Bill C-48 (Historical)

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.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

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

Madam Speaker, here we are, five weeks in, and we are still debating the Liberal government's refusal to produce documents relating to the latest scandal, the green slush fund scandal, as ordered by Parliament on June 10. This is the third time that I am rising to speak on this issue, so I want to take a slightly different approach. I want to talk about the legal principle of subsequent remedial measures, in the law, of evidence.

That rule says that evidence of a defendant or a possible defendant in a civil case effecting repairs to some obstacle that injured a person in order to avoid future similar injuries is not admissible in the court of law. The principle behind that is that we do not want to disincentivize people from actually making repairs to prevent future injuries. The example that is often given is when a homeowner repairs the steps up to the front door on which the postal delivery person was seriously injured the day before. Is doing the repair effectively an admission of liability? The answer is yes, probably, but here is the point. That evidence is not admissible in a court of law for the basic public policy principle that I stated before.

How does that apply to the current case relating to the green slush fund? A little bit of background is in order. The Auditor General revealed some shocking findings in her June 2024 report, which was tabled in Parliament on June 6, I believe, about how the Liberal government had turned SDTC, a federally governed and owned business, into a green slush fund for Liberal insiders.

Here are some of her findings. She found that SDTC gave out the following in taxpayer dollars: $58 million to 10 ineligible projects without even ensuring that contribution agreements were in place and the terms met. On some of them, the applicants could not even demonstrate the development of green technology or any environmental benefit at all. The purpose of SDTC was just ignored. There were $334 million and over 186 cases where there were clear conflicts of interest. This is board members at SDTC voting for each other's applicant grants, clearly a conflict of interest.

One of the whistle-blowers had this to say:

Just as I was always confident that the Auditor General would confirm the financial mismanagement at SDTC, I remain equally confident that the RCMP will substantiate the criminal activities that occurred within the organization.

This is very serious, not just mismanagement, but allegations from a credible source that there is criminal activity under way. Where there is smoke, there is fire. We, the opposition, did what we are supposed to do, which was to hold the government to account. Back in June, the Conservative Party put forward a motion in the House of Commons shortly after we received the Auditor General's report. That order reads, in part:

That the House order the government, Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) and the Auditor General of Canada each to deposit with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, within 30 days of the adoption of this order, the following documents....

There was then a long list of documents that had to be produced.

The Conservative motion passed on June 10 with the help of the NDP and the Bloc Québécois. I thank them very much. It was only the Liberal members of Parliament who voted against it, because they were worried. They did not like it. They did not like the order. Over the summer months, they just ignored it. They delivered some of the documents but clearly not all.

When we got back here in September, things got ugly pretty quickly. Our House leader, the opposition House leader, on the first day back, rose on a question of privilege “concerning the failure of the government to comply with the order that the House adopted on Monday, June 10.”

That was presented to the Speaker, and the Speaker agreed with us, confirming that the Prime Minister's Office and all relevant government departments had not fully complied, but that they must comply with this order made in June for unredacted documents. At the time, the Speaker said, “The Chair cannot come to any other conclusion but to find that a prima facie question of privilege has been established.” In parliamentary terms, that is a serious allegation. There was a breach of privilege and that should have embarrassed the government.

It is pretty clear and easy to understand what the Speaker meant, so why are we still here, five weeks later, debating this question of privilege? The answer is simple. The Liberal government is still not complying with it. Why not? We do not know. The government has raised some smokescreens and innuendo, but it has not come clean to say why it is not complying. As long as that goes on, the longer this fiasco drags on, the more suspicious we become that perhaps the aforementioned whistle-blower is right that there was criminal activity going on here.

I want to get back to my original comments about the principle of subsequent remedial measures. Such evidence, as I said, is generally not admissible in a court of law. Did the Liberals actually take remedial action to try to fix SDTC after they claimed they were as surprised as the rest of us were that this corruption and mismanagement was going on? The answer is no, they did not do anything. As a matter of fact, they just wound up SDTC. There was so much corruption, so much smoke, so much contamination that even the Liberals were embarrassed by it. Rather than trying to fix it, they just wound it up altogether.

Now we are really suspicious, along with Canadians. What are the Liberals hiding? What was going on at STDC? Why are we not getting the documents? Canadians want to know. What does the Prime Minister's Office know? What is in those documents that the Liberals are refusing to produce? What are they hiding? Was there criminal activity? Can we recover some of the taxpayer money, $400 million altogether? Canadians deserve to know.

