Bill C-9

Combatting Hate Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) repeal the requirement that the Attorney General consent to the institution of proceedings for hate propaganda offences;
(b) create an offence of wilfully promoting hatred against any identifiable group by displaying certain symbols in a public place;
(c) create a hate crime offence of committing an offence under that Act or any other Act of Parliament that is motivated by hatred based on certain factors;
(d) create an offence of intimidating a person in order to impede them from accessing certain places that are primarily used for religious worship or by an identifiable group for certain purposes; and
(e) create an offence of intentionally obstructing or interfering with a person’s lawful access to such places.

Military Justice System Modernization Act

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, something I took very much to heart from the hon. member's comments is the Liberal government's failure with regard to the justice system, specifically on bail and sentencing reform.

At the justice committee, we did a bit of math. We noticed that, in the last 557 days, the only two pieces of justice legislation the government brought forward have been the online harms act and Bill C-9. That is it. We have a crisis on the streets of Toronto. The government is not willing to get serious about the crime and chaos on our streets.

Canadian Heritage

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to rise in this House once again and ask the government a question that it has not been all that forthright in answering: What, precisely, are its plans when it comes to its long-standing desire to censor what Canadians see, say and do on the Internet?

Not that long ago in this House, I asked the Minister of Canadian Identity what he was planning to do. Actually, I asked him if he would cop to the fact that he was the minister tasked with online censorship, given that there seemed to be some doubt and some examples of Liberal ministers clamouring over precisely who got to take up that honour.

I need to give a bit of a history lesson for those who have not been following this. For the last two Parliaments, the Liberals have tried to bring in draconian online censorship bills. They tried it in the 43rd Parliament and failed; they tried it in the 44th Parliament and failed. Now, both the justice minister and the Minister of Canadian Identity have said that this still remains a very live priority.

When it comes to online censorship, the Liberals are saying, “If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.” What Canadians are saying is to take the loss and sit down. Canadians do not want the government to regulate online speech; they do not trust the government to do it.

We are already seeing with Bill C-9 that the Liberals reduced the threshold of what constitutes hate speech. We have seen them, in that bill, water down a definition that has been working in criminal law in Canada.

Bill C-63 in the most recent Parliament, the online harms act, went far beyond this. Bill C-63 would empower the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to prosecute Canadians for saying things that offended people online. The Liberals were bringing back a much maligned and, I am grateful to say, formerly repealed section of the Canadian Human Rights Act, section 13. That is what is at issue when we talk about so-called “online harms.”

I have no doubt that tonight the parliamentary secretary to the minister will talk about all the examples of why this is so necessary, but the reality is that condemnation of the Liberal government's online harms proposals has come from left and right. It has come from civil liberties groups on the left and right, and it has come from Canadian luminaries such as Margaret Atwood, who I do not believe would ever align herself with those of us on this side of the bench, because Canadian free speech advocates, Canadian artists, scholars and journalists all realize the importance of being able to speak one's mind without the government weaponizing a definition of hate to censor what Canadians do.

I bring this up now because when I asked the minister the first time around, he started talking about Google trying to give money to pacify the government when it comes to local journalism initiatives. The minister was mixing up the many online censorship bills the Liberal government has put forward. I realize there have been a lot of them; it is tough to keep on top of them. I was not asking him about Bill C-11, which forced the government to mandate YouTube algorithms and streaming. I was not talking about Bill C-18, which the government used to ultimately pull local news and all journalism off the Facebook and Instagram platforms in Canada. I was talking specifically about online harms, a term that the government uses to cloak what it is doing in something that may make someone who does not pay attention to these issues feel that it is a good thing. In reality, it has no other objective but to reduce what is acceptable and permissible in the bounds of debate and free society.

I am asking the government, once and for all, will it commit to taking its so-called online harms censorship bill out of the playbook and not censor what Canadians say and do online?

An Act Respecting Cyber Security

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has unfortunately been a theme with the current government. It is not just Bill C-8; it is also Bill C-9. It is also Bill C-5 in certain respects. With every problem the Liberals come across, they think the solution is to give themselves more power. They think that if they were to run the telecommunications system, it would be safer. They have been running the Post Office for the last 10 years. They have been running the passport office. I do not see any evidence that putting them in charge of things, like our telecommunications system, makes anyone any safer.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, for his excellent speech.

