Bill C-5 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

This enactment amends the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to, among other things, repeal certain mandatory minimum penalties, allow for a greater use of conditional sentences and establish diversion measures for simple drug possession offences.

Criminal Code

[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.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I will take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election as Speaker. I would also like to say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Langley—Aldergrove.

The last eight years have not been kind to Canadians, since the Liberal government took power, when it comes to safe streets, safe communities and crime. One only needs to look at the recent StatsCan release to see the drastic increase in crime in this country since 2015. The numbers are absolutely staggering. Total violent crimes are up 39%; homicides are up 43%, up for the fourth year in a row; gang-related homicides are up 108%; violent gun crimes are up 101%, up for the eighth year in a row; aggravated assaults are up 24%; assaults with a weapon are up 61%; sexual assaults are up 71%; and sex crimes against children are up 126%.

That is the context when we look at Bill S-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act. That is the context by which we, as parliamentarians, addressing the fear in our communities around crime, around keeping Canadians safe, around protecting victims, look at Bill S-12.

Bill S-12 is due to be passed at all stages by October 28. This is a deadline that was put in place by the Supreme Court, when it gave the government 365 days to get this done, in response to a Supreme Court decision. Yet, here we are, with just 24 days left, to make sure that the national sex offender registry continues to be a critical resource for police to investigate and to prevent crime.

The last time the Liberal government had a court-imposed deadline to respond to decisions, around medical assistance in dying, we ended up, tragically, with a bill that would expand medical assistance in dying to Canadians living with mental illness. The government waited too long and rushed through legislation. That is, again, what is happening here.

I am going to focus my speech on amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act as opposed to changes in the publication bans that were brought forward by our Conservative-led justice committee study on the federal government's obligation to victims of crime.

What is the sex offender registry? Conservatives will always stand up for victims and victims' rights. That leads me to these amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act. The act was established in 2004 to help Canadian police authorities investigate crimes of a sexual nature by requiring the registration of certain information on sex offenders. To help police services investigate crimes of a sexual nature, the sex offender registry contains information such as the address and telephone numbers of offenders, a description of their physical appearance, the nature of the offence committed, and the age and gender of victims, and their relationship to the offender.

At the time, enrolment on the registry was up to the discretion of a judge. That discretion led to significant problems. The public safety committee review of the implementation of the sex offender registry in 2009 found glaring issues. The committee found that only 50% of sex offenders were required to register their information. This was happening for a number of reasons. An official from the Department of Public Safety told the committee at the time that with the pressure of time or workload, Crown attorneys would forget to ask for the order. The committee was also told that the order application rate varies widely by province and by territory. One witness stated that the absence of an automatic inclusion on the registry for all offenders convicted of sexual crimes has led to the inconsistent application of the law across the country.

The committee recommended to the government that the automatic registration of sex offenders would fix these holes in the legislation. In order to be effective, the national registry must be enforced consistently across the country.

I was proud to be part of the Conservative government that passed the Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act, introduced in 2010. That legislation passed with the support of all parties. The bill broadened the purpose of the sex offender registry by adding the purpose of helping police prevent crimes of a sexual nature in addition to enabling them to investigate those crimes.

We made sensible changes to strengthen the sex offender registry. For instance, we made registration automatic for convicted sex offenders. Our legislation also added the obligation to report any person ordered to serve an intermittent or conditional sentence. This is even more important today than it was then, because Liberal Bill C-5 now allows conditional sentences for crimes like sexual assault and Liberal Bill C-75 now allows bail to become more easily obtained by individuals charged with serious offences.

Conservatives also brought in the requirement of registered sex offenders to report the name of their employer or the person who engages them on a volunteer basis or retains them, and the type of work they do. Police should be aware if a sex offender is spending any amount of time with or in proximity to potential victims. We made these sensible amendments to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act to protect victims and to prevent crime.

On October 28, 2022, a split decision, five to four, of the Supreme Court found that the mandatory and lifetime registration on the sex offender registry was unconstitutional. The Liberals have simply accepted this decision. We have urged them to respond as forcefully as possible, and Bill S-12 does fall short of that.

I want to read from the dissenting judgment. It was a very strong dissent, in which it says:

...the exercise of discretion was the very problem that prompted Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to provide for automatic registration of sex offenders under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act... The evidence is clear that even low risk sex offenders, relative to the general criminal population, pose a heightened risk to commit another sexual offence.

That heightened risk is, by some counts, eight times the likelihood of someone with a prior conviction to reoffend. That is why incorporating and improving as many offenders as possible in the sex offender registry is so very important. We have seen how this has played out before. When it was left simply to the judges to decide who needs to register with the registry, nearly 50% of offenders were never required to register. This is before we brought in mandatory registration.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. We can expect that individuals who certainly should be listed in the registry, even after the passage of Bill S-12, would be left out. We have to take every step to protect Canadians, to protect victims and to ensure that sex offenders are not given the opportunity to revictimize our communities.