The total amount of money, as I said, was $400 million. What could we do with that money? We could do a lot of good, positive things, as the previous speaker, my colleague from Banff—Airdrie, just said. It could certainly help veterans and parents. It could help people who have been going to food banks who cannot afford groceries in these high inflationary times. Four hundred million dollars goes a long way to solve many problems. It could have been much better used than having it distributed by Liberal insiders among themselves.

I would like to compare this to the scandal of some years ago, the sponsorship scandal that brought down the previous Liberal government. That was only $40 million. This is 10 times as large. This is very significant and taxpayers, I think, need to understand what is going on here.

Things were not always corrupt at Sustainable Development Technology Canada. It had a great reputation at one time. It was created by an act of Parliament back in the Liberal days of former prime minister Jean Chrétien to promote investing in green technology, a laudable goal. It continued its work under former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper and likely it would still be thriving today if the current Prime Minister had just resisted getting his fingerprints all over it. However, he just could not resist the temptation of putting his own friends in there. He and his industry minister at the time, Navdeep Bains, could not resist putting their own close friends in charge.

They fired the old board and put in their own friends. Many of them owned businesses that were applicants or potential applicants for grants under this program. Maybe somebody could have raised a red flag to say there was a lot of potential for conflict of interest, but that did not seem to concern anybody on the government side of the House. The result was that the Liberal-appointed board created an environment where conflicts of interest became the norm. Conflicts of interest were tolerated; they were managed.

In that orchestrated manner, these Liberal-appointed board members were able to, nicely, award grants to each other. This is the way it went: “Hey, you vote for my project, and I'll vote for your project.” That is what the whistle-blower told us. That is what the Auditor General uncovered. The Liberals broke SDTC, as they have broken so much else in Canada. I just want to raise a couple of examples.

Recent statistics from Statistics Canada about crime in Canada are really quite shocking. During nine years of the Liberal government, violent crime has increased by 50%. Homicides are up 28%. Sexual assaults are up by 75%. Gang violence has nearly doubled, and auto theft is up by 46%. Extortion is up by an astonishing 357%. Recently, the Liberal government has been forced to admit that 256 people were killed in 2022 by criminals who were out on bail or other forms of release.

This all happened under the Prime Minister's watch, with his Bill C-5, which eliminated many of the mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes, and Bill C-75, the catch-and-release bill that puts accused people out on bail on the least restrictive conditions possible. Canadians are concerned.

This is what our police are saying about the Liberals and how they have been mismanaging criminal law responsibilities and, specifically, their record on gun crime. The Toronto Police Association had this to say, speaking to the Prime Minister: “Criminals did not get your message. Our communities are experiencing a 45% increase in shootings and a 62% increase in gun-related homicides compared to...last year. What difference does your handgun ban make when 85% of guns seized by our members can be sourced to the United States?”

The Vancouver Police Union had this to say about the Prime Minister's record on managing gun crime: “Guessing he’s not aware of the ongoing gang war here in B.C. which is putting both our members and public at risk on a daily basis.”

The Surrey Police Union, right next door to my community of Langley, says, “The federal handgun freeze fails to address the real issue: the surge of illegal firearms coming across our borders and ending up in the hands of violent criminals.”

It is not just the police who are concerned about the drastic rise of crime in our streets and our cities. I heard from a group of CEOs and other directors of a group of downtown business improvement associations from across British Columbia. I am familiar with the work that business improvement associations do because I sat on the board of the Downtown Surrey BIA for a few years before I was elected to Parliament. That is where my law office was, so I am very familiar with the area and very familiar with the work the BIA does. I was happy to meet with this group to hear their concerns and their solutions to some of Canada's toughest problems.

I found it remarkable that this is what these community organizations are asking for. Number one is to invest in mental health, addictions and homelessness support across Canada. Indeed, homelessness is a problem right across Canada, but particularly so in our downtown cores. I am thinking of the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver, which at one time was a beautiful place but is not anymore because of homelessness, crime and chaos.

The second ask is this, from the community organizers of our downtown cores: to ensure Canada's downtowns and main streets are safe and inclusive spaces by initiating a systematic review across the country concerning the bail system and implementing further changes to the system by reforming Bill C-48, which is a bill that went through the House not too long ago that took a small step in the direction of bail reform. They are saying it needs to be extended, not just for serious repeat violent offenders but also for theft offenders.

