criminal Code, we work with the many different stakeholders out there.

The private member's bill, as proposed, is taking some aim at legislation we had previously passed, in particular Bill C-5. There has been misinformation coming from the Conservatives with respect to Bill C-5. This misinformation tries to imply that our communities are not as safe as a direct result of the passage of Bill C-5, which is not the case. Bill C-5 was, in fact, progressive legislation that was supported by a majority of members, not only the Liberals, in the House of Commons. At the end of the day, Bill C-5 did not take away authority from judges.

There is a big difference between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. Liberals understand the importance of judicial independence. We understand the importance of the rule of law, and the actions we have taken clearly demonstrate that. I would challenge the Conservatives with regard to their respect for judicial independence. That is why I hope this legislation does not pass and go to the committee stage.

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to give our hon. colleague an opportunity to correct himself. I believe he is standing up talking on Bill C-48 and the topic today is Bill C-49.

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

Thank you, Mr. Brock, for the question.

I'd put it to you simply that no one is being ignored by me or by my department with respect to the conversation about community safety.

What I would underscore for you is that the conversation on bail reform started with a letter that came from the premiers to the Prime Minister after an FPT that occurred in October 2022. That letter had a very specific ask, and we added to that ask in terms of developing the legislation. To the one firearms offence listed there, we added another three.

You and I share the same province, the province of Ontario. Doug Ford's government and Doug Downey, as the AG, have been very complimentary in terms of what we've been doing and very supportive in terms of what we've been doing.

What I found unique about the situation is that we had the support behind that bill of all 13 leaders of the provinces and territories in this country, as well as all of the law enforcement community. That continued even as we saw it make its way through to the Senate. It's now in the Senate. David Eby's government continued to lobby for its quick passage even while it was being studied in the Senate.

I think it's important, in terms of the list you're mentioning, to also underscore—and you as a former prosecutor will know this—that when it comes to setting in place the structure and the architecture, that's the Criminal Code and that's for federal parliamentarians. When it comes to the administration of justice and things like bail enforcement, that's the responsibility of the provinces, pursuant to the administration of justice under the constitutional division of powers.

What we've seen is that we've put money in place, including $330 million for guns and gangs enforcement, that is helping provinces do exactly that. There's some complementarity there, but in terms of my willingness to explore other options for keeping communities safe, as a guy who represents a riding in Toronto that has seen violence, particularly on the TTC, I am committed to that. It is my fundamental duty to keep Canadians safe.

Bill C-48 goes in a direction that will do just that. It's an important piece of legislation that got all-party support, which is a good thing. I think there are more areas of collaboration, and I'm willing to collaborate in those areas.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses in attendance.

Let me use my brief opportunity here to publicly congratulate you, Minister, on your new role. I'm looking forward to having you appear on many occasions.

I want to start off by discussing the narrative of your government, sir, and some talking points that you have used and that your predecessor, David Lametti, used to justify and sell, in my view, Bill C-48 as an important piece of legislation not only to restore public confidence in the administration of justice but also to make our communities safer.

I've heard repeatedly in the House that one of the hallmarks of Bill C-48 is that you've listened. You listened to stakeholders, you listened to premiers, and you listened to chiefs of police and presidents of police associations in forming the specific language to tighten up the reverse onus provisions in the Criminal Code and to add to the reverse onus provisions in the Criminal Code. However, you'll agree with me, sir, that it wasn't just additional reverse onus provisions as they relate to additional firearms offences that these stakeholders were asking for. There was actually a laundry list of other items they asked for that did not find itself in Bill C-48. Not knowing what the agenda is from your department, I don't think you're bringing forward any legislation to even contemplate encompassing the other asks.

With that being said, the provincial governments and the police associations have asked for a thorough review and reform of Canada's bail system. They asked for a definition of “serious prolific offender” or “repeat violent offender” within the confines of Bill C-48. They specifically asked that bail hearings for serious firearms offences be heard by a judge of a provincial court or a superior court as opposed to a justice of the peace, that obligations be strengthened with sureties and that there be consequences for failing obligations.

My ask of you, with the limited amount of time that I have, sir, is why this government, why your department and why you personally have ignored those significant additional measures that the stakeholders are asking for to improve community safety and to restore confidence in our justice system.

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

Mr. Moore, this is where you and I will differ in terms of perceptions.

I believe that Bill C-5—and I was the parliamentary secretary at the time that was implemented—was meant to do multiple things, including addressing delays in the court system that were being pointed out by the Supreme Court in R. v. Jordan. It addressed things like reverse onus on bail for intimate partner violence. That is something that we not only believe in as a government but have doubled down on in terms of expanding the scope of reverse onus provisions in the current bail reform bill, Bill C-48. What it also did was entrench certain principles about bail that codified Supreme Court jurisprudence.

With respect to Bill C-5, Mr. Moore, again I will categorically disagree with you. Bill C-5 was about easing the overrepresentation of indigenous and Black persons in the Canadian justice system, in the criminal justice system. The effect of some of the mandatory minimum penalties that were enacted by the previous government under Stephen Harper was to overincarcerate indigenous folks on a sixfold basis and Black persons on a twofold basis.

On a day on which we've elected, for the first time in Canadian history, a Black Speaker of the House of Commons, I'm going to stand by our efforts to reduce racism in our system and stand by the efforts to reduce overrepresentation.

Public Safety

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Madam Speaker, public safety is an issue that is important to each and every member of the House and one which I have heard about from my constituents. This is why I am proud that our government is implementing reforms to the bail system that would help keep repeat offenders off of the street.

Bill C-48, which passed the House last week and is moving swiftly through the Senate, creates a reverse onus for repeat offenders and those accused of crimes with a firearm and a knife.

It examines the onus on those accused of intimate partner violence and requires the courts to consider whether an accused person has a history of convictions involving violence when making a bail order. This bill was crafted responsibly, with input from all relevant stakeholders, and has the supports of provincial and territorial leaders.

It sends a strong message that judges ought to seriously consider the public safety risks posed by repeat offenders at the bail stage.

This bill is just one of a suite of measures that our government has introduced to protect the public from violent offenders and to ensure the people of the Sault and all across this country are safe on the streets.

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, my apologies, but I have a very difficult time believing the sincerity of the government with this bill, and that is a result of its constant retaliation against the natural resources sector. We saw this with Bill C-48. We also saw this with Bill C-69. We have seen this with the endless carbon tax after carbon tax, as well as with emissions standards, which the government forced industry to meet. This results in a larger mental health crisis among industry workers and higher suicide rates. Perhaps it is even fuelling the opioid crisis.

With a $41-billion deficit and $2.1 trillion of debt across Canada, and with oil and gas making up 7.5% of the GDP, how are the Liberals going to replace the funds in the coffers from a dying industry that they have killed at a time when they are also overspending?

Justice

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Mississauga—Malton, I know people are concerned about crime. They want to know what our government is doing to make sure that people are safe. This is why I was pleased to see the House unanimously pass Bill C-48 last week, which would help ensure that violent repeat offenders would not get bail.

Could the Minister of Justice tell us more about the progress of this legislation? What is the government doing to improve safety in communities across Canada?

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the second reading debate today of Bill S-205, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another act, interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders, which was passed in the Senate this past April.

I think all members would agree that the objective of Bill S-205 is laudable. The proposed amendments aim to better protect victims of intimate partner violence, which is the most common form of police-reported violent crime against women, particularly against indigenous women and increasingly against those who have other intersecting identities. Overall, the government supports the bill, as I believe its objective is important. However, as I will discuss further below, I am concerned about some of the proposed changes.

Bill S-205 seeks to address the issue of intimate partner violence through changes to the bail and peace bond regimes in the Criminal Code and by making consequential amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. In particular, Bill S-205 would require courts, prior to making a bail order for an offence involving actual, threatened or attempted violence against an intimate partner, to ask prosecutors if the victim had been consulted about their safety and security needs. The courts would also be required to ask the prosecutor whether victims have been informed of their right to request a copy of the bail order made by the court.

Bill S-205 would also expand the existing intimate partner violence reverse onus for bail so that it would apply not only to accused who were previously convicted but also to those previously discharged, conditional or absolute, for an intimate partner violence offence. The government has done this exact change in Bill C-48, which received unanimous consent in the House earlier this week, and I hope will pass the Senate very quickly. In a reverse onus situation, the accused has the responsibility to demonstrate that detention in custody while awaiting trial is not justified. In addition, Bill S-205 would require a justice to consider, on request by the Crown, whether the accused should wear an electronic monitoring device as a condition of release.

Earlier this year, Bill C-233, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act, violence against an intimate partner, received royal assent. My colleague, the member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, brought forward that important legislation, and I was very proud to support it. The bill also included a provision related to electronic monitoring that could apply in cases involving intimate partner violence.

Bill S-205 would undo this change, which is one of my concerns. Undoing my colleague's bill would mean that, if this bill were passed, electronic monitoring would be identified as an explicit condition of bail that could be imposed in all cases and not just in cases involving violence against an intimate partner, as is now the case because of the changes enacted through Bill C-233. This is something that we would need to review at committee to ensure that the two pieces of legislation work together.

Last, the bill would create a new peace bond specific to cases involving intimate partner violence with a duration of up to two years, or three years if the defendant was previously convicted of an intimate partner violence offence. I want to reiterate that I support the objective of this bill, but I believe the changes should be considered by the status of women committee to better align the proposed amendment with its objective.

These changes could also minimize the potential for unintended negative impacts on groups who are already overrepresented in the criminal justice system and ensure coherence with the existing criminal law. For instance, the requirements for courts to ask if an intimate partner has been consulted about their safety and security is duplicative of existing provisions. The Criminal Code already requires courts to take into consideration the safety of any victim of an alleged offence when crafting a bail order and to include in the court record a statement that they did so. Duplicating provisions always carries the concern of creating confusion with prosecutors and judges, and we want to avoid that at all costs.

Other concerns centre around the proposed amendments regarding electronic monitoring. As I mentioned, Bill C-233 amended the Criminal Code to explicitly provide that a court consider the imposition of electronic monitoring as a condition of release for an accused charged with an offence involving the use, attempt or threat of violence against their intimate partner. In contrast, the current provisions of Bill S-205 would explicitly list electronic monitoring as an optional condition for any offence, which has much broader application. If we want to focus on protecting victims of intimate partner violence, we need to be clear about the intention on whom the courts should be focusing on for use of electronic monitoring.

Available data shows that the poverty rate for indigenous people living off reserve and for racialized individuals far exceeds that of non-indigenous and non-racialized populations. I am worried that this broad application of electronic monitoring will negatively impact these groups who, as we know, are already overrepresented in the criminal justice system.

