Madam Speaker, it is important that we actually make space for all parties to be heard and to have a conversation.
It is essential that we take action to ensure that people who are violent, who commit serious crimes, who are dangerous and who pose a risk to public safety do not continue to find themselves released into our communities if they pose a public safety threat to Canadians. This is going to take changes to our criminal law in both bail and sentencing.
I remember, as a kid, the last time we saw the Blue Jays in the World Series. My pals and I would ride bikes and play ball hockey in our community until we lost daylight. We never feared for our safety, and neither did our parents. Sadly, today, a lot of people do not enjoy that same level of comfort, the peace and security we enjoyed. We see, too often, people installing cameras on their doorbells. Instead of simply seeing deliveries arrive at their home, they are actually seeing people break into their neighbour's homes and cars being stolen from their driveways. We do not have to accept this as a reality, not in Canada, certainly.
Crime is a real concern throughout the country. Canadians are frustrated to see repeat violent offenders being released from prison. They are concerned about their safety. We see it every day: Car thefts and break-ins in the middle of the night are being caught on camera.
People simply want to know that the system puts their safety first.
What I have some faith in is that the lessons we have learned that have been embedded in the bill were not developed behind closed doors on Parliament Hill. They have benefited from extraordinary collaboration with provincial governments in different parts of the country and of different partisan persuasions. They have benefited from the advice of law enforcement, the people who actually work within the system. They have benefited from the advice of municipalities, which see the impacts of crime first-hand; of community organizations that promote the rights of victims; and of business associations that wanted to share their frustration with the level of crime and its impact on local economies.
We must not develop these measures behind closed doors. They must come from working together with the provinces and territories, cities, community organizations, business associations and, of course, the police.
The bill really focuses on two key areas. The first is bail. The second is sentencing.
Let us spend a moment looking at some of the changes we are proposing to bail. The bill includes more than 80 specific measures, sweeping reforms that are designed to help keep communities safe. In the limited time I have, I am going to focus on a few key portions.
The first, when it comes to the system of bail, is on the issue of the principle of restraint. This is not a principle that was created by any particular government; it is a principle that was advanced and confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. After the principle was embedded into Canadian law through a previous piece of legislation in a previous Parliament, I have been hearing stories, from when I engage with law enforcement, about its misapplication in certain circumstances.
For that reason, we are going to move forward with significant changes to the Criminal Code that would clarify precisely that the principle of restraint is not a “get out of jail free” card. In fact we are going to be, more specifically, clarifying that the court must be satisfied that it has the ability to protect public safety, before deciding to release someone into the community. If it does not have the ability to manage the public safety imperative, it will have grounds to detain that person. If a person is to be released, the court must be satisfied that it can place conditions on their release that will protect public safety.
Release on bail is not a free pass. The principle of restraint must be applied with judgment. Our new bill makes it clear that public safety must always come first.
If public safety is at risk, then the courts will have the tools to order detention.
In addition to the significant change to the principle of restraint, we are advancing new factors for the courts to consider, to ensure that when hearing a bail application, they consider the seriousness of the charges that a person will face, in order to determine whether it would undermine public confidence in the justice system should that person be released.
We are also taking another step, which is a direct response to the feedback we have heard from provinces, municipalities and the business community. There are certain individuals, though they represent a small minority of the population in a given community, who represent a significant majority of the criminal activity that may take place in a given community.
In order to respond to this pressing need, in addition to considering the seriousness of the charges a person may be facing, we will be looking to have the court consider the number of outstanding charges, and where the number of charges a person is facing would cause public confidence in the administration of justice to be jeopardized, we would use that to give the court grounds to detain a person in order to prevent that outcome.
We also want to respond to the feedback we have heard specifically about acts of random violence that take place in our communities that cause people not to feel safe when they experience life in different parts of this country.
In addition to the changes to the principle of restraint, the new factors we wish to have the court consider, we also going forward with changes to reverse onus within the Criminal Code. Before I describe the specific offences, I will say that the reverse onus regime would change the way bail applications would be heard for certain offences where we believe there is a risk to the Canadian public.