I am proud of our government, which has proven that it takes public safety seriously with Bill C‑2, the strong borders act, Bill C‑9, the combatting hate act, and our upcoming bail reform.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on why it is so important, in the current context, to have a strong legislative framework for cybersecurity.

Opposition Motion—Passage of Bill C-242

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we were clear during the campaign. We are going to take public safety seriously. Our actions speak for themselves. As soon as Parliament came back this fall, we introduced Bill C-2, the strong borders act. We also introduced Bill C-9 to combat hate crimes.

We will soon be introducing an ambitious bill to reform bail in Canada. We are reviewing this bill seriously and thoroughly to ensure that it complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Implementing hasty measures to amend the Criminal Code is not acting in the interest of public safety; it is merely a short-term publicity stunt. We are seeking to improve public safety in the long term. We owe it to Canadians to take this seriously.

I hope that my colleagues in the opposition will work with us when this bill is introduced and that we will work together to get it passed.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign, Canadians across the country asked us to take concrete measures to build a safer Canada. They elected a new Liberal government, and they had a clear and legitimate expectation: reform our bail system, improve public safety and ensure that our communities are safe.

Today, I am speaking to my House of Commons colleagues, but I am also speaking to Canadians, especially those in my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche, and I want to make one thing clear: Our government intends to deliver on this promise. We are determined to take serious, rigorous, responsible action to ensure that every citizen enjoys the safety they deserve.

These commitments are deeply rooted in our thoughtful, balanced and evidence-based public safety platform. Our Liberal platform states that we intend to: fight gun violence and organized crime by cracking down on smuggling at the border and by equipping police with modern investigative tools; strengthen the bail system to keep repeat violent offenders off the streets, while respecting the charter; support victims of crime by improving services and ensuring that the justice system hears their voices; invest in prevention and community safety, including mental health care, addictions treatment and youth programs that address the underlying causes of crime; and protect Canadians from emerging threats, like human trafficking, cybercrime and increasingly sophisticated organized crime networks.

These are not just promises, however. Concrete actions are already under way. Bill C‑2, the strong borders act, was introduced in the House in June. It will enable us to advance our new government's priorities: ensuring that Canadians are safe, strengthening our borders, combatting transnational organized crime and protecting the integrity of our immigration system. This bill builds on Canada's border plan, which has $1.3 billion in funding. This is the largest investment in border security in the history of this country. I invite my colleagues in the official opposition to work with us to ensure that this bill moves forward to committee stage. A party that claims to care about public safety should certainly want to strengthen security at our borders.

We also introduced Bill C‑9, which will help us fight hate crimes. This bill introduces a series of targeted reforms to the Criminal Code aimed at ensuring safe access to community spaces, denouncing hate crimes, clarifying the legal meaning of the term “hatred” and criminalizing the wilful incitement of hatred against an identifiable group by displaying certain symbols of terrorism or hatred in public. This bill is designed to protect the safety and dignity of Canadians, while preserving space for lawful protest and charter-protected freedom of expression.

Our government will also soon introduce ambitious and responsible legislation that will aim to strengthen Canada's bail system to make it harder for repeat violent offenders to get bail, increase penalties for the most serious repeat violent crimes, particularly those related to organized crime, break and enters, auto theft and human trafficking, and address court delays so that serious cases are dealt with quickly and victims are not retraumatized by court backlogs.

I would also like to highlight the collaborative approach that is key to our government's work. Over the summer, the Minister of Justice and his parliamentary secretary held a series of consultations across the country. They met with provincial and territorial partners, police chiefs, peace officer associations, defence lawyers and Crown prosecutors to hear their concerns, ideas and experiences on the ground. This collaborative approach reflects a core Liberal value.

We understand that the only way to strengthen the justice system is by working hand in hand with those on the front lines. These conversations will continue at the upcoming federal-provincial-territorial meeting of ministers of justice and public safety in October, where bail reform and community safety will be on the agenda.

We must all recognize that public safety is not just about repressive measures; it is also about prevention and support initiatives that address the root causes of crime.

That is why our government is investing in community programs, mental health services and addiction prevention. These efforts complement our legislative measures and strengthen the resilience of our communities. What is more, by collaborating closely with the provinces, territories and local stakeholders, we are ensuring that our measures are tailored to the specific realities of different parts of the country.