After eight years of the Liberal government, the rate of violent crime is up 39%, police-reported sexual assaults are up 71% and sex crimes against children are up 126%. Canadians deserve so much better than this. I can think of no greater obligation for us as members of Parliament to enact laws that protect our communities and protect the safety of the most vulnerable. With legislation like Bill C-75 that has made bail so easy to get, legislation like Bill C-5 that has allowed for house arrest for sex offenders, Conservatives do not trust the government to take the necessary steps to protect Canadians. It has proven an inability to do that.

It is important that we pass Bill S-12, it is important that we respond to the Supreme Court decision and it is important that we go as far as possible to protect the most vulnerable. We look forward to the quick passage of this legislation. It is unfortunate that the government took so long to bring us to this point, but it is also important that we act expeditiously to protect Canadians.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Taxes

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

Madam Speaker, when we talk about the carbon tax, our Bloc Québécois friends like to say that it does not apply in Quebec. They need to understand that the federal carbon tax, which does apply to provinces other than Quebec, has a direct impact on consumption in Quebec.

We only have to think of the Alberta farmer who is taxed to grow the food, the trucker who transports it and has to pay a tax, the store that sells the food and the family who buys it. It is a chain. At the end of that chain, the taxes that have been imposed on producers elsewhere in Canada, including the carbon tax, have a direct impact on consumer prices for Quebeckers.

This tax was created by the Liberal Party, which decided it was the best thing in the world. They insisted on it and imposed it on Canadians, and the Bloc Québécois unfortunately supported that. It is easy enough for the Bloc Québécois to say that Quebeckers have their own tax, the carbon exchange, and that the carbon tax does not impact them. However, as I just said, there is a direct—not indirect—impact on consumer products in Quebec.

What we are doing today is not complicated. We are asking the government to give Quebeckers and Canadians some breathing room, to give them a break. The ending of our motion is straightforward. It asks that “the House call on the government to introduce legislation, within seven days of this motion being adopted, to repeal all carbon taxes to bring home lower prices on gas, groceries, and home heating.”

We are actually not attacking the Bloc Québécois. We are asking the Bloc Québécois to show some sense, to understand that people are suffering and that it is expensive. The articles that I read at the start of my speech were not pulled out of thin air, nor were they made up by the Conservative Party. They are reporting facts, things that are happening right now. The Bloc members here in Ottawa, in what they like to call their foreign Parliament, do not understand that reality is different for ordinary people. As I said, there are people in Beauport—Limoilou who are lining up this morning to be able to eat. That is the reality.

I am asking the Bloc Québécois members to think logically. Can they understand that we need to find ways to bring down consumer prices and make it possible for people to keep more of their money? There is already so much taken from their pay in taxes and, on top of that, all consumer goods are getting more expensive. The cost increase is appalling. By eliminating taxes, we will be able to lend a hand to the industry by making things easier for consumers.

I will not blame all 32 Bloc Québécois members. I have spoken with some of them, so I know that there are some who can reason, who think logically, who understand. However, there are others who come into the House and just throw words around. The member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert said, “Madam Speaker, the carbon tax is a very good measure. However, it needs to be increased far more drastically than it has been so far.”

This means that, even though it costs a lot, he believes it is still not enough. His party wants to increase the tax even though it will cost even more. It does not matter if the price of carrots doubles. They do not care. They just want to increase the tax. This is the request from one Bloc Québécois member. We want to know whether the 31 other Bloc members and the leader of the Bloc Québécois agree with this request. Does the leader of the Bloc agree that we should increase a tax that is already too high and that should not exist in the first place? It is not clear, because we have never heard the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert's colleagues tell him to calm down or say that he is going too far, that he needs to stop and that people are already paying enough. No, they seem to think that what he is saying makes sense.

Let me clarify something that the Bloc members do not seem to understand. The motion also explains that the Bloc Québécois supported the creation of a second carbon tax, which does apply to Quebec. I am referring to the infamous clean fuel regulations.

We know that there was no vote on this. These regulations were put in place by the government, so there was no vote. However, in June, the Leader of the Opposition tabled a motion that specifically called for the cancellation of the carbon tax and the regulations. What did the Bloc Québécois do? It voted against the motion.

As a result, this regulation has been in force since July 1, so now there is a tax, applied through the regulations, that will make gas more expensive. The Parliamentary Budget Officer demonstrated this in a report that I am not allowed to show to the House, but I have it here. In his report, the Parliamentary Budget Officer demonstrates that Quebeckers, yes, Quebeckers, will be taxed directly under these regulations.