Normally at a bail hearing, the Crown bears the obligation to demonstrate why a person ought to be detained, often on the basis of their risk to public safety. A reverse onus changes that analysis and requires the person who has been accused of a crime to demonstrate why they should be released on bail. We would shift this analysis for several key offences, including violent home invasion, auto theft, human trafficking and human smuggling, violent extortion, assault and sexual assault where there is choking or strangulation involved.
We would also be responding to very real circumstances that have led to tragedies in this country involving people who have been released after they have been convicted of a crime but before they have been sentenced. With these changes, we not only expect to promote public safety in our communities. One of the common threads that binds these unique offences together is that they often are conducted by criminal organizations. By making it harder for people to be released on bail when they have been charged with these crimes, we can both promote public safety and potentially cut revenue streams from criminal organizations, which would further enhance the safety of the Canadian public.
The second theme in the bill, beyond the changes to the bail regime that would make it harder for violent repeat offenders to be released into our communities, is that we would be making serious changes to the sentencing regime that exists within the Criminal Code.
There are a number of different changes that I am happy to walk everyone through now. The first would be adding aggravating factors to the Criminal Code, which would lead to harsher penalties when certain kinds of crimes are committed and a person has been convicted. These aggravating factors would certainly apply to violent repeat crimes, no matter where they take place in Canada, but we have also decided to add aggravating factors for certain offences where the harm is felt not simply by the individual victim but also reverberates more broadly throughout the community.
In particular I want to draw attention to some of the changes that we are making, including adding an aggravating factor when a crime is committed against a first responder in the line of duty who is seeking to keep our communities safe. When people put their life on the line to help protect our communities, the very least we can offer is protection for the people who protect us. We need to ensure that the people who are putting out fires, stopping heart attacks and defending our communities against criminal activity are not themselves subjected to assaults in the street.
It is not reasonable to ask people in the line of duty to defend themselves when they are trying to defend us, and it makes it difficult for them to recruit more members into the profession when people face these inherent dangers of the job. The stiffer penalties would serve not only as protection in the moment but also as a deterrent for would-be criminals who may be thinking of committing crimes against first responders.
In addition, we would be adding aggravating factors for crimes that impact our essential infrastructure, the systems that deliver power to our communities, or our telecommunications networks. Oftentimes, people who steal copper wire are charged with a fairly small offence, theft under $5,000, but the damages that result from those crimes can cost millions and in fact create very serious challenges in our communities, whether it is power outages or communications systems' going down.
We would also be adding aggravating factors when it comes to organized retail crime, people who are stealing in a systematic way from businesses, often small businesses, in our communities, in order to promote profiteering for themselves and potentially for criminal organizations. People who commit crimes against the people who protect us, the systems that power us or the businesses that serve us should expect harsher sentences as a result of these proposed changes to Canada's criminal laws.
In addition, we would be adding certain changes to the consecutive sentencing regime in this country. For people who may not be familiar with the way things normally operate, I will say that sometimes someone can be sentenced to different crimes that carry different sentences. Oftentimes, depending on the circumstances, courts may decide to allow a person to serve multiple sentences concurrently, not necessarily capturing the severity of the penalties associated with particular offences in the Criminal Code.
The change we are proposing would empower the courts to impose consecutive sentencing for repeat violent offenders and for people who commit home invasions and auto theft. We believe that if someone is convicted of two crimes, one that carries a sentence of four years and another that carries a sentence of two years, they should serve both sentences, for a total of six years. The changes we would be making have the opportunity to bring that vision into a reality.
In addition to these changes to aggravating factors and consecutive sentencing, we would also direct the court, when it comes to violent home invasion and auto theft in particular, to make denunciation and deterrence primary considerations. It is important that we not only ensure that there are consequences for the actions of individuals but that we also send a signal, to others in the future who may be thinking about committing crimes, that this behaviour will not be tolerated.
When it comes to the changes to our sentencing laws, we would also be imposing restrictions on the ability of the court in certain circumstances to impose what are known as conditional sentencing orders. These changes would restrict access to house arrest for people who commit serious sexual assault or sexual crimes against children. When I speak to survivors of sexual assault, the prospect that the perpetrator of such horrific violence could serve their sentence at home in the same community where their victim lives does not feel like justice to the people who have been through such a horrific experience.
The restriction on house arrest for sexual assault and sexual crimes against kids would ensure that people who commit such violent and heinous crimes would actually spend time being incarcerated, to demonstrate there are in fact very serious consequences for their activities.