I would also like to note that, despite our willingness to take action, we must ensure that the proposed measures fully respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The motion put forward today by our colleagues in the official opposition does not appear to have benefited from this in-depth reflection. The approach set out in Bill C-242, introduced by the Conservative Party, raises serious constitutional concerns. It would be irresponsible to rush ahead with changes to the Criminal Code without properly reviewing them. I wonder if the bill, which is sponsored by the leader of the official opposition, actually underwent a rigorous legal analysis. Did my opposition colleagues truly take the time to verify whether this bill complies with the requirements of the charter? These are important questions.

Effective public safety requires more than just slogans. If this bill were to be struck down by the courts, it would only increase public frustration, waste time and resources, and, above all, disappoint Canadians.

The Harper government's track record reminds us that an ill-conceived reform can backfire on its own objectives. A number of Criminal Code amendments introduced by the former Conservative government were found to be unconstitutional. As a result, they did not improve public safety. On the contrary, they caused longer court delays and spread doubt and frustration in a certain segment of the public.

We will not make the same mistakes. We need to stay focused on evidence-based reforms and sustained investments in policing and prevention. The Liberal approach centres on a targeted, responsible approach to reform, consistent with the charter, that runs no risk of being immediately struck down by the courts, as seems possible for Conservative opposition's Bill C-242. We have a responsibility to build a robust, balanced and sustainable legislative framework that complies with our Constitution in every way. That is how we intend to keep Canadians safe, not only in the short term but also, and I want to emphasize this, in the long term.

Under our Liberal approach, community safety will also top our list of priorities without sacrificing fairness, basic rights or the effective administration of justice. We believe that we can and must do both: protect the public while respecting our constitutional obligations.

That is why Canadians elected us. They elected us to improve public safety, maintain confidence in the justice system and ensure that violent offenders face real, proportionate and fair consequences.

Today, I invite all parties to set partisan differences aside and work together to build a robust, compassionate and efficient justice system based on evidence and co-operation, not fear and confrontation. Canadians are watching us. They expect results, and they deserve a government that lives up to those expectations.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

Every Canadian deserves to be safe in their community and in their own neighbourhood. Whether it is walking home from work at night, taking their children to school, playing at the park or simply opening the doors of a small business, people should not have to worry about violence or repeat offenders undermining their security and safety. The truth is that Canadians are worried. Violent crime is a real issue. Repeat violent offenders are a serious problem. Our government acknowledges this, and we are taking action to address it.

However, the motion before us today suggests that the Conservative proposal is some sort of magical solution to these issues, a single piece of legislation the Conservatives have branded the jail not bail act, another three-word clickbait slogan. They claim that passing this one bill will make Canadians safe. I have heard today and in the past a really unfortunate trend of Conservatives repeatedly politicizing awful, violent crimes to promote their political agenda and raise money. It is disgraceful. Canadians know better and Canadians deserve better. They deserve safety, and that requires more than just slogans. They know it requires real reform.

Let me remind the House of what has already been done. In 2023, our government passed bail reforms that made it harder for violent repeat offenders to be released. These reforms were targeted toward individuals charged with serious violent crimes and firearm crimes. They were supported by premiers. They were supported by police, and they are already in force across Canada today.

We also know this work is not finished. This is why, during the most recent election, our new Liberal government campaigned on and received a strong mandate for further reforms. In our platform, we committed to strengthening bail further. We committed to ensuring that prosecutors have the resources they need to oppose bail where appropriate, and we committed to ensuring that judges have the tools they need to keep Canadians safe while respecting fundamental charter rights. We are delivering on those promises. In this very session, in a few weeks, new measures will be brought forward to strengthen bail laws and tighten federal sentencing guidelines.

Let us look at the broader picture. The Conservatives claim that bail reform alone will solve violent crime, but the reality is that keeping Canadians safe requires work on three fronts: prevention, prosecution and protection. Our government has been clear that on prosecution, we are investing in federal Crown attorneys. Too often, federal Crowns are overloaded, their cases are delayed and dangerous offenders can slip through the cracks. Our government is committed to new funding for federal Crowns so they can prepare stronger cases, challenge inappropriate bail applications and move trials forward without unnecessary delays.

On protection, we are expanding victim services, because Canadians who are harmed by violent crimes need support. Our government is increasing funding so that victims can access counselling, legal assistance and safety planning. This is part of our commitment to a justice system that protects people and also brings criminals to justice.