There is also cause for concern that should electronic monitoring be explicitly added to the Criminal Code as a potential condition for release on bail, it could become more routinely imposed, even in cases where it may not be warranted.

For these reasons, I do not support the electronic monitoring changes as drafted in Bill S-205. I am, however, generally supportive of the changes to enact a peace bond specific to intimate partner violence. At the same time, I see ways in which this provision can be improved.

For example, consideration should be given to amending the provision that states who may apply for the peace bond. Currently, the provision is drafted so that the person who fears that injury would be caused to them, or their children, can apply for the peace bond. I believe that it might be more appropriate to broaden this so that anyone can apply, for example, a police officer.

I also think it is worth considering whether the proposed duration, conditions and procedures of the new peace bond should be amended so that they are consistent with peace bonds already contained in our Criminal Code.

About a month ago, our government called gender-based violence an epidemic, as have a number of municipalities, including my own in the city of Toronto. It is important that we work to combat gender-based violence in all its forms, including intimate partner violence.

I know that we are all committed to taking action to address intimate partner violence. This was demonstrated by the passing of my colleague's bill, Bill C-233.

I look forward to working with all parliamentarians to continue advancing this important objective, while remaining mindful of the unintended consequences some provisions of this bill may cause.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I have also worked with him on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and have always appreciated his interventions. We do not always share the same point of view, but there is always respect there, and that is very helpful.

That said, to answer his question, I have to say that I do not understand either. My answer to these groups is that there are really only two ways to interpret this way of doing things.

It may be that the government considers that the national sex offender registry is not important, as was the case the day before yesterday with Bill C-48, when the bail provisions did not seem important. Indeed, that is how it is with many other bills: just not important. Since it is not important, bills keep getting pushed back and dealt with when it suits them. If it never suits them, it is no big deal.

If it is not because the subject is not important, then it is because the procedural rules are not important. They think the opposition members are not that bright. They know the opposition will say yes to anything, so, at the eleventh hour, they tell us the bill has to be passed. Then the opposition says, oh, the national sex offender registry is so important that we have to set aside the House's procedural rules. That is what the government hopes. Let us call that option B.

Here is my question for the government. Is it A, the government does not give a fig, or is it B, the government does not give a fig about parliamentary rules?

[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.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, let me first echo the comments of the Leader of the Opposition in response to the news earlier today and offer my sincerest condolences to the family of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, who was murdered near my home in Surrey.

Crime, chaos and disorder is the Prime Minister's legacy after eight years. This is the direct result of his dangerous soft-on-crime policies. Canadians' lives and sense of security are being destroyed in record numbers by criminals who should never have been out roaming the streets in the first place. Canadians are not feeling safe in their communities, on public transit, at public events or in coffee shops. They are rightly worried that they may be the next victim of the Prime Minister's crime wave.

The government's own statistics illustrate a stark reality. Violent crime has gone up 39%. Gang-related homicides are up 108%. Sex crimes against children are up 126%. Gun crime has increased every year and is up over 100% since 2015. The Prime Minister's response is to go after law-abiding hunters.

Across the country, murders are up 43%, the highest rate in 30 years. In Vancouver alone, murders have gone up 55%, and firearms-related offences are up 22%. In the last seven months alone, eight police officers were killed in the line of duty. There were eight in seven months. These statistics are alarming. We in the federal government, charged with national security, can never forget that they are more than statistics. These are real crimes happening to real people, with devastating consequences.

There are commuters carjacked at gunpoint, students lit on fire on the bus, teenagers stabbed at the subway and executions in the street, parking lots and driveways. This crime wave is a direct result of Liberal legislation passed, which was sponsored by the most radical minister of justice in Canadian history, the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. His bill broke the bail system. Where is he now? He is no longer in cabinet. Under his bill, Bill C-75, the catch-and-release act, violent offenders are arrested, then released on a promise that they will appear in court. They then commit another offence within hours. They have time and opportunity to commit crimes literally morning, afternoon and evening.

Take Vancouver, for example. As my colleague just mentioned, the same 40 offenders were arrested 6,000 times in a single year. That is 150 arrests each. Last year in Toronto, there were 17 gun-related murders committed by violent criminals out on bail. This summer in Edmonton, a father of seven children was stabbed in the chest, murdered at a transit station. Again, the accused was out on bail. The crime wave is evident in B.C. as it is elsewhere. In Surrey last April, a 17-year-old boy named Ethan Bespflug was stabbed and killed on a bus. A few days later, a young man was stabbed on the SkyTrain. In August, a man was shot in the face at a Surrey bus stop.

Recently, at Vancouver's Light Up Chinatown! festival, meant to bring the community together, a man who previously had murdered his teenage daughter by stabbing her stabbed three people. Last Thursday, Vancouver police arrested a man for four assaults committed in the span of 45 minutes. He used a chain and a concrete block.

One of the most horrific incidents in downtown Vancouver was last March. It was videotaped and shown on social media. A man standing outside a Starbucks was brutally and senselessly attacked, stabbed to death in front of his wife and daughter in broad daylight. We are talking about mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, friends and neighbours.

Sadly, the urgency of this crime wave seems to be lost on the new Minister of Justice. Just days after he was sworn in, he said, “'I think that empirically it's unlikely” Canada is becoming less safe. He is in complete denial of the dangerous reality on the streets. He is telling victims of crime and Canadians who are rightly concerned, many living every day in fear, that it is all in their heads. Even by Liberal standards this was a ridiculous statement. Frankly, he should apologize for it.

For Liberal elites in their ivory towers, understanding the reality Canadians are facing in our communities is a difficult concept. I am pleased to see that the Liberals have finally woken up and are paying some attention to the heinous violence committed by criminals on bail. They should be listening to the experience of frontline law enforcement officers.

Constable Shaelyn Yang was tragically and senselessly stabbed to death while on duty by a man who was arrested for assault and out on bail on the condition that he would appear in court. He failed to appear. A warrant was issued for his rearrest, and when Constable Yang found him living in a park in Burnaby, he murdered her.

The case of Constable Yang is sadly not isolated. Last December, Constable Greg Pierzchala was shot and killed in the line of duty. The accused was out on bail, had a lengthy criminal record, including assaulting a peace officer, and was the subject of a lifetime firearm prohibition. Did I mention that he was shot?

Following this despicable murder, all 13 premiers wrote a joint letter to the Prime Minister demanding urgent action. Finally, after public blowback, the united call for change from the premiers and fierce criticism in the House from the Conservatives, the Liberals have admitted that they broke the bail system.

Today the Liberals have brought forward Bill C-48. We should all support this bill because it imposes a reverse onus on certain firearms offences and requires courts to consider the violent history of an accused. This is the reason the Conservatives asked for unanimous consent to pass this bill today. The NDP initially denied consent but has since agreed with the Conservatives that this bill should be passed today at all stages.

It is our view that Bill C-48 is a good start but still falls short, and a Conservative government will take steps to strengthen it. The legislation in its current form ignores several key recommendations put forward by the premiers, including the creation of a definition within the Criminal Code for serious prolific offenders and to initiate a thorough review of Canada's bail system.

Under Bill C-48, the accused killer of OPP Constable Pierzchala and countless other repeat violent offenders would have still been released back into the community. Under pressure from the Conservatives, the Liberals have now proposed a partial fix to an obviously broken bail system. The Conservatives can be counted on to fight for common-sense, thorough and meaningful improvements when we form government. It remains doubtful that the dangerous NDP-Liberal coalition will ever put the rights of victims ahead of the rights of criminals.

Last year, this coalition passed Bill C-5, removing mandatory prison time for serious crimes, including robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, discharging a firearm with intent, drug trafficking and the production of heroin, crystal meth or fentanyl. Bill C-5 also expanded the use of house arrest for several offences, including criminal harassment, kidnapping and sexual assault.

Thanks to NDP and Liberal MPs, those who commit sexual assault can serve their sentence at home in the same community as their victim. Think about that. The Liberals and the NDP would rather be on the side of violent men than their female victims. There is perhaps no greater example of this than the case of Paul Bernardo, a notorious serial rapist and killer of teenage girls. The Liberals allowed that monster to be transferred out of maximum security and into medium security over the objections of the victims' families. We brought a motion to the House calling for Bernardo to be returned to maximum security but Liberal members denied consent.

All of this is proof that the Liberal Party and its partners in the NDP cannot be counted on to protect victims or to restore safe streets. For that, we need a change in government. A common-sense Conservative government will bring home desperately needed safety to our streets, and we will do it by ensuring that prolific offenders remain behind bars while awaiting trial. The days of catch and release will be over.

After eight years, crime, chaos and disorder in our streets is the new normal. It should never be normal. Conservatives know we have a lot of work ahead, but we will fix our broken bail system and bring back safety to our communities.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am going to split my time with the hon. opposition whip.

I know that we are at the point where we are going to pass this legislation, but I must put on the record that we do not believe that this is enough.

I will start with this question: How did we get here? After eight years of the Liberal government, we often ask this. The problem is almost always worse, and the answers are never satisfactory. The Liberals allocate blame to everyone and everything else. They are always claiming that it is outside of the government's control. The excuses are near endless, and either the policy prescriptions are absent in their entirety or they lack basic common sense.

Are crime rates up, or do we just think they are up when everything is actually fine? The justice minister in the Liberal government believes that Canadians simply think it is worse, even though crime is, in fact, getting worse. He basically says that it is all in their head.

Let us play back the tape, because two days after the new justice minister replaced the last one, he actually said this when asked if the country was less safe than it was before: “I think that empirically it's unlikely.... But I think there's a sense coming out of the pandemic that people’s safety is more in jeopardy.” That is a direct quote.

The reason people believe that safety is in jeopardy is because of the very fact that this country is less safe, and this is backed up by empirical evidence. The overall crime severity index was up 4.3% from 2021-2022, while the violent crime severity index was up 4.6% compared to the year earlier. Since the Liberals took office in 2015, the violent crime severity index has gone up 30%. Youth crime has risen by 17.8% in a single year.

The evidence is not hard to find. These numbers are from Stats Canada. They are the government's own statistics. In fact, Stats Canada said that the overall crime rate may be resuming an upward trend that was interrupted by the pandemic because of lockdowns and other government measures. This is what the latest data indicates. Somebody should let the minister know.

In Toronto, major crime is up this year by more than 20% since last year. Their cops are saying that; it is not us. That means more assaults, thefts, sexual violence and break and enters. Last year, I documented some of what was happening on Toronto's public transit. Public transit used to be an option for many in my community, until those who could do so simply opted out; those who cannot opt out have reason to feel unsafe, because what is happening on public transit in Toronto is unacceptable.