They are saying we need to stop the easy bail practices that have become the norm in Canada with the introduction of Bill C-75. The Vancouver Police Department talks about the same 40 individuals having negative interactions with the police 6,000 times in one year; that is every second day for 40 people. Imagine what the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver would look like if those 40 people were not on our streets. This is the message we are getting from community organizers.

The third thing they are asking for is to incentivize local entrepreneurs and commercial entities to form businesses in downtowns and on main streets. This is what they are asking for: give people shelter, keep repeat thieves off the streets, and create an environment where businesses and entrepreneurs come flocking back to the downtown core. This is what ordinary Canadian citizens want.

People are reporting that they feel less safe on our streets. Those fears are now being supported by evidence from Statistics Canada and from credible and, I would say, non-partisan organizations like police unions and business improvement associations.

The Attorney General should meet with people like that instead of just left-leaning law professors from Liberal-friendly law schools who teach their criminal law courses from a pro-accused perspective instead of from a pro-victim perspective. Our Attorney General would benefit, indeed, all of Canada would benefit, if he and the Prime Minister would listen to the concerns of ordinary Canadian citizens.

These are the things we should be talking about, or would be talking about if the Liberal government would just comply with the order so we could get down to business again. We should be talking about stopping the crime, building homes, implementing a fair and competitive tax regime by axing the tax, and fixing the Liberals' out-of-control, never-ending, inflation-producing deficit budgets.

Until the Liberals come to their senses and comply with the order, I guess we are just going to remain in this holding pattern. Here is a better idea: The Prime Minister could walk to the Governor General's house and acknowledge what everybody knows, that he has lost the confidence of this House and that the 44th Parliament should be dissolved and we should call an election. I spoke to many people when in my home community last week for Remembrance Day, as well as in the neighbouring community of Cloverdale—Langley City, where there is a by-election going on because the Liberal member of Parliament resigned.

I am hearing from people on the street that they are very anxious and eager to have a general election. They are happy with a by-election, but they want a general election. They want to stop the corruption, they want to fix what the Liberals have broken and they want a government that is going to have common-sense solutions.

Canadians deserve a government that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. Canadians deserve a government that does not play favourites for Liberal insiders but creates an environment where non-insiders can work and get ahead. They deserve a Canada that delivers on its promise to all who call it home: that hard work earns a powerful paycheque and pension, and buys affordable groceries and affordable homes on safe streets, in beautiful neighbourhoods, where anyone from anywhere can accomplish anything.

This is all achievable, but first, we need to have a general election and a common-sense Conservative government that will start working seriously on these issues that concern ordinary Canadians.

Public Safety and National Security

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

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, the member for Winnipeg North was not listening to my remarks. I was talking about Bill C-75, which was passed by the Liberals with support from the NDP in 2019. That is what caused all of the mayhem that police are now having to deal with. The member is talking about Bill C-48. Bill C-48 was a seven-page bill in contrast to Bill C-75 that was 200 pages. It was a measly effort for the Liberals to say they were doing something about bail. That passed well over a year ago and it obviously has done nothing to help.

In fact, if the member does not believe me, as he is saying I am spreading misinformation, let us hear from the Toronto Police. I will just conclude on this. The Toronto Police Association, which represents 8,000 police officers, said, “ Our communities are experiencing a 45% increase in shootings and a 62% increase in gun-related homicides compared to this time last year. What difference does your handgun ban make when 85% of guns seized by our members can be sourced to the United States?” It continued with, “Your statement is out of touch and offensive to victims of crime and police officers everywhere.” That is what the police say to the Liberal government.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, someone just said “corrupt”. It could be, but if the Liberals will not come forward to tell otherwise, to show their work and to show the RCMP that they have dealt with the House order, then we are left to wonder. That is on them; it is not on us as members.

I know we have had many days of debate on this, and it is unfortunate because there are lots of things we could be debating, like housing, affordability and crime. Bill C-48 has been a massive failure. People are still getting out on bail, committing crimes and hurting families, not just in B.C. but right across the country. There is so much we could be doing, but we cannot argue those things until we resolve this.

I really push the government members, the ones who are listening right now. This does not just fall on the Prime Minister. It falls on you. Tomorrow, you will have a caucus and if you do not put pressure on the Prime Minister in those areas, to say, “I want us to be able—”

Criminal Code

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I am also here to speak to Bill S-205, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another act regarding interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders.