The Bloc Québécois will say that it is not a tax, it is regulations, but that is just semantics. When people pay, when they take out their credit card to pay for gas, it is a tax. For us, it is a tax. For the public, it is a tax. No matter what it is called, the fact remains that when regulations are in effect and make people pay, it is a tax.

Environment and Climate Change Canada has come up with estimates for all this. The Parliamentary Budget Officer's report states:

Relative to household disposable income, PBO results show that the Clean Fuel Regulations are broadly regressive. That is, the cost to lower income households represents a larger share of their disposable income compared to higher income households.

Environment and Climate Change Canada even estimates that the clean fuel regulations will increase the price of gasoline and diesel in 2030, the year in which the regulations reach full stringency, and will reduce Canada's real GDP by up to 0.3%, or $9 billion, in 2030.

While the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois always claim that they listen to the experts, they obviously have selective hearing because some experts are pointing out problems. Most importantly, they are not listening to Canadians, or to Quebeckers in the Bloc Québécois's case. If anyone is wondering why people are starting to ask questions, I just gave the answer.

Sometimes, the Bloc Québécois can do good things. In its election platform, there is one good thing. The first point is obviously not so good because it is about achieving independence. That will not be achieved here, but in Quebec City. I invite the Bloc members to run for provincial office so they can try to achieve independence there.

Anyway, back to Ottawa. The Bloc Québécois states in its platform that it must be able to change. That is written in black and white. For the past two weeks, their new messaging has been that they are responsible people, that they are the adults in the House, even though they are yelling behind me. They say they can change.

I must admit that they showed they could change. To counter the effects of the legislation created by Bill C-5, which allows criminals to serve their sentences at home, I introduced Bill C-325. The Bloc Québécois said they would support me because a mistake had indeed been made. The Bloc admitted that it was a problem. Everybody makes mistakes, and the Bloc members acknowledged that they were wrong.

Today, we are asking them to do the same for these taxes, which have a direct impact on the economy for Canadians and Quebeckers. We are asking the Bloc to support the Conservative Party and acknowledge that the government may have gone too far. Enough with all these taxes. They are not having the desired results. We can clearly see that some results are not coming through at all in the fight against climate change. There are other solutions, other approaches.

I would invite the Bloc members to listen to the speech that the Conservative leader gave in Quebec City. He clearly listed our strategies with respect to the environment. There are ways to help the environment, but taxing and suffocating people is not the solution.

I therefore ask that the Bloc Québécois support our motion and convince the Liberals to do likewise. We would also like them to convince the NDP, but that is another matter. The most important thing is to convince the Liberals to change tack and adopt our motion.

Criminal Code

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

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

One thing my colleague has highlighted is the vast nature of the problem we are dealing with when it comes to crime. Whether it be Bill C-5 or Bill C-75 in the former Parliament, the Liberals have really made a mess of the situation. When I think of Bill C-5 and other ways the Liberals have dropped the ball here, I am thinking about sex offenders who are able to serve their sentences on house arrest and serious firearms offenders who, again, can get house arrest. I wonder if my hon. colleague can tell us where he thinks we should go next, especially when we think about how much work there is to be done.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, aspects of the bill need to be studied to ensure they are effective. Anything regarding violence against women should be paid special attention. As I have said, since the Liberals formed government eight years ago, sexual assault is up 71%.

I would kindly remind the Bloc Québécois that it supported Bill C-5, which passed in the fall under the former justice minister. It removed mandatory prison time for a number of dangerous gun offences. It also facilitated more house arrest for rapists.

In Quebec alone, there have been five cases where convicted rapists have not served one day in prison. Instead, they are serving house arrest. They get to be in the comfort of their homes after violating women in the most horrific way. The Bloc Québécois supported that.

The Quebec national assembly has called on the House to review that and undo the harm. We are the only party that did not support Bill C-5. Does the Bloc Québécois regret its decision to support it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her continued collaboration. I think she knows, after my last eight years in this place, that advancing equality and curing systemic overrepresentation have been a hallmark of all of the work I have always tried to do. This bill would not impugn that objective. This bill is targeted. It has been called for by indigenous communities and Black communities around the country. Those communities need to be safe from violence exactly the same as everyone else, and the work that we continue to do to cure overrepresentation is represented by Bill C-5, by the impact of race and cultural assessments, by dealing with anti-hate strategies and by the work we will continue to do on curing online harm.

Justice and Human Rights

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege and honour to speak in the chamber, but, more importantly, to lend a voice to the fine residents of Brantford—Brant. On a topic such as this, with next to no notice, it is even more important that I lend an appropriate voice.