Here is a review from the last full year on record for the very city that the new justice minister represents. I will start with February 9 of last year. A TTC employee was randomly stabbed at Dupont station while just trying to do his job. One week later, a TTC bus driver was stabbed at Keele and Lawrence. Just over a month after that, a TTC operator was assaulted by six people in a swarming attack. In April, a man was shot dead on the TTC, this time at Sherbourne station, and 12 days later, another man was randomly stabbed at St. George station. That same month, a woman narrowly survived after being pushed onto the tracks. Less than a month later, a 12-year-old girl was sexually assaulted while riding a bus. Then in June, we all read the horrible story of a woman who was set on fire at a subway station. She later succumbed to her injuries.

This violence is already unconscionable, and we are only halfway through last year. In July, a man was assaulted while two men committed robbery at Don Mills station. The next month, a woman was the victim of a random assault at Sheppard-Yonge station. In October, a man fell asleep on the TTC and was assaulted and robbed. Just a few days later, a woman was stalked when she got off a bus in Scarborough; she was sexually assaulted. Then in December, things started to get worse.

On December 8 of last year, two people were randomly stabbed at High Park station, with one woman dying from her wounds. Two days after that, a TTC operator in Etobicoke was assaulted and robbed. In the same month, a woman was arrested for allegedly assaulting six different people on the subway.

In a separate string of incidents, a man allegedly sexually assaulted and exposed himself to multiple TTC riders. Toward the end of the month, an 81-year-old woman was left with a concussion after being assaulted on our city's transit system.

It is the fall of 2023, and the violence still has not abated. In fact, it has gotten worse, which is what the empirical evidence also says. It is not in anyone's head. Now, these are not all repeat violent offenders, but many are. However, my point is that the new justice minister ought to go outside, because this is happening in our own neighbourhood.

I will go back to my original questions: How did we get here? How did it get so bad?

In 2019, with Bill C-75, the Liberal government eased access to bail considerably. Bill C-75 legislated the principle of restraint concerning bail for police and courts to ensure that release at the earliest opportunity is favoured over detention. The principle of restraint is a linchpin that supports a catch-and-release justice system. This is clear in the numbers and the pressure on the federal government to fix issues with the bail system. It had no options. This is where we are at now. What Conservatives said would happen at the time is happening all over the country, including in the city where the justice minister and I both come from. Repeat violent offenders became the unintended consequence of changes to the bail law in 2019, which made it difficult to hold violent offenders in pretrial custody.

First, there was pressure that came from provincial and territorial justice ministers. Then, in December 2022, as members might remember, there was the murder of OPP Constable Greg Pierzchala. He was shot and killed by a 25-year-old who was out on bail. This shocked us all. The killer had a lengthy criminal record, including assaulting a peace officer, and he was subject to a lifetime firearms prohibition. Then, 13 premiers sent a letter to the Prime Minister calling on the Liberals to reverse their catch-and-release policies in order to protect the public, as well as first responders. The justice committee of the House also heard witness after witness calling for changes to the bail system. Witnesses from law enforcement to victim services and municipal leaders right across the board all said the same thing. In the face of random violent attacks committed by repeat offenders out on bail, the government is now touting this long-awaited plan to address the catch-and-release justice system it has enabled and overseen until it could no longer ignore the pressure and the evidence.

The bill before us would add the reverse onus provision for just four firearms offences and for individuals previously charged with intimate partner violence facing similar charges. This is not going to reverse the disastrous course that I just talked about in our own city. I do not know how to say this nicely, but it is not going to work. The Criminal Code amendments in Bill C-48 are only a tiny step to reversing the damage that the Liberals have done in masquerading as the be-all and end-all solution to the danger and the chaos unleashed on our neighbourhoods. It is hardly a solution.

The bill is very specific about what it considers violence, but it is not specific in a helpful way. To qualify for the new reverse onus provision, the suspect has to be charged with a crime involving violence and the use of a weapon, and their record over the last year has to have the same conviction in it. Therefore, it would not apply if a person committed a crime with their hands, if a person repeated a property crime that put somebody in danger, or if a person's second crime did not use a weapon but the first one did, or vice versa. One starts to get the picture.

The system has become accustomed to immediate bail for violent offenders. If the Liberals are going to showboat about an eight-page bill that would change the structure of bail hearings, they might want to ensure that there is something that would ultimately result in a prescription for judges to make different decisions in the face of this system. There is nothing in here that would change that, so it would not end the catch-and-release policies that were initiated by Bill C-75. The bill before us would not even have restricted bail for the accused killer of Officer Greg Pierzchala, which is one of the very obvious cases that led the government to be forced into admitting failure and presenting Bill C-48. The question is this: Why not fix it?

I hope that the Liberals go back to the drawing board and actually solve for the problem, which is backed by empirical evidence in every single one of our communities right across the country. It is not in the heads of Canadians; violent crime is a problem, and these guys are not the solution.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is great to see the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo back here in Ottawa. Our families have known each other for approximately six decades, if I am not mistaken.

As a government, we are always taking action to protect the citizens of this country, as well as to ensure that our streets are safe and our families are even safer. That is a very important priority for all 338 members of Parliament here. Our citizens sent us here to ensure that we do the right thing. Bill C-48 is a great piece of legislation that will keep Canadians even safer.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, as a government, we have collaborated and acted in unison with provinces, territories and police organizations to come up with a bill, Bill C-48, that is charter compliant. It also brings in a number of provisions to make sure that our streets, our communities and our families feel safe. We want them to know that they are safe, the law is on their side and they can enjoy their livelihoods and their families. Kids can be in their communities, and their families will know they are safe.

We have three daughters at home and lots of kids in our neighbourhood. We understand the issue of property crime. We want to make sure that all Canadians feel safe in their communities, and this bill is one large step in that direction. It is great to see that unanimous consent was received from all parties regarding Bill C-48.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

I know. I would now like to turn to Bill C-75, which has been the subject of much debate recently. My thanks to the hon. member from Calgary.

Hon. members may recall that the former Bill C-75 made the most recent set of amendments to the bail regime, amendments that were informed by extensive consultation with the provinces and territories and that were debated and voted on in Parliament.

The former Bill C-75 did not change the law on bail. It codified binding Supreme Court of Canada decisions and sought to reduce the number of accused persons in pretrial custody for low level, non-violent offences. It also enacted a reverse onus for accused persons charged with an offence and involving intimate partner violence if they have a prior conviction for violence against an intimate partner. This amendment effectively made it harder for those accused of repeat intimate partner violence, or IPV, to obtain bail. This bill would again strengthen this reverse onus by ensuring that it applies not only to previously convicted persons, but also to those previously discharged of an IPV-related offence. Offenders who are discharged of an offence are found guilty but are not convicted, in appropriate circumstances, in order to avoid the implications of having a criminal conviction. Again, it is so important that intimate partner violence be reduced in Canada. We know that every year countless numbers of women are killed by their partners and we must put a stop to it with all the tools we have available. Through Bill C-48, we are acting on that.

I am going to take a moment to remind hon. members of the systemic discrimination inherent in Canada's criminal justice system. In developing Bill C-48, the federal government was mindful of the potential impacts on indigenous people, Black persons and members of all vulnerable groups, such as accused persons facing mental health or substance abuse challenges who are already overrepresented in pretrial custody. That is why this bill proposes targeted amendments to the bail regime and addresses violent offending specifically.

Any reform to the current bail regime must seek to promote community safety and reinforce public confidence in Canada's bail system, while also considering and attenuating any potential disproportionate or negative impacts on these groups.

Ministers of justice and public safety across the country have agreed that both legislative and non-legislative action is required to ensure that our bail system operates as intended. We know from key stakeholders that enhancing public safety requires non-legislative solutions such as improving reintegration programming, allocating our resources to community-based bail supervision and enforcing bail conditions. I am pleased to see that all levels of government are stepping up to take action within their respective areas of responsibility.

In conclusion, I firmly believe that Bill C-48 as a direct action taken at the federal level strikes the appropriate balance in promoting community safety, reinforcing public confidence in how Canada's bail system deals with repeat violent offenders and in respecting the Charter of Rights. I am glad to see that all members have come together to pass this bill with unanimous consent.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is obviously wonderful to rise after the unanimous consent motion was passed here in this House of Commons on a very important bill for all Canadians, including the wonderful residents in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge.

This past summer, I met with many of the York Region police officers in my area, including the deputy chief of police. It was clear how important bail reform is to our police officers and our policing authorities. I have a sibling who has been a member of a police agency in Canada for over 25 years. I have heard a number of times from him how important bail reform was to him and his colleagues. Therefore, I am so glad that unanimous consent was received with respect to Bill C-48. I have a few comments.

It is wonderful to see all my colleagues here. With respect to the member of Parliament for Etobicoke—Lakeshore who usually sits in front of me, I wish to acknowledge his appointment as the parliamentary secretary. He is a great friend and has been a great friend for decades and I was very happy to see his appointment as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-48, an act to amend the Criminal Code, bail reform. It proposes targeting amendments to the bail regime with the aim of enhancing community safety and reinforcing confidence in the administration of justice. Canadians have spoken and we have listened. All parliamentarians have listened.

Crime is a serious concern for communities across this nation and it must be addressed. That is why the Liberal approach is to pair legislative reform like Bill C-48 with programs that stop crime at its roots. We want to both hold criminals to account and prevent crime from happening in our communities in the first place.

At the onset, I want to highlight the positive reactions we have seen to Bill C-48 from law enforcement agencies.

The president of the Canadian Police Association called to say it is “common-sense legislation that responds to the concerns that our members have raised”.

The president of the Toronto Police Association said that “the introduction of Bill C- 48, and the clear message being sent by the government that public safety remains a top priority, will help victims of crime, as well as all Canadians know serious, repeat violent offenders can and will be held accountable for their actions”.

The Saskatoon Police Service deputy chief of police said, “It is encouraging to see the voices of the community and the policing community across Canada are being heard.”

Members need not just take my word for it. They can take the word of those law enforcement experts. Bill C-48 is an excellent piece of legislation that would make positive change in our communities and, yes, keep our communities safer. I hope that the members opposite will help us pass this bill as soon as possible.

In essence, the proposed amendments in Bill C-48 would make it more difficult for those engaged in repeat violent offending to get bail. In order to accomplish this objective, the bill proposes, among other important amendments, to, first, create a reverse onus to target serious repeat violent offending involving the use of a weapon; make certain firearms offences subject to reverse onus at bail; and broaden existing reverse onus to target repeat offenders of intimate partner violence, or IPV. This point number three is very important as intimate partner violence usually means that women are being impacted by their partners. We as a government, since day one, have been working on these issues to ensure all citizens feel safe, especially women, in their homes, in their neighbourhoods and on the streets and I applaud this.