Bill S-205 proposes amendments to the bail and peace bond provisions of the Criminal Code and the Youth Criminal Justice Act to address intimate partner violence, a cause that all of us in the House should be seized with. I will start by thanking the Standing Committee on the Status of Women for their work on the bill. The committee looked carefully at Bill S-205 and identified ways to strengthen it while maintaining the original spirit of the legislation. I also want to recognize the contributions and expertise of the witnesses, all of whom shared their diverse perspectives, which were often of a deeply personal nature.

Bill S-205 has two main components, bail and peace bonds, and I will touch on each of these in turn, starting with bail. Bill S-205, as passed by the Senate, proposed four changes to the Criminal Code related to bail. First, the bill would have required a justice, before making a bail order for an offence involving intimate partner violence, to ask the prosecutor whether the intimate partner of the accused had been consulted about their safety and security needs.

The committee voted in favour of removing this proposal because it would have been duplicative of existing bail provisions. Moreover, it could have had the unintended consequence of endangering victims. Under this proposal, victims could have had details about their safety needs revealed to an audience, potentially including the accused, in court. This goes against protecting their security. Victim support services are better positioned to discuss safety and security needs with the victim in a more private setting, without the accused present.

Second, Bill S-205 would have required bail courts to consider imposing a condition that the accused wear an electronic monitoring device, for any offence charged, at the request of the Crown. This provision was removed from the bill because, under section 515 of the Criminal Code, it is already possible to impose electronic monitoring. Explicitly adding it as an optional condition could result in it being routinely imposed, even where it is not warranted. Most importantly, this provision was removed because it runs counter to the approach of Bill C-233, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act regarding violence against an intimate partner, which received royal assent on April 27, 2023.

Bill C-233 ensures that electronic monitoring is specifically considered as a bail condition in cases of intimate partner violence. This tailored approach is crucial. It signals to judges that intimate partner violence is a crime for which electronic monitoring may be especially successful in protecting victims. If we had extended this condition to all offences, intimate partner violence would no longer be singled out for special consideration from judges. Our government supports the tailored approach of Bill C-233 to best protect women and other victims of intimate partner violence.

Third, Bill S-205 proposed amending the reverse onus bail provisions in section 515 of the Criminal Code. A reverse onus is where the accused must demonstrate that they should be released instead of the burden of proof being on the prosecutor to demonstrate that they should be detained. The proposed change would expand the existing intimate partner violence reverse onus for bail to apply not only to accused individuals who were previously convicted but also to those who were previously discharged on an intimate partner violence offence. This amendment remains in the bill and is identical to a change our government made in Bill C-48, which passed last year after receiving unanimous support in the House.

Finally, Bill S-205 would require the justice to ask the prosecutor if the victim has been informed of their right to have a copy of the bail order after a decision on bail has been made. I support this measure to improve transparency in the justice system and enhance victims' access to information.

Moving on to the peace bond regime, Bill S-205 would create a new peace bond focused on preventing domestic violence, which is understood as violence directed at an intimate partner or child of either partner. Peace bonds are entirely separate from criminal punishment or sentencing. They can be sought when there is a reasonable fear that a crime may occur, and they are designed to prevent crimes from taking place. The committee adopted several amendments to the peace bond proposed in Bill S-205, to strengthen the original intent of the bill.

For example, Bill S‑205 proposed that the defendant's intimate partner be allowed to apply for a recognizance to keep the peace. This approach differs from existing recognizance to keep the peace provisions in the Criminal Code, which allow a person other than a person who may be a victim of the alleged offence, such as a police officer or a family member, to apply for the recognizance on their behalf.

The committee's amendments would ensure that the new domestic violence peace bond could be brought forward by someone on behalf of a person who fears that a crime will occur, as is the current practice for other peace bond regimes. I am somewhat surprised to see amendments from my Conservative colleagues to restrict this back to only the victims. This seems counterintuitive to a victim-centric approach.

The committee also made several amendments to ensure that the duration, conditions and procedures of the new recognizance to keep the peace provision are consistent with similar existing recognizance provisions in the Criminal Code.

For example, in the new provision, the maximum duration of the recognizance to keep the peace would be 12 months, or two years if there is a prior conviction, which is consistent with recognizance to keep the peace provisions that apply to organized crime, forced marriages, serious personal injury offences and sexual offences against a minor. Similarly, the maximum term of imprisonment for failure to sign a recognizance to keep the peace would be 12 months in order to align with all other recognizance to keep the peace provisions in the Criminal Code.