On prevention, our government has made historic commitments. We are expanding youth programs so that young people have positive opportunities and do not end up in the justice system in the first place. We are investing in mental health and addictions treatment, because untreated illness and addiction are drivers of repeat offences. We are also supporting indigenous justice initiatives, because reconciliation and fairness are also part of public safety.

None one of these measures are mentioned in the Conservative motion. None of these measures fit neatly into a silly three-word bumper sticker, but Canadians know they are essential to safe communities. The Conservatives like to talk about the need for urgency. They say, “Pass this bill today and rush it through.” Let us be clear: Urgency is not the same as effectiveness. Canadians do not want legislation that is rushed, half-considered and ultimately ineffective. They want reforms that work, that last and that withstand the scrutiny of courts and the test of time.

That is what our government is delivering. Our approach is comprehensive. We are reforming bail laws further this session, we are funding federal Crowns and judges to ensure that cases move more effectively, we are investing in victim services and community safety programs, and we are addressing the root causes of crime through youth initiatives, addiction treatment and mental health supports. That is the difference between this government and the opposition. It wants a headline and to divide Canadians for clicks, but we are delivering a real plan. The opposition wants to pretend that there is a silver bullet, but we know that Canadians deserve more than silly three-word slogans.

I want to pause and remind our colleagues of the history. For 10 years, even under a Stephen Harper majority, the Conservatives had the chance to fix this. For 10 years, they could have strengthened bail. For 10 years, they could have funded prosecutors. For 10 years, they could have invested in prevention. They did not. Canadians remember the failures of the Harper years. Now they show up with silly slogans hoping people forget their record. Canadians deserve better than that.

Our new Liberal government was elected with a clear platform, a platform that promised to strengthen bail, support victims, resource prosecutors and invest in prevention. Canadians chose that platform and gave us the mandate to deliver, and that is exactly what we are doing in this session.

Let us acknowledge that crime is a serious problem. Let us commit to keeping repeat violent offenders off the streets. Let us strengthen sentencing for violent crimes and drugs. However, let us also recognize that one bill is not the answer. A safer Canada requires a safer justice system at every level. It requires prevention, prosecution and protection, and that is exactly what our government is delivering.

Our forthcoming legislation on strengthening bail reform and sentencing is part of a broader suite of public safety measures. Bill C-2, the strong borders act, would add 1,000 border security agents and 1,000 new federal RCMP officers. It has additional measures that would give police the tools they need to bring international criminals to justice. It would strengthen our borders to keep U.S. firearms off the streets of our cities.

Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, would add new provisions to protect vulnerable communities from targeted hate at places of worship and community centres. It would also classify as a hate crime the use of terrorist symbols such as those of Hamas and Hezbollah, which are sometimes used to promote hate.

I want to take a moment to reflect on my record as a municipal councillor for the City of Hamilton, Canada's eighth-largest city, where I worked closely with law enforcement partners at the Hamilton Police Service. I want to thank the chief of police and the senior leadership team in Hamilton for their invaluable insight and leadership. I have been through the defund the police nonsense, I have been through the activist efforts to decriminalize drugs like fentanyl, cocaine and methamphetamines, and I have been through the activist efforts to allow homeless tent encampments in city parks, and it is clear that public opinion has shifted on those failed ideas.

In Hamilton right now, gun crime, youth and gang violence, property crime associated with tent encampments, and public drug use are all top of mind for residents in my riding. These are all issues that require solutions beyond the federal level. Of course, federal legislation is required that sets responsible federal law on bail and sentencing, and we need to ensure that police have the tools necessary to bring criminals to justice, but that also requires the provinces to do their part. The provinces are responsible for provincial superior courts, for appointing and training justices of the peace and for funding and regulating municipalities. Municipalities have a duty to ensure that police have the tools and resources they need to uphold public safety, and even local school boards have a responsibility to make sure they work collaboratively with police to ensure that youth have an opportunity for positive interactions with police as part of the public education system.

In closing, it is clear that there is work to be done on bail reform and sentencing at the federal level. Our government is committed to making those changes, along with wider initiatives, in order to improve public safety across Canada.

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the citizens of Les Pays-d'en-Haut. It is a pleasure to rise to debate the opposition motion before us, and I will talk particularly about the narrative it tries to present.

The motion suggests that the Liberal government proposed criminal justice reform in the last six months and has failed to act. However, the reality tells a very different story. Just last month, we introduced Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, which includes targeted amendments to the Criminal Code to address hate-motivated offences. The legislation successfully passed second reading yesterday and is now moving to committee for detailed study and consideration.