Before elaborating on the proposed amendments, I am going to take a moment to situate these reforms within the existing bail regime. As members know, bail is when a person charged with a criminal offence is released from custody while awaiting their trial or the outcome of their case. Accused persons are presumed innocent until they have been found guilty of the offence charged and have a constitutional right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause. This is why typically the prosecutor bears the burden of showing why the accused person should be denied bail and detained in custody. The prosecutor must show that the detention of the accused person is necessary to ensure their attendance in court, for the protection or safety of the public including a victim or witnesses, or to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. A reverse onus shifts the burden from the prosecutor to the accused person. It requires them to show why pretrial detention is not justified. This is an exception to the general rule and reflects Parliament's intention that it be more difficult to obtain bail in certain circumstances or for certain kinds of serious offences.

Through these reverse onuses, Parliament signals the importance of considering certain offences by accused persons differently at bail to advance the critical purposes of the bail system including the protection of public safety and maintaining confidence in the administration of justice.

Bill C-48 would create a new reverse onus for accused persons charged with an offence that is punishable by at least 10 years of imprisonment, which involves violence and the use of a weapon if the accused was previously convicted in the last five years of an offence for the same criteria. In addition, the bill would make certain firearms offences also subject to reverse onus at bail. These offences are unlawful possession of a loaded, prohibited or restricted firearm, breaking and entering to steal a firearm, robbery to steal a firearm and making an automatic firearm. These amendments are the product of significant collaboration among federal, provincial and territorial engagement, collaboration and co-operation. For instance, the offence of unlawful possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm is proposed to be added to the list of offences that will be subject to a reverse onus at the request of all the province and territories outlined in an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada.

This bill also addresses concerns about the use of bear spray and blade weapons expressed by some jurisdictions and is consistent with the recommendations of key stakeholders, including police organizations. These amendments also complement the federal government's ongoing efforts toward gun control and reducing gun violence. All 13 premiers and law enforcement groups across this country support Bill C-48. If Conservatives care more about the public safety of Canadians than about petty political games, they will help us pass this bill today.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member from the area of Ottawa about the importance of Bill C-48 for him and his constituents.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

I would like to speak to the bail reform bill, Bill C-48, an act to amend the Criminal Code.

Canadians deserve to feel safe and be safe. We have a critical issue that affects the safety and well-being of our communities. It is the need to strengthen our bail laws and tailor them to focus on violent repeat offenders and intimate partner violence. It is an issue that strikes at the very heart of public safety and the preservation of justice. That is why we introduced the bill, which is a targeted reform to our bail laws and is designed to focus on violent repeat offenders, gun and knife violence and intimate partner violence.

Bail laws, at their core, exist to strike a delicate balance between individual rights and the collective safety of society. They ensure that individuals accused of crimes are not unjustly incarcerated before trial, upholding the cherished principle of “innocent until proven guilty”. However, this balance can be challenging to maintain, especially when dealing with violent repeat offenders and those accused of gun and knife violence or intimate partner violence.

We developed this bill by obtaining expert advice and adopted an evidence-based approach to put Canadians first and address public safety concerns in our bail system. We have a legitimate concern that violent offenders may pose a significant risk to the community if they are released from custody while awaiting trial.

Bill C-48 would strengthen the law by targeting repeat violent offenders who use weapons when committing crimes and those who have a history of violent offending and firearms-related crime. Violent repeat offenders are individuals who have shown a pattern of engaging in dangerous and harmful behaviours repeatedly. They pose a clear and present danger to our communities. Strengthening bail laws in those cases is not about denying their rights but about prioritizing public safety.

By focusing on comprehensive risk assessments that take into account an offender's history and propensity for violence, we can ensure that these dangerous individuals are held accountable for their actions, while respecting the rights of others. We also need a stricter approach to bail for violent offenders to act as a deterrent. This would discourage individuals from engaging in violent criminal behaviour in the first place, as they may be less likely to receive pretrial release. This bill would send a strong message that judges ought to seriously consider the public safety risk posed by repeat violent offenders at the bail stage, while ensuring that the fundamental charter right to bail remains intact.

Bill C-48 would also strengthen the government response against intimate partner violence offences by expanding the reverse onus on these offences. The harrowing reality is that countless individuals suffer in silence, trapped in abusive relationships. Strengthening bail laws to protect victims and potential victims of intimate partner violence is not just a legal obligation; it is a moral imperative. We must provide a safe path to justice for survivors, ensuring that those accused of such heinous acts are not released to perpetrate further harm.

The bill would create a new reverse onus for accused persons charged with a serious offence involving violence and the use of a weapon where the accused was previously convicted of an offence of the same criteria within the past five years. A reverse onus for bail presumes that the accused should be detained pending trial and requires them to demonstrate why they should be released. A reverse onus does not mean that an accused will not be able to obtain bail. It means that the onus of proof has shifted to the accused, reflecting our intent that it ought to be more difficult to obtain bail in these circumstances.

One of the provisions of this bill is new considerations and requirements for courts regarding an accused’s violent history and community safety. Bill C-48 would add a requirement that courts consider whether an accused person has a history of convictions involving violence when making a bail order. It would also require courts to state on the record that the safety and security of the community were considered when making a bail order.

Bail reform has long been the subject of federal, provincial and territorial collaboration because of shared jurisdiction over bail laws and their implementation. Bill C-48 responds directly to calls for reform from the provinces and territories. This bill is the product of collaboration with the provinces and territories. Hence, we have wide and unanimous support for this legislation from all provinces and territories.

The bill has benefited from input from mayors, police, parliamentarians, indigenous leadership and the legal community. Bill C-48 is part of our broader strategy to ensure the safety of all Canadians and is an example of what we can achieve when we work together.

Let me put on record the support this bill has received from key stakeholders.

The Premier of British Columbia said, “From the British Columbian perspective, this is a huge priority. We need this bill passed. This is something that has wide support, all-party support, all-premier support, and action needs to be taken.”

The Premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, said, “I'm urging the federal government to use this time to quickly pass their bail reform bill.”

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police stated:

We commend the federal government for acting on the urgency for legislative change and for recognizing that our...amendments were not calling for a complete overhaul of Canada's bail system....

We are convinced that the legislative changes put forth in Bill C-48 will go a long way to help eliminate the preventable harm and senseless tragedies attributable to violent and repeat offenders across Canada.

The president of the Canadian Police Association stated:

Front-line law enforcement personnel have been asking the government to take concrete steps to address the small number of repeat violent offenders who commit a disproportionate number of offences that put the safety of our communities at risk. We appreciate that [ministers] have worked collaboratively with stakeholders and introduced this common-sense legislation that responds to the concerns that our members have raised.

The Ontario Provincial Police Association stated:

Our members appreciate the virtually unprecedented consensus that formed calling for concrete action on bail reform, and we’re glad to see the government has responded with the introduction of Bill C-48. We look forward to working with all stakeholders and Parliamentarians to see this legislation pass quickly.

The president of the Toronto Police Association said:

Our members recognize that our Charter ensures we all benefit from a presumption of innocence, but for too long the current balance has put the rights of an accused well above the rights our communities have to public safety and security. Ensuring the public maintains its confidence in the administration of justice is paramount, and I believe the introduction of Bill C-48, and the clear message being sent by the government that public safety remains a top priority, will help victims of crime, as well as all Canadians know serious, repeat violent offenders can and will be held accountable for their actions.

I would like to end my speech by quoting Brian Sauvé, president of the National Police Federation, who said:

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

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I think if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent, after consultations with all parties, for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment today, Bill C-48, an act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform), be deemed to have been 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.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague completely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his thoughtful speech. He raised several points.

This bill is not nothing. It enacts a reverse onus. The Bloc Québécois said that it will support this bill. However, does the member believe that Bill C-48, as it now stands, passes the constitutional test that he spoke about earlier? If so, why? If not, why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member raises a very good point. Judicial jurisdiction in our courts and our laws is actually shared between Ottawa and provincial and territorial governments, so it is important we all work together at advancing and improving community safety. What is so good about Bill C-48 is that the background work was done. This is good, solid legislation that would make a positive difference in terms of safety in our communities.

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

Madam Speaker, it is really important that all of us know and recognize that, at the end of the day, Bill C-48 would make our communities safer. That is the reason we have all sorts of jurisdictions; politicians, whether provincial, municipal and obviously federal; and law enforcement agencies coming out and saying that this particular legislation is good, sound legislation. The reason for that is that it is going to make our communities safer. That is why I am hopeful that, through the support of all members of the House, we will see it pass quickly to committee stage.

The leader of the official opposition made that very clear not that long ago when he said we should get the bill before us and that if we, in essence, stay until midnight, we will get the legislation passed. I would suggest to the Conservative members that if they really want to get this legislation passed today, they will find that the government, the Bloc opposition and the NDP are very receptive. It is up to the Conservatives to get it passed today.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if that lulled the volume, but let me go on with what Mark Baxter, the president of the Police Association of Ontario, had to say:

Police personnel haven’t just been asking for a “tough on crime” approach, we have been advocating for a balanced approach that includes prevention and rehabilitation, but also recognizes that a small number of repeat, violent offenders need to be held accountable for their actions. Bill C-48 is a step in the right direction, and we sincerely hope the Courts will use these new measures that are being introduced by the government in cases where circumstances warrant.

The last quote I would like to refer to is from Jon Reid, the president of the Toronto Police Association. He said:

Our members recognize that our Charter ensures we all benefit from a presumption of innocence, but for too long the current balance has put the rights of an accused well above the rights our communities have to public safety and security. Ensuring the public maintains its confidence in the administration of justice is paramount, and I believe the introduction of Bill C- 48, and the clear message being sent by the government that public safety remains a top priority, will help victims of crime, as well as all Canadians know serious, repeat violent offenders can and will be held accountable for their actions.

I believe that reinforces the messages we are hearing from politicians of all political stripes and at all levels of government that recognize we want our communities to be a safe environment for our constituents. Bill C-48 is a progressive piece of legislation that has had extensive consultations. It would make a profound and positive difference by ensuring the communities in which we live are safer. That is why I believe we should look to the Leader of the Opposition and hold him to his word when he spoke of it having a quick passage.

I believe the intent of the House of Commons is to see this legislation passed in a quick fashion to allow it to go to committee. I have not heard anyone say that the principle of this legislation is something they cannot support. With that type of support for Bill C-48, I would conclude that it is the type of legislation that should get passed through the House to allow the committee to do the fine work that it does.