Bill S-205 also proposes conditions that could be imposed on a defendant in a peace bond. The committee made several changes to the list of conditions proposed, which included removing the condition requiring the defendant to refrain from using social media.

It is important to point out that peace bond conditions are not intended to be punitive, but preventative, and they are to be tailored to a specific threat. The use of social media could be interpreted broadly by the courts to include things such as job searches or shopping for second-hand furniture. While some uses of social media may be linked to a specific threat posed by the defendant, in many cases it may not be, yet breaching the condition would still be considered a criminal offence. Moreover, defendants in a peace bond would already be prohibited from contacting in any way or stalking the person who sought the peace bond, so the social media prohibition is not necessary for protection.

Next, I will speak to the peace bond condition that would require the defendant to refrain from going to specified places, such as the home or work of the intimate partner. This is essential to ensure the safety and security of the victim and is often the main reason for seeking a peace bond order.

The committee voted to expand this condition to further prohibit the defendant from going within a specified distance of a place to allow for the imposition of a radius within which the accused would be prohibited from going. For example, the condition could provide that the defendant must not go within 500 meters of the victim's home to prevent stalking behaviour, such as sitting in a car outside the victim's residence. I would support this amendment, which would strengthen the existing protections for victims of intimate partner violence. My colleagues across the way also appear to want to repeal this amendment, which I am of the firm belief gives stronger protection to victims.

The last amendment I want to talk about was proposed as a result of an NDP motion to allow an alternative to the peace bond process when the informant or the defendant is indigenous. Under this change, the judge must determine whether it would be appropriate, instead of ordering a recognizance to keep the peace, to recommend that indigenous support services be provided if available. The purpose of this amendment is to address the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system by allowing the use of alternative justice methods for healing. I support this change.

To conclude, Bill S‑205 makes targeted but important changes to criminal law to better address domestic violence.

I urge all members to support the bill.

Online Harms Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague. There is not much more I can add. It is a sad statement that my colleague had to make, but it is so apropos and is really reflective of this government's approach to protecting children and to ensuring that communities are safe.

For nine years, the government has yet to strike the appropriate balance with bills such as Bill C-5 and Bill C-48, which it proudly proclaims are going to keep Canadians safe. We have heard from numerous premiers and heads of police associations, asking what happened to the promise of Bill C-48. The Liberal government promised that we were going to see some changes. There is nothing but crickets from this government. It fails to act and it fails to protect Canadians. I would add that it is the number one responsibility of a federal government to keep Canadians safe.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, the simple fact is that criminals have nothing to fear under the NDP-Liberal legislation. Bill C-48 has done nothing to stop the crime in our communities. Instead of listening to premiers and law enforcement, who have called for bail reform, the justice minister pretends that C-48 is a success. It is an abject failure.

When will the minister stop protecting criminals and start standing up for victims by reversing their catch-and-release policies?

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.

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—

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, 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).

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?

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, the member talked about bail reform, which is in Bill C-48. Allow me to provide a quote that comes from the association representing Canada's frontline law enforcement personnel. It was released earlier today, I believe. It states:

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 [the justice minister and the public safety minister] have worked collaboratively with stakeholders and introduced this common-sense legislation that responds to the concerns that our members have raised.

We have seen a great deal of filibustering on Bill C-21. I wonder if the member is of the same opinion as I am that, when it comes to Bill C-48, we should get some sort of unanimous consent to have a round of debate on it and then allow it to go to committee so we can deal with it in a quicker fashion.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned bail reform and the need for violent, serious offenders to face stricter scrutiny when released on bail. Today, our government tabled Bill C-48. Many different stakeholders, including the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, have come forward and are very happy with the proposal put forward. In fact, the president of the Canadian Police Association said this is “common-sense legislation”.

I am wondering if we can count on the member opposite to fast-track this legislation and make sure we have unanimous to pass it in the House so it can go to committee and then off to the Senate?

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-21. As members may have noticed, I have not spoken to this bill or any bill related to guns, and there is a specific reason. I find it exceptionally difficult to speak about this issue given the work I have done in the past. However, I feel a need to weigh in today given the enormous amount of misinformation that is coming forth.

At the outset, I want to acknowledge that the bill, as amended, at this stage does not impact hunters or indigenous people. Their section 35 charter rights are protected under the non-derogation clause. I want to centre this conversation on why this piece of legislation is deeply important to me, my riding and my community.