The Minister of Justice worked tirelessly over the summer to find ways to strengthen and modernize our criminal justice system. He held consultations with his provincial and territorial counterparts as well as police forces, chiefs of police and their associations to ensure that any reform introduced is practical, evidence-based and truly tailored to the needs of Canadians. That is how responsible reform happens: through meticulous study, collaboration and expert advice.

Meanwhile, the Conservative leader was far more preoccupied with his political future than any real public policy work. He spent his summer chasing after a second chance as a candidate parachuted into an Alberta by-election following his resounding defeat at the polls by voters from across the country in the last election, including voters from his former riding of Carleton. Still, he shows no signs of having learned from that experience. Instead of focusing on measures capable of truly improving public safety, he keeps proposing reckless initiatives based on political calculation, putting optics before real solutions to protect Canadians.

Canadians deserve more than slogans and political theatre. They deserve a government that listens, engages experts and acts decisively to make communities safer. That is exactly what the government is doing through legislation that addresses urgent issues while respecting the principles of justice and fairness. That is why the federal government has taken important steps to reform the bail system in recent years.

In 2023, former Bill C-48 made meaningful changes to strengthen the bail system in response to concerns about efficiency and repeat offending. For example, it created a reverse onus to target serious repeat violent offences involving weapons. It expanded the list of firearms that trigger a reverse onus at bail. It also broadened the reverse onus, targeting repeat offenders in cases of intimate partner violence.

These changes made it more difficult for accused persons to obtain bail when they are charged with serious repeat violent offending. These changes were not the result of partisan initiatives. They reflected a broad collaboration with provinces, territories, law enforcement and legal experts. Every step was guided by data, evidence and consultation with those working on the front lines of criminal justice.

Despite these reforms, we understand that Canadians remain concerned about repeat and violent offending. That is why, as set out in the government's 2025 electoral platform and reaffirmed at the first ministers' meeting in June, the government will introduce legislation this fall to further strengthen both bail and sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code.

Our federal government committed to establishing a reverse onus for a range of serious crimes, in particular violent car theft, car theft for a criminal organization, home invasion, and human trafficking and smuggling, in order to make it much harder to get bail in these circumstances.

Our government also committed to amending the Criminal Code to direct courts to primarily consider denunciation and deterrence when sentencing repeat car thieves or home invasion offenders. Other commitments included broadening the possibility of consecutive sentencing for car theft with violence or car theft involving a criminal organization.

These are concrete measures aimed at addressing repeat and violent offending throughout the criminal justice process. They represent an approach that is strategic, evidence-driven and focused on protecting public safety without sacrificing the rights and fairness that are foundational to the justice system.

We also know that reform cannot happen in isolation. The operation of the bail system is a shared responsibility between federal and provincial and territorial governments. While the federal government sets the legal framework, the provinces and territories manage day-to-day operations, including court and jail administration. Strengthening the law at the federal level must therefore be complemented by effective enforcement, resources and oversight at the provincial level. Without this coordination, even the best legislation would not achieve meaningful change.

Data and evidence also play a crucial role. Provinces and territories collect the data necessary to evaluate how bail laws are functioning, identify gaps and implement improvements. Better data allows government to track outcomes, assess risks and ensure that measures designed to protect public safety are actually working. This is why our government continues to work closely with partners across the nation to improve data collection, transparency and reporting in the criminal justice system.

Public safety is built through thoughtful policy, strong partnerships and sustained action. It is not achieved with slogans and partisanship. It is built when governments work together to address the root causes of crime, including poverty, trauma, mental health issues and housing insecurity, and when individuals get the support they need to rebuild their lives.

Canadians deserve a bail system that protects communities while respecting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as a sentencing regime that holds offenders accountable while promoting reintegration.

Our government is delivering on that promise. We are not acting hastily or out of political expediency. We are consulting experts, collaborating with our provincial counterparts and developing laws that work in practice. We are introducing legislation to ensure that violent repeat offenders face appropriate consequences, that the courts have the tools they need to protect public safety and that the justice system works effectively and fairly for all Canadians.

In conclusion, Canadians expect a government that acts responsibly, listens to experts and delivers results. That is what we are doing with our criminal justice reform agenda. We have introduced Bill C-9 to fight hate crime. We strengthened the bail system through former Bill C-48, and we are now preparing additional measures this fall to further address repeat and violent offending.