We need to remember that this is all about keeping the communities that we represent safer. To me, that is so very important. That is why I stand today with my colleagues in support of the legislation with the hope of seeing it passed in a relatively quick fashion.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I speak to what I believe is really important legislation. This legislation is being supported not only by me, but also by the minister and the government. From listening to the debate so far in the House, I understand that the principles of the legislation are being supported by all sides of the House, whether one is a New Democrat, a member of the Bloc, possibly a Green, and I have not heard the Greens speak to the bill yet, but I anticipate they will be supporting it based on other observations I have made, or even a member of the Conservative Party.

The leader of the official opposition gave an interesting speech. He has maybe taken a bit of a variation on reality to try to reflect things as being in a relatively negative state here in Canada, but the essence of what he was saying about this particular piece of legislation was in good part supportive, as the Minister of Justice pointed out when he introduced the legislation this morning.

Members have had the opportunity to go through the legislation to see the benefits of passing the legislation. The Leader of the Opposition was actually very supportive of the legislation to the degree that at one point he gave the indication that he would be prepared to sit until midnight for the legislation to be passed. There were a couple of questions posed to the leader of the official opposition because there was a sense of the potential to see the legislation passed relatively quickly and whether he would still entertain that. One of his short answers implied yes. It would appear Bill C-48 has the support of all members of the House.

Before I go any further, I want to inform the House that I will be splitting my time. I will be sharing my time with the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl.

It is not just members of Parliament who are in support of bail reform. Bail reform has been on the agenda of politicians of all political stripes and from all levels of government for a number of years now. A great deal of consultation has taken place on dealing with the issue of public safety as it relates to bail reform. The legislation before us has substantial support across the country. Provinces and territories have signed on in support of the legislation.

I understand ministers of justice and premiers from different regions of the country have all indicated very clearly that they would like to see this legislation ultimately become law. I heard there are a number of members who would like to see the legislation pass second reading so we can bring it to the committee stage to see if there might be potential changes made to reflect what the consultations led to.

The House is very much open to having the legislation pass. I am curious whether or not, at the end of the day, we will be able to see the legislation pass because we have had a fairly solid green light that the Conservatives would support its quick passage. Having been here for a while, I am going to remain a little optimistic on that point.

It is not just the politicians who support this legislation. I want to read a couple of quotes. Law enforcement officers are often the ones who are on the front line looking for changes, and I thought it would be good to share some of the things law enforcement officers are saying regarding Bill C-48.

Canada's police associations in general welcomed the government of Canada's action on bail reform. Associations representing Canada's frontline law enforcement personnel released the following statements welcoming the introduction of the bill, Bill C-48. I would like to quote a couple of them, if I may. The first reads:

Front-line law enforcement personnel have been asking the government to take concrete steps to address the small number of repeat violent offenders who commit a disproportionate number of offences that put the safety of our communities at risk, and we appreciate that [the former minister of justice] and [the former minister of public safety] have worked collaboratively with stakeholders and introduced this common-sense legislation that responds to the concerns that our members have raised.

This is something that was reported and commented on by Tom Stamatakis, who is the president of the Canadian Police Association.

Mark Baxter, the president of the Police Association of Ontario had something further to say—

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I am a bit perplexed by the question, since Bill C-48 specifically addresses the question around the use of illegal weapons in the commission of crimes and it creates an additional reverse onus.

That means there are additional requirements of those who have been found in possession of illegal weapons. They must demonstrate why they are not a threat to public safety and why they should not be detained before trial.

That is exactly what Bill C-48 is doing. That is exactly what the bill is responding to, which is the demand from the premiers. That is exactly what law enforcement asked for.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to address something that the member said, which is that Bill C-48 would result in more people being in pretrial detention.

Precisely because it allows the option of community-based bail supervision, the opposite would be the case. This bill would actually result in fewer people being detained before their trials. That is the important aspect that New Democrats argued for and convinced the government to include in this bill.

If we are interested in public safety, as I said, yes, we need to deal with repeat violent offenders. We also need to deal with recidivism. The way one deals with recidivism is to keep people out of jail, keep them in their employment, keep them with their families and provide them the supports they need to be productive citizens in this country.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my NDP colleague's speech, which seemed to go beyond partisanship. He certainly made an effort to rise above partisanship in his speech.

In it, he mentioned that he thinks too many people will end up in pretrial detention, also known as remand. That would have a major impact on the lives of potentially innocent people, who would no longer be able to pay their mortgage, who would lose their job, and who would lose their relationship with their family and children. Nevertheless, one of the consequences of Bill C‑48 is that it would increase the number of people in pretrial detention.

We think that this bill is worthwhile and that it should be studied because there are some criteria that are worthy of consideration. However, as our justice critic, the member for Rivière-du-Nord, said, the fact remains that the lack of judges is one of the main reasons for how slow our justice system operates. All of these people in pretrial detention are waiting for a trial, but they are not getting one and, in some cases, they are being remanded unfairly. Sometimes, the solution does not necessarily involve changing laws. The government opposite also needs to appoint judges.

Does my NDP colleague agree with that?

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, the member is mixing bail with all kinds of other questions in criminal justice and the Criminal Code. What I do have to say, and I want to emphasize it once again, is that while there are a few cases, and they are not very numerous, of repeat violent offenders reoffending, they are serious and we need to act and take care to make sure those do not happen again.

Bill C-48 addresses those. The police associations across the country say that it does. Premiers are satisfied that it does. I am not sure why the Conservative Party is not satisfied that it would deal with that problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to rise in support of Bill C-48 today.

I did not think we would get the bill to this stage as quickly as we have in this Parliament. One of the reasons we did so is that the justice committee recognized the public concern about repeat violent offenders and problems with bail. It conducted hearings last year and came up with a series of recommendations that helped inform this bill. Therefore, today, we have something before us that the justice committee has already considered, that the premiers have been calling for and support, and that has broad support in the law enforcement community.

Today, we have heard many people talk about things other than bail reform. However, when we talked about bail reform, we heard the minister say that the government is prepared to proceed expeditiously. We have heard the Leader of the Opposition say that the official opposition supports the bill. I heard some more ambiguous things from the last speaker from the Bloc Québécois, but he still said that the Bloc supports the bill. Therefore, the question I have been asking in this session is this: Since we have this broad support for the bill, are we serious about moving expeditiously? Maybe the bill does not have everything that everyone wants, but certainly there is broad support, as well as an urgent need to make the public more confident in our bail-reform system.

Since the leader of the official opposition personally gave me credit for a crime wave on Vancouver Island, I have to take a moment to say that I have dedicated my entire life to working to help keep communities safe. I say that as someone whose professional career was in teaching criminal justice before I came here. Therefore, for him to say that I have somehow supported measures in a deliberate manner that provoke criminality or a crime wave is really quite personally offensive.

What we get from the Leader of the Opposition is talk about common sense. I want to point out a piece of common sense that contradicts most of what he was saying today. Over the last 30 years, we have tripled the number of people in pretrial detention in this country. If detaining more people caused a decrease in crime, we would have way less crime than we have today. Therefore, common sense would tell us that detaining three times as many people does not solve the problem.

Bill C-48 would not cast a broad brush, as the Conservatives are asking for. Rather, it has some narrow and targeted measures aimed at repeat violent offenders; New Democrats are in support of those measures. This means that it would insert a definition of “repeat violent offender” into the Criminal Code so that we would know whom judges should be looking at when it comes to denying bail. It would also create some additional reverse onus categories. “Reverse onus” is a technical term meaning that when it is proposed to put someone in pretrial detention, in certain cases, that person has to show why they should not be detained.

Therefore, the bill would add to the list of offences. It would not create a new category; there are already lots of reverse onus provisions in bail. However, it would add illegal weapons, including handguns. That is an important provision, which I definitely support. People have to go to a lot of trouble to possess an illegal weapon; they do not accidentally possess a handgun. Therefore, if someone has a charge that involves a handgun, they should have to show the judge why they should be released and why they are not a threat to the public.

In addition, the bill would increase the reverse onus in cases of intimate partner violence. Again, we know that when there has been intimate partner violence, it is usually not a one-time incident. When people are charged more than once, this bill would make it much tougher for the offender in an intimate partner relationship to get released, which is something that New Democrats definitely support. It goes along with our proposal, which is now a private member's bill, Bill C-332, sponsored by the member for Victoria.

Bill C-3s32 calls for making coercive and controlling behaviour in intimate partner relationships a criminal offence. That would move the goal posts in the Criminal Code; instead of having to wait for broken bones and bruises, a pattern of behaviour that leads to such violence would be a criminal offence. This would allow earlier intervention and prevent much of that violence from happening in the future.

Therefore, this bill goes together with our proposal on coercive and controlling behaviour to help provide better protections for those who suffer violence in intimate partner relationships. In this country, we continue to lose women to violence; every six days, one woman is killed by an intimate partner. This is part of the urgency of this bill and why I believe that we should deal with it expeditiously.

There is a third piece in this bill that I think no one else has talked about today. It is a piece that came up in the hearings we held at the justice committee. In addition to the real problem we have with repeat violent offenders getting bail, which this bill I believe will solve, we have the problem that we detain way too many people in Canada and at far higher rates than any comparable countries around the world. Why is this a problem? There are two reasons it is a problem.

One is the injustice. One-third of the people who are detained before their trial are never convicted but found innocent. What happens to people who are detained and held in jail before the trial? Most often they lose their job. Often they lose their housing. They lose custody of their kids. There are all kinds of negative impacts for people who are not found guilty of anything. Therefore, we need to improve our systems so we are detaining the people who need to be detained and not detaining other people. Who are the people who are over-detained? Disproportionately they are poor, women, indigenous or racialized Canadians.

This bill adds a provision that would require judges to look at community-based bail supervision programs, which are very successful. The John Howard Society has been running them in Ontario. I am looking through my notes, but I am pretty sure I am right. The success rate of the John Howard Society programs, as limited as they are in Ontario, is about 90%. What does a 90% success rate mean? It means that those people who are on community-based bail supervision have a caseworker assigned to them, they will not commit another offence while they are on bail and they will show up in court when they are supposed to. In the meantime, they can maintain their jobs, housing and custody of their kids. Even if they are eventually found guilty, they may not serve prison time. Therefore, having a community-based bail supervision program would help maintain that coherence of families.

Here is the kicker in all of this. Those who serve even limited time in custody before trial are far more likely to reoffend. If we are actually worried about public safety, one of the best things we could do is get people into community-based bail supervision programs where they are put in touch with the services they need, whether mental health services, substance abuse programs or upgrades to their education. If people are in a community-based bail supervision program, they can get that assistance, which will help lead them out of whatever problems they were in to begin with. When they are in pretrial custody, they are in the provincial system and there are no programs available to them. There are no mental health programs, no addiction programs and no education programs while they wait, with the current delays in our trial system, up to six months for a trial. If we are really interested in public safety, we need to put more people into community-based bail supervision programs, which Bill C-48 would now mandate as an option to be considered by the judge. That would require the Liberal government to provide the upfront funding to get community-based bail supervision programs more widely available across the country.