I come at debates on criminal justice issues and victim issues from a place of significant experience. I know that several members have heard me explain my background, but for those who have not, it is important to remark that, prior to being elected in September 2021, I enjoyed a 30-year legal career. In those 30 years, I saw both sides of the equation. I defended the worst of the worst for 12 years. I defended individuals charged with shoplifting, mischief, paintball, tagging and spray-painting offences, all the way up to and including murder.

I decided, after reflecting on my 12-year defence career, that it did not give me a sense of satisfaction, because, ultimately, when I cross-examined victims of crime from all walks of life, from young children all the way to senior citizens, it was heartbreaking to see how our criminal justice system works. It is extremely adversarial. Defence counsel have a job to do, and that job is to ensure that there is a fair trial, but, reflecting on the fairness of trials, sometimes one has to sacrifice one's personal beliefs and morals.

After 12 years, I was at the point when I was about to get married and wanted to start a family, and I asked myself what type of husband and father I wanted to be. I was taking steps to ensure serious violent offenders were escaping justice and responsibility. Although it is ultimately the task of a defence lawyer not only to ensure not fairness but also, hopefully, win the case, it certainly creates havoc with respect to the victim's sense of what type of system we have. My colleague, the member for Fundy Royal, could not have said it better: in our role as a parliamentarians, the theme we hear over and over again is that this is definitely not a justice system but merely a legal system.

When I joined the Crown's office in 2004, every single day that I was a public servant for the Province of Ontario left me with a gratifying feeling. Not only was I contributing to the fairness aspect of our legal system, our justice system, by holding offenders accountable, but also I was, in my small way, giving victims the voice they felt they had lost in being victimized, not being believed by police services, not being believed by legal professionals, or not being believed by judges. I took it as my personal mantra to dispel as many myths as possible when prosecuting, as I said, shoplifting, which has a societal impact, all the way to multiple murders. I have seen it all in my 18 years of Crown experience. I was left with a goal to ensure that, in my small way, I left victims whole again.

While offenders who do get punished usually end up in jail, depending on the nature of the crime, they will serve their sentence and move on with their lives. The same cannot be said for victims of crime. Some victims of crime live with the trauma of this experience for the rest of their natural lives. It was important for me as Crown counsel for the Province of Ontario to equip those victims who went through this horrific process and to give them the tools to put together their lives after this crime.

It begs the question of why I chose to leave a very rewarding, satisfying career as a Crown attorney to enter these halls. The answer is simple. I was sick and tired of seeing the escalation of crime from coast to coast to coast, but particularly in my small riding of Brantford—Brant.

I was born and raised in my riding. I remember growing up, all through high school, my university days, my law school days and ultimately my career as a lawyer and Crown attorney, it was a safe place to live and to raise a family. Literally, in the last 10 years of my practice as a Crown attorney, I was seeing a gradual increase in the prevalence of crime, but more so a prevalence of serious violent crime.

Early on in my Crown days it would be common not to prosecute a homicide for several years. Fast-forward to 2020 and 2021, when I ultimately took a leave of absence to pursue politics, and we had 12 homicides on the books, with a small office of six Crown attorneys. It was overwhelming.

It was not just the homicides. We had shootings, drug trafficking, fentanyl and all kinds of the nasty criminal activity this House speaks about literally on a daily basis and that we read about online or in the papers. That is what was happening. I felt my effective voice as a Crown attorney could only go so far. I wanted to be an instrument of change. I wanted to correct the wrongs with respect to our legal system.

I must say it was completely frustrating for me to arrive in this House and hear the government touting how serious it is about our justice system, about holding offenders accountable and about victims' rights. Everything it does ultimately is the complete opposite.

As my colleague has already indicated, Bill C-5 is a disaster. It is still a disaster, taking the most significant, serious, violent offences and opening up the possibility they can serve it in the comfort of their own homes. I am going to go further on conditional sentences, or house arrest. These individuals are entitled to work, spend some time in the community and go shopping.

That is not holding an offender accountable, so it brings me full circle as to why we are here. We are here because the Minister of Public Safety has lost the trust of Canadians and of this House, and on that basis, I am asking that the motion be amended.

I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

the Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented on Monday, April 17, 2023, be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights with instruction that it amend the same so as to recommend that the Minister of Public Safety immediately resign given his total lack of consideration for victims of crime in his mishandling of the transfer to more cozy arrangements of one of the worst serial killers in Canadian history, that this unacceptable move has shocked the public and created new trauma for the families of the victims and that the Minister of Public Safety's office knew about this for three months prior to Paul Bernardo's transfer and instead of halting it, the information was hidden from the families.

Sitting Resumed

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak this evening—although I must say the hour is late, almost 9 p.m.—to join the debate on Bill C-47.

Before I start, I would like to take a few minutes to voice my heartfelt support for residents of the north shore and Abitibi who have been fighting severe forest fires for several days now. This is a disastrous situation.