We would also be making changes to the remedies available for certain kinds of crimes. I want to draw the attention of members to one in particular. For people who are convicted of criminal negligence causing death involving a motor vehicle, we would restore the ability of courts to implement a prohibition on driving. If someone makes the decision to become intoxicated, to drive drunk, and they kill someone, we want to empower the courts to revoke their ability to get behind the wheel again. Driving in this country is a privilege.
The fact that people may cause such grievous harm to others and nevertheless be entitled to get behind the wheel is not something I am comfortable with. It is not something the government is comfortable with. Through this change, we would be able to save countless lives going forward and to ensure once again that there are serious consequences for serious crimes.
Sentences must reflect the seriousness of the crime. We are adding aggravating factors for those who assault first responders, participate in organized theft or threaten critical infrastructure. We are ending house arrest for serious crimes like sexual assault and crimes against children.
Finally, courts will once again be able to prohibit driving in cases of negligence causing death or serious bodily harm.
It is important we understand that the changes we would be making are part of the broader strategy I alluded to at the outset of my remarks. Certainly the first pillar of the strategy is to adopt stronger laws to promote safer communities.
This includes not only these important and sweeping reforms to the bail and sentencing regimes that exist inside the Criminal Code but also the act to combat hate that we tabled in Parliament earlier in the fall, as well as legislation I will be tabling before the House rises for the Christmas holidays. These would better protect Canadians against intimate partner violence and against sexual offences, to offer additional protections for children who are being exploited online, to ensure that victims have a significant role to play in the criminal trial process, and, importantly, to deal with delays in the justice system that are leading to sometimes serious charges' being thrown out of court.
In addition to these laws, though, we know we have to take a whole-of-society approach to addressing public safety. The second pillar of the strategy involves investing in the front line to ensure that the people who keep communities safe have the tools and resources they need to do their job. In the short term, this includes investments in the RCMP to add 1,000 new personnel. It includes resources to the Canada Border Services Agency to add 1,000 new officers at the border to help prevent illegal guns and drugs from coming into our country. It also includes additional resources for the Public Prosecution Service to ensure that we have the ability not only to investigate crime but also to prosecute crime on the back end.
It is important that we put these tools in place so law enforcement can do its job to prevent crime, but we know we need to do more if we are going to have long-term prevention and long-term reductions in crime, violent crime in particular. That is why the third pillar of our strategy involves upstream investments aimed at prevention. Specifically, they would include generational investments in affordable housing and supportive housing through the new Build Canada Homes entity to ensure that people have a roof over their head, can escape poverty and have access to supportive housing when they would otherwise potentially be at risk of recidivism or at risk of becoming a criminal in the first place.
This pillar also involves our continued support for mental health and addictions, which will certainly engage conversations with provincial governments. We know that we need to do more to help address mental health challenges in this country if we want to reduce crime overall.
We also intend to make the investments necessary to target at-risk youth to potentially turn them away from a life of crime before it begins. The best way to stop crime is not simply to punish it after it happens, but to stop it in the first place.
I am confident that if we back these three pillars with the resources necessary to deliver on the plan, we will see a reduction in crime and violent crime in this country.
This bill is part of a broader strategy to keep our communities safe. Yes, we need tougher laws, but we also need more support for first responders and more investments in prevention, mental health and housing, so that more can be done sooner.
In conclusion, we have a chance to promote a safer country. It is no coincidence that this bill has gained significant support from law enforcement, including the Canadian Police Association, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Association of Ontario, the Toronto Police Association and the New Glasgow Regional Police in my own community and others. It has attracted the support of provinces from different partisan affiliations, including the Conservatives in Ontario and Nova Scotia and the NDP in Manitoba and British Columbia. It has attracted the support of municipalities, including the Federation of Canadian Municipalities; local governments in places like Brampton, London and Winnipeg; and the Association of Manitoba Municipalities. The list goes on. Of course, there are organizations like the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Retail Council of Canada and the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime.
We can take violent repeat offenders more seriously. We can strengthen our laws, but I would much prefer to do it in a non-partisan way that attracts the support of all members of this House. Let us do the jobs we have been entrusted to do to help keep Canadians safe, and let us cast our vote in support of this important legislation.