Now all members will say that the New Democrats are demanding more spending, but guess what? It costs about one-third the amount to put people into community-based bail supervision compared to putting them into custody. Therefore, we need upfront start-up funds for community-based bail supervision, which ultimately would produce huge savings in addition to better public safety outcomes and avoid injustice to those who are eventually found not guilty of the offence for which they were charged.

These are the reasons that I think we need to proceed expeditiously on this bill. We need to get a commitment from the government to help fund community-based bail supervision programs.

I know this bill is going to pass. We had the hearings. The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord who spoke before me said that he wants to examine the bill. The bill is the result of the hearings we already held at the justice committee, so I do not think there is a need for that detailed examination. Maybe the other opposition parties will decide we have to go to committee and do it all over again, and I am prepared to do that, but we could proceed expeditiously, get this bill passed and get a better start on making Canadians safer.

I am not saying that the concerns that Canadians have about repeat violent offenders are unjust. There are many tragic examples that all too often are exploited in this House for political reasons, and I have sympathy for those families, but we have to pass Bill C-48 to prevent the release of violent offenders.

Let me say the other part of this. New Democrats continue to call for on-demand mental health and substance abuse programs.

When the Conservatives like to talk about the 6,000 rolling, revolving-door incidents in Vancouver, those are not violent crimes. Those are people who are poor, who shoplift, who are drug-addicted or who have mental health issues. If we could get, first of all, better support in this time of increasing costs for all Canadians who are poor, if we could get better mental health programs and if we could get better substance abuse on-demand records, then we will have progress in making communities safer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I saw him this summer, and I know he worked hard as well. He did not just kick back and relax. I am glad to see him here today for this debate on the issues that concern us, namely Bill C-48, which is no trivial matter.

My colleague is right. The Liberals have a lamentable habit of using something they themselves dubbed the “Liberalist”. That is appalling. This is neither desirable nor even reasonable in a self-respecting free and democratic society, a society governed by the rule of law. Judges must not be appointed based on their membership in a political party. That is the kind of thing that happens in what is commonly referred to as a “banana republic”. I should hope that the Canadian federation does not see itself as a banana republic. I can say that Quebec certainly does not. I want the federal government to get serious and not make partisan appointments.

Yes, judges must be appointed. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is calling for it, and so is the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec. Everyone has been worrying over the past few months and wondering what the government is waiting for. It has gotten so bad that people are being set free because there is no time to hold trials. Is that acceptable? Is anyone in Quebec or Canada okay with that? I can say that in Quebec, the answer is no. I cannot speak for Canada, but I would be shocked to find anyone in Canada who would say yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said a while ago, my colleague can count on the Bloc Québécois to support any legislation that is consistent with the values and interests of Quebec, including Bill C‑48.

That is not to say that I plan to give carte blanche. We will study the bill, and then we will see. Some amendments will probably be necessary. I look forward to hearing what the minister and some of the experts have to say on the matter.

Obviously, this legislation is not immune to legal challenges. Detaining someone before their trial could be construed as an attack on the presumption of innocence. We will have to wait and see how the courts interpret this and whether such a course is acceptable in the kind of free and democratic society provided for in section 1 of the charter. We will work on the matter in committee and ensure that the legislation comes into force as quickly as possible. We need it.

Now, I would ask my colleague the same question again: Does he plan to work on judicial appointments?

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

Mr. Speaker, I started by saying that I wanted to congratulate the new Minister of Justice and his parliamentary secretary on their appointments. I will have the pleasure of working with them over the coming months and the coming years. I hope we can improve the lot of our people, in Quebec and in Canada, particularly in the area of criminal law.

It is no secret, as people have been saying for a while, that the Liberal government's lax attitude has allowed senseless situations to drag on. I find that unfortunate. I will come back to that.

I look this morning at what is happening with our colleagues in the official opposition and I find that just as unfortunate. What I see is that the official opposition is against everything, except the leader. They falsely claim that the Bloc Québécois supports the creation of a carbon tax when, contrary to the leader of the official opposition's claims, there is a carbon exchange in Quebec. We are not subject to the carbon tax.

For all kinds of good or bad reasons that are their own and that I do not wish to discuss, provinces have decided not to take part in a carbon exchange and prefer to see the carbon tax applied. That is a debate between the Prime Minister of western Canada, who invested in oil in order to be understood, and the leader of the official opposition. They can debate between themselves the rate at which they wish to impose the carbon tax but, in Quebec, we have a carbon exchange. However, the leader of the official opposition does not take that into account.

The leader of the official opposition says that it is thanks to him that hunting rifles were removed from Bill C‑21. We will have to reread the transcripts of the House and committees. The official opposition opposed Bill C‑21, just like it opposes anything that comes from anyone other than the leader of the Conservative Party.

Who worked on getting Bill C‑21 passed and getting rid of the lists that prohibited hunting rifles? It was us, the Bloc Québécois. It was my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia who stepped up to ensure that the original version of Bill C‑21 was not adopted. She did this extensive and exhausting work day and night for weeks and months. I commend her on that. I am truly grateful for her. The Conservatives kept filibustering to stop our work. It bothers them to see us work.

In the House, the Conservatives are prepared to say just about anything against the party in power, and against the Bloc Québécois and the NDP as opposition parties. I have not heard their thoughts on the Green Party, but I would not be surprised to hear the Conservative leader speak out against the Green Party. The Conservatives are against everything.

That is unfortunate, because there are some Conservatives I really respect. Some of them are excellent members, smart people who would be able to get things done and help us pass bills that would be good everyone and move Quebec and Canadian society forward. They are hamstrung, though. They have to support an ideological leader, a leader who is not interested in concessions and who is against any ideas but his own. What a shame. That is the Canada we are stuck with, and we, the people of Quebec, hope to get out of it ASAP.

Let us get back to Bill C‑48. It is not perfect by any means, but we have to take action. For years now, the Bloc Québécois has been asking the Liberals to make our streets safe and make things better for people in Quebec and the rest of Canada. Yes, the Conservatives supported us on that, but they were so incompetent and ideological about it, not to mention completely uninterested in compromise or discussion. It was unproductive and actually did more harm than good.

Yes, we have been fighting for that. We have been demanding it. We in the Bloc Québécois believe that having firearms in our streets is plain wrong, except in certain circumstances. I have no problem with armed police officers, but we do not want people walking around with illegal, restricted or prohibited firearms.

We have been asking the government to do something about this for a long time. Finally, today we have this bill. It was tabled last spring, just before the House rose for the summer, in late May or early June. I do not remember the exact date. Here we are, at any rate, with this bill before us today. It will not fix everything, but it somewhat does address the issue of offenders who are out on bail and who are not always adequately supervised.

I am more than willing to work on that, but that will not solve everything. It is only part of the problem. The real issue with firearms is that they go through the border as easily as going in and out of a Walmart.

We are asking for the creation of a joint task force to counter gun trafficking, made up of officers from the RCMP, the Sûreté du Québec, the OPP, the Akwesasne police service, or peacekeepers, and the American FBI. We believe we have to get serious about this because guns come in and out across the river and through Akwesasne's territory. The federal government does not seem to think it is that bad. Last year, Quebec invested $6 million to create a surveillance task force to patrol the river and stop gun trafficking. The federal government has done nothing while guns keep circulating. How many more files like this one is the government failing to act on?

Regarding bail, the issue is what we do with people who get arrested before they are found guilty or not guilty. Do we keep these people behind bars, or do we let them go with or without conditions? The bill is looking to get tough on crimes committed with restricted or prohibited firearms. Offenders will be automatically held in custody unless they can show that they pose no threat to society and that they can be set free until their trial. The onus is reversed, which seems to me like a good idea. We are going to get tough on people who carry firearms, who commit robberies for the purpose of stealing firearms or who engage in acts of intimate partner or interpersonal violence. This seems reasonable to me. However, again, the government has done nothing about gun trafficking.

Nothing has been done about the appointment of judges either. We know that the justice system in Quebec and Canada has had to operate under rules set by the Supreme Court in the Jordan decision. Trials now have to take place within specific time frames. Are these time frames reasonable? The Supreme Court, in its wisdom, has decided that they were, and I accept that.

Saying so is just the beginning, though. Judges have to be appointed if those trials are going to be held within the reasonable time frame set by the Supreme Court. If judges are not appointed, if the provinces do not get funding for better administration of justice, then we end up where we are now. There are no courtrooms. There are no clerks. There are no judges. What then? People are being released before their trial even starts. Has the Liberal government saved us from gun-related problems on our streets? I think not. On the contrary, I think the Liberal government has been negligent for years. As people were saying earlier, the Liberal Party has been in power for eight years, but it has been ignoring these problems for years.

The joint task force must be created. Arms trafficking must be stopped. Judges must be appointed. That seems pretty straightforward to me. A selection committee does the lion's share of the work. It sends a list of five or six names to the Minister of Justice, and the minister picks one. How can that possibly take months? Sooner or later, judges have to be appointed and the government has to transfer money to the provinces for the administration of justice. If that does not happen, we wind up where we are now.

People are saying that Bill C‑48 will solve the problem once it it is passed, but it will not. It will solve part of the problem. It will deal with people who are released even though they should not be. The committee will rework the bill, and I am glad we have come this far, but I am really disappointed that this is as far as it goes.

I would like my colleague, the Minister of Justice, to tell us what he is going to do about judicial appointments. In the coming weeks, can we expect judges to be appointed and all vacant positions to be filled, not 10%, 50% or 80% of these positions?

That is all the federal government has to do. The administration of justice is a provincial responsibility. The only thing the federal government has to do is appoint judges. The other thing it has to do, in terms of substantive law, is to adopt the Criminal Code and amend it. Can it do some serious work on this?

I hope that my colleagues in the Conservative official opposition will finally stop filibustering and allow the work to unfold in committee. I hope it will not take 20 years to get Bill C‑48 passed. We will not be here 20 years from now. This Parliament has only a year or two left to run, at most. It is really sad to see the Conservatives keep griping that the Liberals are doing nothing, but then turn around and filibuster when the Liberals do try to do something. I want to get going on this issue. Back home, in Rivière‑du‑Nord, people are fed up with crime. So am I, and I am sure that the same is true everywhere, across both Quebec and Canada. We need to address the situation.

Section 515 of the Criminal Code currently provides that an accused or someone who is charged with an offence will be detained only if necessary to ensure their attendance in court, for the protection or safety of the public or to avoid undermining the public's confidence. These rules strike me as entirely reasonable and sensible.