I know that the member for Manicouagan and the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou are on site. They are there for their constituents and represent them well. They have been visiting emergency shelters and showing their solidarity by being actively involved with their constituents and the authorities. The teamwork has been outstanding. Our hearts go out to the people of the north shore and Abitibi.

Tonight, my colleague from Abitibi-Témiscamingue will rise to speak during the emergency debate on forest fires. He will then travel back home to be with his constituents as well, so he can offer them his full support and be there for them in these difficult times.

Of course, I also offer my condolences to the family grieving the loss of loved ones who drowned during a fishing accident in Portneuf-sur-Mer. This is yet another tragedy for north shore residents. My heart goes out to the family, the children's parents and those who perished.

Before talking specifically about Bill C-47, I would like to say how impressive the House's work record is. A small headline in the newspapers caught my eye last week. It said that the opposition was toxic and that nothing was getting done in the House. I found that amusing, because I was thinking that we have been working very hard and many government bills have been passed. I think it is worth listing them very quickly to demonstrate that, when it comes right down to it, if parliamentarians work together and respect all the legislative stages, they succeed in getting important bills passed.

I am only going to mention the government's bills. Since the 44th Parliament began, the two Houses have passed bills C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-8 and C-10, as well as Bill C-11, the online streaming bill. My colleague from Drummond's work on this bill earned the government's praise. We worked hard to pass this bill, which is so important to Quebec and to our broadcasting artists and technicians.

We also passed bills C-12, C-14, C-15, C-16, C-19, C-24, C-25, C-28, C-30, C-31, C-32, C-36 and C-39, which is the important act on medical assistance in dying, and bills C-43, C-44 and C-46.

We are currently awaiting royal assent for Bill C-9. Bill C-22 will soon return to the House as well. This is an important bill on the disability benefit.

We are also examining Bill C-13, currently in the Senate and soon expected to return to the House. Bill C-18, on which my colleague from Drummond worked exceedingly hard, is also in the Senate. Lastly, I would mention bills C-21, C-29 and C-45.

I do not know whether my colleagues agree with me, but I think that Parliament has been busy and that the government has gotten many of its bills passed by the House of Commons. Before the Liberals say that the opposition is toxic, they should remember that many of those bills were passed by the majority of members in the House.

I wanted to point that out because I was rather insulted to be told that my behaviour, as a member of the opposition, was toxic and was preventing the work of the House from moving forward. In my opinion, that is completely false. We have the government's record when it comes to getting its bills passed. The government is doing quite well in that regard.

We have now come to Bill C-47. We began this huge debate on the budget implementation bill this morning and will continue to debate it until Wednesday. It is a very large, very long bill that sets out a lot of budgetary measures that will be implemented after the bill is passed.

I have no doubt that, by the end of the sitting on June 23, the House will pass Bill C-47 in time for the summer break.

What could this bill have included that is not in there? For three years, the Bloc Québécois and several other members in the House have been saying that there is nothing for seniors. I was saying earlier to my assistant that, in my riding of Salaberry—Suroît, we speak at every meeting about the decline in seniors' purchasing power. I am constantly being approached by seniors who tell me—

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by recognizing the hard work done by the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles on this bill and on the issue of public safety.

Our justice system is broken. The catch-and-release policies that the Liberal Party introduced in Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 have led to a 32% spike in violent crime across the country.

As the Conservative Party's shadow minister for public safety, I meet with public safety workers from all across the country. What am I hearing from police officers? They tell me we need to increase funding. However, what they really need is to stop arresting the same repeat offenders and violent offenders every weekend. Sometimes the police are on a first-name basis with these individuals because they have arrested them so many times. Sometimes they arrest them again the very next day. These repeat offenders get back out on the streets and go right back to terrorizing innocent Canadians by committing violent crimes.

We are seeing this in Vancouver. Last year, 40 individuals were responsible for 6,000 violent crimes. It is easy to imagine how much better police officers could do if those 40 individuals could be kept behind bars. How many networks of drug traffickers, gun smugglers, human traffickers and other complex criminal networks could be dismantled if police were not forced to deal with the 40 people responsible for 6,000 incidents who are spreading fear among Vancouverites?

It is the same thing in all the towns that I have heard about. Police officers are exhausted and are suffering serious PTSD because they are overworked. No amount of money can solve this problem. The only solution is a government that focuses on fighting crime, on jail, not bail, for violent repeat offenders, and on improving the parole system to keep dangerous criminals behind bars.

Measures like those would definitely help the police fight violent crime and would really bolster the fight against gun violence. That is what the Toronto Police Service and the premiers of every province and territory are saying. They all agree. They have written to the Prime Minister many times calling for bail reform. These kinds of measures would really have an impact on reducing gun violence.