This is not about political games or empty slogans. It is about real action, public safety and justice. That is exactly the approach Canadians elected this government to take.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word “hate”, but let us realize that fundraising plays a critical role in why the Conservative Party takes the position it takes. It is all about raising money. Let me give a good example.

Here are four emails. These are all emails that the Conservative Party has sent out to literally thousands and thousands of people. Every one of these emails actually has a link to donate to the Conservative Party. One says, “More criminals loose on the streets to terrorize our people.” Another one says, “Criminals are WREAKING HAVOC across our country.” The third one says, “The cause of this VIOLENT uptick in crime? The Liberals' radical catch-and-release policies.” The fourth email says, “Crime is out of control — and it's only going to get worse”.

These Conservative fundraising emails are circulating for one purpose, to raise money. Is it any wonder I make the statement that the Conservative Party uses the issue of crime and safety as a mechanism to fill its political coffers? That is the reality.

At the end of the day, if we want to look at how to serve Canadians on the crime file, it is first and foremost to reflect, as we have as a new government, as the Prime Minister has in the commitment to bail reform, on what it is Canadians are telling us. We are prepared to accept judgment when the time is right, when we have the bail reform legislation before us.

However, let me warn my Conservative friends across the way that there is other legislation before the House that would make our communities safer, that would provide more support for our law enforcement officers and our border control officers. The Conservatives have yet to pass that legislation. I am referring to Bill C-2. Bill C-2 is substantial legislation. With the very limited amount of time that the House has for debate, the Conservatives continue to talk that legislation out. Bill C-2 would make a difference. It would make our communities safer. If the Conservatives really and truly are genuine in wanting to make our streets safer, why are they holding up the bill at second reading?

In fact, the motion we are talking about today is about how we could speed up a private member's bill. It is not the first time. The member who stood up on the point of order spoke about his private member's bill, Bill C-225, an act to amend the Criminal Code. He said, “This bill is a monumental change.” He continued, “I ask that the House streamline the passing of this bill as quickly as possible.” That is a programmed bill. It gets two hours of debate at second reading. Bill C-2 has already had 18 hours of debate. After two hours, his bill gets to go to committee, yet he is asking us to speed it up even more, just as we saw here today on another private member's bill.

The work involved in getting legislation before the House needs to be respected. Oh, how the Conservatives cry if the government applies a bit of pressure or attempts to shame them into doing the right thing, to be there for Canadians by passing legislation. When it comes to their legislation, democracy goes out the door. That is what I witness. If members challenge what I am saying, I invite them to have me go to a public meeting at a university.

Let us see if we can bring in some independent individuals who would take a look at the arguments the Conservatives have. I would take no issue at all. Ideally it would be in Winnipeg North, but I can be flexible; it could be in Ottawa. Including with the member opposite, I would welcome the opportunity to have a good, healthy debate in Ottawa, although we cannot be sitting in session, in terms of the hours. Outside of the hours, I am sure we can arrange something. The bottom line is that the Conservatives apply a double standard.

Here is the reason I raise this: We know that Canadians are genuinely concerned about crime and safety in their communities. We know that for a fact. We understand that there needs to be bail reform. There needs to be tougher penalties for repeat violent offenders. Canadians elected the Prime Minister and the Liberal government on a platform of reforming the bail system. We are, in fact, committed to working together to ensure that we can make stronger laws and have safer communities.

In these five to six months, we have put into place legislative measures and budgetary measures from a commitment to increase RCMP officers by hundreds and do the same thing in terms of border control. There has been extensive consultation, and I think there is a responsibility for all members of Parliament, no matter what side of the House they are on, to recognize the agenda before us and to come down and talk about how we can achieve what all of us say we want to see: safer communities and individuals who are committing these crimes, especially repeat offenders, being held to account.

These are all important things, but it is also important for us to recognize that the federal government plays a significant role that we are living up to. When I think of our judicial system, it is not just Ottawa. There are provincial governments and, arguably, municipal governments that also have a significant role to play. We know that. The last time I was speaking on a very similar issue, I referred to the need for more Crown prosecutors. I cited a story in the Winnipeg Free Press from September 9, an editorial. It amplified and tried to say that the province was at fault because of the issue of Crown attorneys.

Members can go ahead and look up the story to read it for themselves. I will read one line from it. The bottom line is this:

The cost of inaction is far greater than the cost of investment. Failing to fund the Crown’s office means risking collapsed trials, emboldened criminals and disillusioned victims. It means communities losing confidence in the courts’ ability to protect them.