However, now the government is going to modify these rules by saying that, in certain cases, such as crimes committed with firearms or involving the theft or manufacture of firearms, the crimes will trigger a reverse onus. In the future, the accused will have to prove that they are not a danger to society and that they can be released without fear of failing to return to court, presenting a threat to public safety or undermining public confidence.

I would like to dwell for a moment on the issue of undermining public confidence. It may seem trivial, but it is the basis of our democracy. If the people of Quebec and Canada no longer have confidence in the justice system, it opens up the possibility of serious disorder with lasting effects. I do not want to see people take the law into their own hands. We already have problems with people leaving hospitals without getting treatment because they are tired of waiting so long. They go home, which only makes their condition worse. The same thing must not happen with the justice system.

This is Parliament's job. We must ensure that the rules are reasonable and that everyone, or the vast majority at least, abides by them. We must ensure that the law is applied in a reasonable and satisfactory manner to prevent citizens from “revolting” against the justice system.

It is true that Bill C‑48 will provide a better framework for bail and ensure that people at risk of reoffending are not released back into society while awaiting trial. That said, judges must also be appointed to ensure that these trials are held. Whether or not someone is detained pending trial, if there is no trial, the work will all have been for naught. Judges need to be appointed, and trials need to be held within a reasonable time frame. I think that is just as important.

It is important to recognize that not all accused persons are guilty, as we have already discussed. This is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other statutes. There are rules to indicate that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Section 6 of the Criminal Code affirms this, as does section 15 of the charter and, implicitly, section 7.

The principle of presumption of innocence must be respected. There are countries where that is not the case, and I would not want to live in those places. I am happy to live here, in Quebec, which is unfortunately in Canada, but at least the same rules of presumption of innocence apply. As we often say, and as the courts have even affirmed, it is better that a guilty person go free than that an innocent person be imprisoned. This can be very discouraging because, for victims, the fact that a guilty person is out on the street makes no sense. However, that is the choice our society has made, and I am willing to accept and uphold that principle.

The decision to release an accused person must be taken very seriously. Bill C-48 seems reasonable to me, but, I as I said, trials must also be held. This requires judges and funding. Is my colleague, the new Minister of Justice, serious about this? Does he intend to do his job properly and appoint as many judges as it takes over the next few weeks to fill all the vacancies? I hope so.

In closing, Bill C‑48 responds to a request made by the 13 provincial and territorial premiers in January 2023. It is now September 2023. I know that things can sometimes take years. In this case, it did not take years because it is still 2023, but the bill has not yet been passed, and perhaps it never will be if my Conservative colleagues oppose it. Regardless, from January of one year to May of the following year is still a rather long time. The government could have acted more quickly, but I still applaud this decision.

I repeat that the Bloc Québécois will work seriously with the government any time its work supports Quebeckers' interests and values. I believe that Bill C-48 does just that, and we support it. We will see what happens after the bill is examined in committee, but we will support it.

However, that will not stop us from continuing to demand that this government get serious about appointing judges, among other things. It will also not stop us from asking our official opposition colleagues to stop obstructing the work of the House when a bill is in line with their interests and those of both their constituents and ours. We are asking the members of the official opposition to take their job seriously and to act responsibly.

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

Mr. Speaker, the safety of our communities is a non-negotiable priority; it can never be partisan. As do parents across this country, I need to know that my sons are safe when they are on their way to school each and every morning.

The measures contained in this bill, Bill C-48, are focused on keeping repeat violent offenders off our streets. We have the support of all law enforcement around the country. We have the support of 13 different provincial and territorial governments, including many Conservative governments that the member opposite works with closely.

The one Conservative who is equivocating on this issue is the Leader of the Opposition. I want to ask him about a statement he gave to journalists, where he said, “We'll pass it this afternoon. In fact, call [the minister] and tell him I'm happy to bring back Parliament today. We'll pass bail reform by midnight.”

Was the Leader of the Opposition being honest when he made that statement?

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

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

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

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

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

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate you on the success of this return to Parliament.

I also wish to congratulate the minister on his promotion. I am sure we will have ample opportunities to work together in the future.

I have a question for the minister. I am concerned that any tampering with the presumption of innocence or the right to remain silent could set dangerous precedents.

My question is simple. In its current form, is Bill C‑48 fair?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, inflation is a global phenomenon. It is good that Canada is below the OECD average. It is also below the G7 average, the G20 average, the U.S., the U.K., Spain, Germany and many other countries. Of course, that is not good enough. We have to continue to lead and do everything we can. That is why I am so proud that this House just adopted a budget with critical measures to help Canadians in every corner of this country with affordability, because we are not going to fix the problem of global inflation by slashing support to the most vulnerable.

After passing the budget, this House has important work to do over the next two weeks.

It will start this evening as we resume debate on Bill C-35, on early learning and child care, at report stage. Once that debate is done, we will resume debate on Bill C-33, on railway safety. Tomorrow, we will debate Bill C-41, on humanitarian aid. On Monday at noon, we will begin second reading debate of Bill C-48 concerning bail reform, and then we will go to Bill C-35 at third reading after question period. On Tuesday we will call Bill S-8, on sanctions, at report stage and third reading.

On top of this, priority will be given to Bill C-22, the disability benefit, and Bill C-40 regarding miscarriage of justice reviews, as well as our proposal to implement changes to the Standing Orders, which were tabled earlier today, to render provisions with respect to hybrid Parliament permanent in this House.

Furthermore, I have a unanimous consent motion that I would like to propose in relation to the debate tomorrow.

I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, in relation to Bill C-41, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts:

(a) the amendment in Clause 1 adopted by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which reads as follows:

“(a) by adding after line 26 on page 1 the following:

(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a person who carries out any of the acts referred to in those subsections for the sole purpose of carrying out humanitarian assistance activities conducted under the auspices of impartial humanitarian organizations in accordance with international law while using reasonable efforts to minimize any benefit to terrorist groups.

“(b) by deleting lines 15 to 19 on page 2.”

be deemed within the principle of the bill; and

(b) when the bill is taken up at report stage:

(i) it be deemed concurred in, as amended, on division, after which the bill shall be immediately ordered for consideration at the third reading stage,

(ii) not more than one sitting day or five hours of debate, whichever is the shortest, shall be allotted for consideration at the third reading stage,

(iii) five minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders that day, at the conclusion of the five hours allocated for the debate, or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith without further debate or amendment, provided that, if a recorded division is requested, it shall be deferred pursuant to order made Thursday, June 23, 2022.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

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

Madam Speaker, I must say I am bit perplexed as to why the Conservatives would do a quorum call in the middle of my speech. Maybe they do not want to hear what I have to say about parole and the importance of parole to public safety, or maybe they do not want to hear what I am about to say about bail.

One of the things we have been talking about as New Democrats, which is now in the government's bail bill, a bill we have not been able to get to because of the delays of the Conservatives, is community-based bail supervision. That is the idea that we would take similar principles to parole and apply them to bail.

Right now, in the system we have in this country, when someone is on bail, there is actually no supervision whatsoever. The government's bill, Bill C-48, would provide that judges could refer people to community-based bail supervision programs. That means that people who are on bail would actually be supervised if they have a curfew, if they are supposed to be at a certain address or if they are supposed to be going to work, whatever the conditions of bail are. We do not really supervise that now. Community-based bail supervision would be important.

The other thing the bill would do is help with what I see as the real problem with bail in Canada, which is that we detain way too many people before trial, people who have not been convicted of anything. In particular, we detain way too many indigenous people, way too many racialized people, way too many poor people and way too many people with mental health challenges.

We do that because our system says that to get bail, people need a surety. They need somebody who is a friend or family member, who has a stable address and a stable job. They, themselves, also need a stable address, a telephone and usually a car before they could actually get bail. What we are doing is taking a lot of people and keeping them in detention, at very high costs, sometimes over $1,000 a day to keep people in detention.

If we use community-based bail supervision programs, the average cost of those pilot programs that the John Howard Society runs is five dollars a day. What we would get out of that is better public safety outcomes, fewer people in detention, and better public safety because we have better supervision for those on bail.

I am talking about this because it is the other end of the system from parole. Both of these are measures to keep the public safe. If we invest in parole and if we invest in community-based bail supervision, we would have fewer people who are victims of crime in this country. I hope that people in this House will see the wisdom of investing in these ways of rehabilitating and reintegrating people into our society.

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

That's a fair point.

I have two things immediately in response.

The administration of justice is provincial, so much of the work that I have done with my counterparts with respect to Bill C-48 also included commitments on their part to reinforce the bail system. You're seeing in Ontario, British Columbia and Manitoba specific kinds of measures with respect to the administration of bail, which hopefully will help the system, and different kinds of policing efforts. All of that is part of the mix.

The second point I would raise is that 95% of criminal law cases in Canada are heard by provincially appointed courts. There is a crying resource problem there as well at the provincial level, which arguably has a greater impact on the Jordan ruling, as well as bail questions.

Again, I have committed to working with provinces to try to find solutions to that particular challenge as well.

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

They're making a mistake on this particular point, Mr. Moore. It didn't introduce anything new to Canadian law.

If I may finish my answer, of course, I'm concerned about a statistical increase in crimes. We'll get a better picture when Statistics Canada and other statistics-gathering organisms give us those statistics.

We've come through a pandemic. We've come through economic uncertainty. We're in the middle of a mental health crisis, in part brought on by the pandemic. This isn't completely unexpected. What we have to do, as legislators, is react to that. Bill C-48 is part of the reaction to that with respect to repeat violent offenders with weapons.

As I said in my opening remarks, we've worked hard with police authorities and with provinces. There is widespread support for the bill across Canada, with the NDP in British Columbia, the Conservative government in Ontario and other governments across—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, colleagues.

Thank you for the invitation to be here today. I'm pleased to be here as the committee studies the 2023-24 main estimates for the Department of Justice.

I would like to begin, as I always do, and importantly, by acknowledging that we're located on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe Nation.

I am joined, as you mentioned, Mr. Chair, by my officials: the deputy minister of justice, Shalene Curtis-Micallef; the chief financial officer, Bill Kroll; and the senior assistant deputy minister, Mike Sousa. Thanks to all of you for being here today in support.

Committee members will note that Justice Canada is seeking a total of $987.6 million in the 2023-24 main estimates, an increase of $65.8 million over the previous fiscal year.

We need a justice system that is accessible, efficient and, above all, fair. Canadians deserve to feel and be safe. Our justice system must live up to their trust. Our government is committed to ensuring that this is the case, and we will continue to honour our Charter, which is the pride of all Canadians.