Instead, the Liberal government is spending an estimated $6 billion on its so-called firearms buyback program, which is really a confiscation program. That is where the Liberals are sending resources. That is their priority. A Conservative government led by the member for Carleton would get Canadians results, clean up our streets and reduce gun violence. That is our commitment to Canadians.

We need a complete overhaul of the Liberal system, which has caused violent crime to skyrocket across the country and has led to innocent Canadians being killed by repeat violent offenders. The member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles introduced Bill C-325 a few weeks ago. This bill would fix the major flaws in Bill C-5, which allows repeat violent offenders to serve their sentences at home, and would keep Canadians safe in their communities.

The bill makes three important changes to our justice system. The first has to do with parole. Some inmates are charged with serious and violent crimes, including drug trafficking or worse, yet they are granted parole and face no consequences if they breach their release conditions. The police may catch an offender breaching their conditions, but all they can do is submit a report to the parole officer. This bill amends the law to introduce consequences for non-compliance with release conditions.

As far as parole officers are concerned, the bill requires them to notify the authorities when one of their parolees breaches their conditions. If that happens, the parole officer must inform the police so that an arrest can be made. These are violent offenders. This seems like a common-sense policy to us. However, the reality is that it is not currently mandatory to report repeat violent offenders who breach their conditions.

Finally, this bill fixes the “Netflix sentences” created by Bill C‑5. The third component of the bill seeks to correct the problem created by Bill C‑5, that of allowing violent criminals to serve their sentences in the community by sitting at home watching Netflix. Bill C-325 would strengthen the parole system by creating a new offence for breaching conditions. It would require parole officers to report breaches of conditions and would reinstate the old version of section 742.1 of the Criminal Code, which was repealed by the Liberals' Bill C-5.

That bill made it possible for criminals convicted of aggravated sexual assault to serve their sentence in the community. That is very serious. I hope that this monumental error will be fixed and that the Bloc Québécois and NDP members will support Bill C‑325. Those violent criminals should not get to serve their sentences at home while watching Netflix. They should be behind bars. I remind members that because of Bill C‑5, a 42-year-old man managed to avoid prison after committing a violent sexual assault.

Even a Quebec Crown prosecutor criticized the government for Bill C‑5. He said that, right now, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice probably owe victims of sexual assault an explanation, and that he could not remain silent about this regressive situation.

It is clear that we cannot trust the Liberals to protect women and children from violent repeat offenders. With the support of the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, the Liberals are putting Canadians at increasing risk of becoming victims of violent crimes.

Only a Conservative government led by the member for Carleton will make legislative changes to improve public safety with bills such as Bill C‑325, proposed by the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I will first acknowledge that I rise on Algonquin Anishinabe territory on the first day of National Indigenous History Month.

I hope that during this month, especially, we all make an extra effort to learn more about indigenous history in Canada. Indigenous history needs to be more visible. As an Inuk from Nunavut, I have observed how hidden Canada's treatment toward Métis, Inuit and first nations is for mainstream Canadians. This has resulted in a lot of ignorance and racism against indigenous peoples. We, as indigenous peoples, generally continue to live on the fringes of Canada's society, and we must take opportunities like this month to move progress on the well-being of Inuit, Métis and first nations.

There are many contributing factors to keeping indigenous peoples on the fringes of society, including the criminal justice system; decades of genocidal policies implemented by the federal, provincial and territorial governments; and the lack of trauma-informed services provided by all governments.

Bill C-325, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, regarding conditions of release and conditional sentences, is problematic for many reasons. As such, the NDP will not support the passing of this bill. From what I have learned, this bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code in three main areas: conditional release, reporting, and sentences served in the community, which emerged out of Bill C-5. I will speak to each of these areas.

For conditional release, unfortunately this bill would not improve or supplement improvements to the current system of conditional releases. According to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, all offenders must be considered for some form of conditional release during their sentence. This is their right. Further, it is inaccurate. This assertion is false, as even with the reform of Bill C-5, judges are not allowed to sentence those who present a risk to the public to serving their sentences in the community. Judges are not allowed to grant bail to those who present a risk to public safety.

I take this opportunity to inform Canadians that conditional release does not mean the sentence is shortened. It means the remainder of the sentence may be served in the community under supervision and with specific conditions. I will be clear: When there is an early release, there are conditions that must be met, including reporting to parole officers, especially when there are compliance issues. This addresses the second element of Bill C-325.

The third element of this bill, which I find is the most problematic, is regarding prohibiting conditional releases in communities. Proposals to amend section 145(5) and the failure to comply for a conviction in relation to offences set out in Schedule I and Schedule II of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act are punitive and overreaching. Bill C-325 would make all parole violations a new criminal offence and would require parole officers to report all parole violations, no matter how minor, to the police and the parole board. This would result only in early termination of parole and in offenders being released at the end of their sentence, without the supervision they would have received if on parole.