About 20 years ago in 1997, on December 27, a young man, a 19-year-old University of Waterloo student, was shot at a coffee shop in Scarborough. His name was Kabilan Balachandran. I have spoken about him before. At that time, he sparked a movement to counter the violence and gun violence we had seen in our community. He would have been 44 years old this year. His was a life of boundless opportunities and potential achievements that was cut short because of gun violence.

My involvement in community work really started off just after that. An organization called the Canadian Tamil Youth Development Centre was started because of Kabilan in 1999, and for the next four years or so, I was able to run the organization as its coordinator on a voluntary basis. I can tell members that we put hundreds of hours a month into supporting young people who were impacted by violence in a community that was struggling with violence.

A couple of years later, in 1999 I believe, two young men were shot point-blank at 720 Kennedy Road. They were students at SATEC. I was able to meet with the families, and in fact I am still in touch with them. The pain I saw among their friends, classmates and those who were impacted, particularly their mothers, is something I can never forget. One of the mothers essentially stood in front of a window waiting for her son to come back. Of course, we know that he never came home.

We have seen other attacks and gun-related incidents that have impacted many young people, and I have been profoundly impacted by this. In fact, in many ways, my view on guns is shaped by this history.

There is a neighbourhood in my riding called Danzig, and it is impoverished in many ways but is surrounded by an incredible community. Just before I ran for office, when I ran for the nomination, it was hosting a barbecue on July 16, 2012. Again there was an incident that involved the deaths of two young men, with 24 people injured. In many ways, I do not have to look at mass casualties or mass gun violence outside of my riding because it happened right there in the middle of the summer, impacting so many young people and families. It shook the community to the core. In fact, we marked the 10th anniversary of their passing just last year, and I can tell members that the pain really has not gone away.

Then, after I was elected in 2017, on July 23, Demal Graham, a resident in my riding, was shot in front of his daughter. We had a chance to visit the family and meet with his mother Shauna, his daughter, his other children and his siblings, and again the hurt continued.

The pain may be different, and it may be 10 years later. It may be people of different backgrounds, faiths and upbringing, and they may be from rural communities. However, ultimately, the pain inflicted on the families that are impacted is just unbelievable.

Louis March is from the Zero Gun Violence Movement, and we have spent quite a bit of time together. In fact, when the Minister of Justice came to my riding in 2019, we had a round table and he was able to give us his first-hand experience with many of the mothers of the young men who were killed by gun violence.

I think we have been arguing a fair bit here, and I do not for a second pretend to know what my friend opposite just spoke about regarding living in rural Canada. I am not going to pretend to know that. I also want him to know that he may not know about living in an inner city in a place like the city of Toronto or any other major centre, and I do not want to presuppose that. However, our conversation needs to be elevated. It cannot just be about saying, no, we are not going to touch or restrict guns of any form. I think that conversation really fails Canadians.

What the Minister of Public Safety has brought forward is, I believe, very balanced legislation that would protect hunters. I have never hunted, and I do not think I ever will, but that is not the point. The point is that there are many Canadians who do and they do it lawfully, and this is not about taking away their ability to hunt. This is not, as I said earlier, about the ability of indigenous people to exercise their section 35 rights.

Ultimately, this is about bringing forward legislation. It may not be perfect and may not fully address all the issues of gun violence. That alone is not enough. Bill C-21 alone is not enough. We know more needs to be done, and that is why the Minister of Public Safety has brought forward funding to support communities and why we brought forward Bill C-48 today to address serious violent offenders.

Ultimately, I think we would do Canadians an injustice if we do not move this bill along. I think there has been sufficient debate. Oftentimes the debate is elevated, and while I do not want to go into the process, obviously this could have been done better. However, I can assure members that this is something that my community needs. Scarborough needs this, the city of Toronto needs this, major cities need this and I know that Canada needs this.

I look forward to questions and comments from my colleagues, and I am thankful for the opportunity to share some of my experiences with gun violence.

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

Madam Speaker, I note the member spoke about bail reform. This morning, the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-48.

As Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, said, “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”. He went on to say that he is pleased the government has introduced “common-sense legislation that responds to the concerns that our members have raised.”

As the member has indicated, this issue is very important for him. Will he and his party support Bill C-48, so that it receives unanimous consent to go to committee and then off to the other place?

Justice

[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”—