Reconciliation with Aboriginal peoples is a crucial part of my mandate, in particular the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

We are currently working—very hard, I might add—in consultation and co-operation with first nations, Inuit and Métis, including national indigenous organizations, rights holders, modern treaty signatories and self-governing nations, to release an action plan and an annual report this month, as mandated in the act.

The work to ensure that the federal laws of Canada are consistent with the UN declaration is ongoing. This declaration represents transformational change and has the potential to progressively and positively transform the relationship between the Crown and first nations, Inuit and Métis.

In budget 2022, our government announced additional funding to implement the UN declaration act in the amount of $64 million over five years—from 2022-23 to 2026-27—and $11 million ongoing. In the 2023-24 main estimates, we're seeking $17.5 million as part of this commitment.

The Main Estimates also include an additional $7 million for new drug treatment court supervised programs, as well as the expansion of existing programs. These investments are part of our efforts to help those suffering from addiction, especially the most marginalized and vulnerable. Our government believes in an approach based on prevention and addiction treatment to tackle the causes of crime. We will continue to implement evidence- and science-based policies, including drug courts.

Access to justice is a fundamental Canadian value and an integral part of a just society. We know that too many Canadians face systemic barriers when trying to obtain legal services or interact with the courts. Aboriginal, Black and racialized Canadians are over-represented in our criminal justice system. That's why it's particularly important to invest in measures that facilitate access to justice, whether by providing information or support, through renewed funding for legal aid in criminal matters.

Our commitment to fighting discrimination and systemic racism in our institutions goes further. As I mentioned earlier, our justice system is not immune to the insidious mechanisms that stand between our system and truly just justice.

That's why I'm proud to have passed Bill C-5 last November, repealing mandatory minimums that have contributed to the overincarceration of indigenous people, Black persons and members of marginalized communities.

I've also introduced David and Joyce Milgaard's law to advance our work to build a more equitable justice system. It would establish an independent miscarriage of justice review commission to make it simpler and more efficient for potentially wrongfully convicted people to have their applications reviewed. I hope this committee has the opportunity to study this legislation soon. Budget 2023 announced $83.9 million over five years, starting in 2023-24, and $18.7 million ongoing for the commission.

I've also proposed targeted reforms to bail to make our communities safer and build trust in our justice system. Bill C-48 is designed to focus on violent repeat offenders and gun and knife violence, as well as intimate partner violence. This targeted reform to our bail laws is the product of collaboration with the provinces and territories. It has also benefited from input from mayors, police and parliamentarians, as well as indigenous leadership and the legal community.

Everyone in Canada expects us to tackle crime, as well as the causes of crime. Bill C-48 is part of our broader strategy to ensure the safety of all Canadians, and it is an example of what we can achieve when we work together. The bill is charter-compliant, and I'm proud to be a member of the party of the charter. It has been endorsed by provincial and territorial governments, as well as various police organizations across Canada. I look forward to working in particular with my colleagues around this table to advance this legislation quickly to protect Canadians.

The main estimates also seek funding to support other key initiatives to help build a fairer and more accessible justice system and advance the national action plan to end gender-based violence, supporting victims of intimate partner violence. The Mass Casualty Commission in Nova Scotia laid out the importance of addressing gender-based violence, and this action plan will help support our government's work going forward.

I'm pleased to say that budget 2023 announced $95.8 million over five years, starting in 2023-24, and $20.4 million ongoing per year thereafter to support indigenous families in accessing information about their missing or murdered loved ones. These include funding for FILUs, as well as the community support and healing for families initiative and more indigenous-led victim services and supports, which I was proud to announce last week. This investment represents an end to the cycle of temporary funding for these services and ensures that sustainable support is available for these critical resources.

On that note, Mr. Chair, I will wrap up my remarks. Thank you for the opportunity to talk about how we are making our justice system stronger, more accessible and more inclusive for all people.

Justice

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, Canadians deserve to feel safe and to be safe.

That is why we introduced Bill C-48, a targeted reform to update our bail laws, designed to focus on violent, repeat offenders, gun and knife violence, as well as intimate partner violence.

If I may, I will repeat what I said earlier. This is from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

The officials said the following about Bill C-48: We appreciate the fact that the minister worked with the party to introduce this common-sense bill that responds to concerns—

Public Safety

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I would like to just repeat what I was saying earlier.

With Bill C-48, introduced a couple of weeks ago, we have nearly unanimous support from across provinces, as well as from police leadership. I want to quote again from the statement from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which said that it commends the federal government for acting on the urgency for legislative change and for recognizing that the proposed amendments are important. The statement also says, “We are convinced that the legislative changes put forth in Bill C-48 will go a long way to help eliminate the preventable harm and senseless tragedies attributable to violent and repeat offenders across Canada.”

Justice

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, Canadians deserve to feel safe and be safe.

That is why introduced Bill C-48, a targeted reform to our bail laws, designed to focus on violent repeat offenders, gun and knife violence, and intimate partner violence. This bill is the product of collaboration with the provinces and territories.

I want to quote from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which said, “We are convinced that the legislative changes put forth in Bill C-48 will go a long way to help eliminate the preventable harm and senseless tragedies attributable to violent and repeat offenders across Canada.”

I invite the Conservative Party—

Criminal Code

[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, shortsightedness and fearmongering is 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.

Business of the House

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I have had the honour to share with our very dear colleagues in the House the message concerning the Thursday question. I am very pleased to answer my colleague.

As members know, Bill C-47, the budget implementation act, was reported from committee yesterday, so we will call it for the final stages of debate starting tomorrow and then continue early next week on Monday and Tuesday.

We will also give priority to Bill C-40, the miscarriage of justice review commission act, also known as David and Joyce Milgaard's law; Bill C-48, bail reform; and Bill C-41, humanitarian assistance.

Finally, I would like to inform the House that next Thursday will be an opposition day.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no such catch-and-release policy. In fact, what we have done in Bill C-48 is address violent repeat offenders, including with knives, including with bear spray. The Government of Manitoba, as well as indigenous peoples, asked for that provision. We provided that, working with provinces and territories.

We need to work together. The provinces have the administration of the justice system as part of their portfolio, their jurisdiction. We need to work with the provinces, not use meaningless rhetoric to try to debase the problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have been working with provincial premiers, provincial ministers of justice, provincial ministers of public safety, and police associations across Canada to address questions about bail reform. We have done that. We have tabled Bill C-48, which has the support of provinces and police associations across Canada.

Saskatoon's police service deputy chief said, “It's encouraging to see the voices of the community and the policing community across Canada being heard”. He called it “a good move forward”. It is by working together that we can address complex problems like bail—

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, serious crimes deserve serious consequences.

What we are doing is implementing criminal law reforms that are based on evidence, not meaningless slogans.

With regard to Bill C-48, the president of the Canadian Police Association, Tom Stamatakis, said that police officers appreciate that the ministers “worked collaboratively with stakeholders and introduced this common-sense legislation that responds to the concerns that our members have raised.”

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

Mr. Speaker, we have introduced Bill C-48 precisely to address violent repeat offenders with weapons, including knives, which was raised by Manitoba and other provinces. We have done that working in collaboration.

Here is what the Saskatoon police Deputy Chief Cam McBride, who I am sure is a friend of the hon. member, said about our new federal bail. He said that it is “a good move forward. It’s encouraging to see the voices of the community and the policing community across Canada are being heard”.

We have the support of the police. We have the support of provinces and territories here. The only person we do not have the support of is the Leader of the Opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-48 targets precisely violent repeat offenders with weapons.

We have been working in close collaboration with the provinces since last October in order to not only come up with a bill that is charter-compliant but also listen to concerns raised by police associations, provincial ministers of justice and public safety ministers. We have come up with a bill that addresses that.

Here is what the Canadian Police Association had to say with respect to the bill: “we appreciate that [ministers]...have worked collaboratively with stakeholders and introduced this common-sense legislation that responds to the concerns”.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police: “We are convinced that the legislative changes put forth in Bill C-48 will go a long way to help eliminate the preventable harm and senseless tragedies attributable to violent and repeat offenders across Canada.”

We heard from provincial justice ministers and public safety ministers that we needed to attack repeat violent offenders with weapons. That is precisely what we are doing. We have done it in consultation with stakeholders. We have worked and listened to police associations across Canada and we have a bill that will strengthen our legislative framework.

Sitting Resumed

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there is no hidden agenda on the government's side. We are very much an accountable and transparent government.

It is interesting. The member wants to talk about one issue, and I can say that when I listen to the members talk across the way, they often talk about the bail issue.

We have Bill C-48 that has just been introduced. The Conservatives have a chance here. Bill C-48 is being exceptionally well received, virtually coast to coast to coast.

If they are genuinely concerned about bail reform, what they should be doing is saying, look, let us see if we can actually get this bill passed and out of second reading once it gets introduced, so that it can go to a standing committee.

One of the ways they can demonstrate, instead of all of the complaining and the unparliamentary word that I cannot use, instead of doing that, is to actually look at Bill C-48 and see if we can, once it is introduced for the second reading, get the support for it and send it to committee so that the committee will have all sorts of time then to be able to look at all of the wonderful things it is doing and seeing if maybe there are ways we can improve that.

I say Bill C-48 because the member went off this debate and this is how I would respond to it.

Justice

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the only bail reform in Bill C-48 is in its name. Violent repeat offenders could still count on the Liberal government for its catch-and-release system to get them back out on the street, sometimes within hours of their arrest.

This bill does not substantially improve public safety. In fact, the man who killed Constable Pierzchala would still have been out on release even if this legislation had been in place.

When will the Liberals finally do what they have been asked and end catch-and-release?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge for his hard work on this issue.

Canadians deserve to be safe and they deserve to feel safe. That is why today I introduced Bill C-48, a targeted bail reform bill to address violent repeat offenders, gun and knife violence, as well as gender-based violence. It is the product of collaboration with the provinces and territories.

We have had input from mayors, police, parliamentarians as well as indigenous leadership and the legal community. The police associations are already reacting favourably. It is proof of what we can do when Canadians work together.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today I had the honour of introducing Bill C‑48 precisely so we can work with the provinces, with the territories, and with police associations across Canada to strengthen the bail system in Canada.

Let me read from Tom Stamatakis' statement today. He wrote, “we appreciate that [the ministers] have worked collaboratively with stakeholders and introduced this common-sense legislation that responds to the concerns that our members have raised.”

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, as misguided as it is. I had the honour today to introduce in the House Bill C-48, which represents targeted measures to strengthen our bail system to meet the concerns raised by provincial premiers, our counterpart justice and public safety ministers across Canada, police associations and others.

Let me read to members what Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, has said. He said, “we appreciate that [the ministers] have worked collaboratively with stakeholders and introduced this common-sense legislation that”—

Criminal Code

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)