Dr. Ivan Zinger, a correctional investigator, reported in 2020 that while indigenous people make up 4.9% of the total population, they make up just over 30% of the people in Canada's prisons. This percentage has increased over the last five years as rates of overincarceration are decreasing. Dr. Zinger further said that indigenous women, racialized women and women who live in poverty are incarcerated at even higher rates than their male counterparts. He reported that indigenous women make up 42% of the population in women’s prisons. This is the fastest-growing prison population in Canada as it has increased by over 60% in the last 10 years.

Bill C-325 would not improve conditions for marginalized Canadians, it would only further marginalize them. If this bill were truly about justice, there would be proposals that addressed systemic changes that are in dire need. We need to make sure the system can focus effectively on those who present the greatest threats to public safety, and stop the over-detention and overincarceration of indigenous, racialized and marginalized Canadians.

New Democrats are committed to meaningful reforms to the bail system. Unlike the Conservatives who pander to partisan fundraising dollars, New Democrats are interested in using Parliamentary time and resources in getting meaningful results for Canadians for a more just and equal, as well as a safer, society.

Indigenous rehabilitation must be culturally sensitive and trauma-informed and further support integration into communities. Other members have reminded all of us that there are truth and reconciliation calls to justice, specifically numbers 30 and 32. These calls to action must finally be implemented.

Other examples that exist include the Tupiq program, which I hope is implemented in Nunavut as it is currently a federal program serving federal inmates outside of Nunavut. Tupiq could help to reduce recidivism and it is a way for Nunavummiut to re-enter their communities.

I thank Kosta H. Barka, and the article called “Attending to the Needs of Inuit Inmates in Canada: Exploring the Perceptions of Correctional Officers and Nunavut Officials” for this important information.

In conclusion, the Conservative rhetoric on their “tough on crime” approach does not protect victims. Bill C-325 would not ensure justice for victims. As such, I repeat that New Democrats would not support the passage of this bill.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are debating a really important issue, where every detail counts. I am not really on the same page as my colleague.

Earlier this week, I went and congratulated the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for introducing this bill, which I think is important. It was important to address some of the gaps in Bill C‑5, which was deeply flawed. It dealt with two completely different subjects. I will come back to that.

The Bloc Québécois proposed splitting Bill C‑5 in two so that we could address those two things separately. However, that did not happen. Today, we are in a situation where we need to clean up the mess.

As I was saying, I went and congratulated my colleague. I think that is proof that the Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois can work together on public safety measures. That is what is happening here in any case.

Bill C‑325 is a very short, rather simple and fairly effective bill. As I was saying, it addresses some of the gaps in Bill C‑5. However, in this debate, some may have heard Conservatives say that Bill C‑5 was passed with the support of the Bloc Québécois. I think we need to put things into perspective here and remember the context.

First, let us recall that the purpose of Bill C‑5 was, one, to repeal certain minimum sentences and allow greater use of conditional sentences, and, two, to provide for diversion measures for simple drug possession offences. Those are, as I have said, two completely different things. We proposed splitting it, but that did not happen.

We found ourselves in a slightly awkward situation because, on the one hand, we were very reluctant to support the idea of wiping out certain mandatory minimum sentences, particularly for crimes committed with firearms. Let us not forget that, not that long ago, we were working hard on a bill to improve gun control. It feels a bit contradictory. On the other hand, we were in favour of diversion measures for simple drug possession offences.

We figured that we would amend the bill in committee, and it was my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord who proposed amendments that would have made it possible to keep the minimum sentences while giving judges the discretion to override them. In all of this, we must not forget the judges and their discretionary power. I think that, all things considered, it was a reasonable proposal. Again, it was rejected.

It was at that point that my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord promised that he himself would introduce a bill to correct the situation. I absolutely agree with the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, and I think we all agree that for certain crimes, conditional sentences should not be allowed. They should be prohibited in most cases of sexual assault, for example, as well as for crimes committed with firearms.

We know how the lottery works for private members' bills. My colleague was lucky enough to introduce his bill before the Bloc Québécois. Now, if both had been introduced at the same time, or if they had been debated in the House at the same time, we would have seen that they are extremely similar bills, with perhaps one exception.

One singularly important concept in justice, which my Conservative colleagues often tend to forget and which I mentioned earlier, is judicial discretion. At this point, let us remember that even Bill C‑5 allows judges the power to acquit a person, to hand down a sentence to be served in the community or to hand down a sentence to be served in prison. It is not true that the passage of Bill C‑5 means any offender will be able to serve their sentence in the comfort of their living room. That is not true. Judges have the option of a conditional sentence, but if they decide that the person should go to prison, they will sentence the person to prison.

Let us not forget this extremely important element and remember that conditional sentences are not automatic. Among other things, the judge must consider the risk of reoffending and the impact that a sentence served at home would have before rendering a decision. Let us also remember that there are other factors to consider in a trial. The Crown prosecutor can make a deal with the defence for a sentence in the community if they feel the circumstances warrant it. Let us remember that every case is different.

The bill that my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord intends to introduce will mention this particular judicial authority. His initiative arose from the motion unanimously adopted by Quebec's National Assembly in February to condemn the controversial legal provisions arising from Bill C‑5. The text adopted by the National Assembly, which was moved by the justice minister, Simon Jolin-Barrette, accused Ottawa of setting back the fight against sexual violence. I completely agree with the National Assembly's motion.

There has been a lot of criticism of Bill C‑5 since its adoption because men convicted of sexual assault unfortunately take advantage of it, in a rather dishonest way, to try to serve house arrest. If I had the time, I would come back to some cases that were widely reported and that I imagine my colleague relied on to introduce this bill.

Bill C‑325 has three clauses. It is a rather short bill, as I mentioned. First, it seeks to create a new offence for breach of parole conditions for certain serious offences, with a maximum sentence of two years or at least make it an offence punishable on summary conviction. Second, it would require those breaches to be reported to the appropriate authorities. Third, it would amend the Criminal Code to preclude persons convicted of certain offences from serving their sentence in the community.

I will come back to the first point. We are talking about adding a criminal offence for breach parole of conditions for offences listed take in Schedule I and Schedule II of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. I asked my colleague a question about this earlier.

I have Schedule I in front of me. As I was saying earlier to my colleague, there are offences that may be a little less serious. I do not want to create a hierarchy of offences, but there are some rather serious offences. Examples include commission of offence for terrorist group, using firearm in commission of offence, robbery, prison breach, sexual interference, child pornography, bestiality, incest, and attempt to commit murder. There are others, such as discharging firearm with intent, criminal harassment, aggravated assault, sexual assault with a weapon, hostage taking, procuring and so on. We can see that it is a long list of rather serious offences.

My colleague also referred to Schedule II, which lists mainly drug-related offences. It refers to trafficking, importing, exporting, cultivation, trafficking in controlled drugs, trafficking in restricted drugs, and distribution and possession for the purpose of distributing. This list is not quite as long, but it specifically lists drug-related offences.

The intent behind all this is to tighten the law in cases of breach of conditions or statutory release. Statutory release is almost automatic when an offender has served two-thirds of their sentence. Quite honestly, I agree with the concept, but perhaps less so for Schedule II offences.

As I asked my colleague earlier, would it not be useful to look at Schedule I and Schedule II and see whether any offences could be added or removed? We could certainly add some if necessary. I want to come back to Schedule II because, as I was saying, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of diversion for simple drug possession, so it would be a bit inconsistent on our part to include Schedule II in that.

I am reading a rather interesting book right now on drug use and the famous war on drugs waged by governments. A rather well-known scientist in the United States explained that perhaps we took the wrong approach from the very start. Even though we are investing more and more public funds in this war, drugs are still available, if not more so. Taking the example of the United States, he said the following:

Today, the American taxpayer spends approximately $35 billion each year fighting this war. Yet the drugs in question remain as plentiful, if not more so, than they were in 1981, when the sum total of America’s annual drug-control budget was a mere $1.5 billion. What has changed is that now, each year, tens of thousands of Americans die from drug-related overdoses.

Anyway, it is quite an interesting book. I know this is an emotional issue, particularly for my Conservative colleagues. To sum up, if I could make one suggestion about Bill C‑325 at this point, it might be to see which specific offences are being targeted in clause 1.

I know my colleague thought about the case of Eustachio Gallese. That was one of the first cases I studied when I joined the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in 2020. Mr. Gallese killed a 23-year-old woman while on day parole for the 2004 murder of his wife. He clearly violated his parole conditions by visiting massage parlours for sexual purposes, which was illegal. He also dated women without notifying his parole officer, which was also prohibited.

The Parole Board of Canada acted too late. It revoked Gallese's day parole after the woman had died, when he was already in prison and serving a life sentence.

I see that my time is up. I will come back to this at another time.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, as my colleague could see from the description I gave of the support that Bill C‑325 has received, it is pretty unanimous.

However, there is a distinction to be made. I think we often confuse things when we talk about bail. I know that the government is in the process of making changes to the law with Bill C‑75. For my part, I am adapting what was problematic with Bill C‑5. I am also introducing something new that does not exist anywhere else in the Criminal Code, namely making it an offence to fail to comply with release conditions. That is parole, which is different from bail. Bill C‑325 is not at all similar to what the government is currently proposing.