This is something that reflects on provincial governments. Municipal governments provide law enforcement officers. To not recognize that law enforcement officers play a role or that provinces play a role is irresponsible. At the end of the day, it is a shared responsibility. Ottawa needs to do its job, and the Prime Minister and the new government that were elected just last April are doing the job that Canadians want us to do on this critically important issue. That is why we see bills like Bill C-2 for our borders, Bill C-9 for hate or the bail reform legislation, which is going to be coming down very shortly.

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is funny that those questions did not make the top 40 of the ones they wanted to ask today. Of course, the Prime Minister and ministers are in regular contact with our friends and neighbours in the United States. We will be advocating for Canadian workers and Canadian jobs.

In terms of criminal justice legislation, the member well knows that, right now, he could stand up and ask for unanimous consent on a very tough border bill that would help the government get tough on crime. This week, we had the chance to vote on Bill C-9 and move it through the legislative process.

The member need not fret. Legislation is going to be coming fast and furious, and the Conservatives will have a decision to make whether they want to support constitutional bail reform concocted with provinces and territories, victims associations and all manner of other stakeholders, or will they keep grandstanding in the way that they do? In the meantime, we have a very interesting week coming up.

Today, we are concluding debate on the Conservative Party's opposition day motion. Tomorrow, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-8, An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts.

Next Monday, we will consider second reading of Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act. We will continue with this debate on Wednesday. On Tuesday, we will commence second reading debate of Bill C-10, the commissioner for modern treaty implementation act. Thursday, October 9, shall be an allotted day.

Justice

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, cases like this one are exactly the reason we are taking the action that we are. With Bill C-9, we made murder-motivated hate crimes a constructive first-degree offence. I want to thank the Conservatives for allowing that bill to go to committee. Bill C-9 would create more hate-related crime offences in the Criminal Code, with tougher penalties.

Bill C-2 brings tough-on-crime legislation as well. I am afraid that the Conservatives think it is too tough and have not been—

Opposition Motion—Passage of Bill C-242

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Absolutely, I do. Mr. Speaker, I take offence to the very nature of that notion. The fact that individuals are suggesting any member of this Parliament would prefer not to put a criminal in jail is offensive in its own right. There are laws that are in place. There are laws that have been in place all along. We have to enforce the law. These changes were not the result of partisan initiatives. They were reflected by broad collaboration with provinces, territories, law enforcement and legal experts. Every step was guided by data, by evidence, by consultation with those working on the front lines of criminal justice.

Despite these reforms, we understand that Canadians remain concerned about repeat offences and violent offences. This is why the government will introduce legislation this fall to further strengthen bail and sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code.

The federal government has committed to establishing reverse onuses for a range of serious crimes, including violent and organized crime-related auto theft, home invasions, human trafficking and human smuggling, to make bail more onerous to obtain in these circumstances. There is also a commitment to amending the Criminal Code to direct courts to give primary considerations to the principles of denunciation and deterrence when determining a fit sentence for anyone who has numerous convictions for auto thefts or home invasions. Further commitments include expanding the possibility of consecutive sentences in violent or organized crime-related auto theft cases.

These are concrete measures aimed at addressing repeat and violent offending throughout the criminal justice process. They represent an approach that is strategic, evidence-based and evidence driven, and focused on protecting public safety without sacrificing the rights and fairness that are the foundational aspects of our judicial system.

We also know that reform cannot happen in isolation. The operation of the bail system is a shared responsibility between the federal and provincial and territorial governments, as I have already stated. While the federal government sets the legal framework, the provinces and territories manage the day-to-day operations, including court and jail administration. Strengthening the law at the federal level must therefore be complemented by effective enforcement resources and oversight at the provincial level, and without this coordination, even the best legislation would not achieve meaningful change.

Data and evidence also play a crucial role. Provinces and territories collect the data necessary to evaluate how bail laws are functioning, identify gaps and implement improvements. Better data always allows government to track outcomes, assess risks and ensure that measures designed to protect public safety are actually working. That is why our government continues to work closely with partners across the country to improve data collection, transparency and reporting in the criminal justice system.

Public safety is built through careful policy, strong partnerships and sustained action. It is not achieved through slogans and partisan posturing. It is built when governments work together to address the root causes of crime, including poverty, trauma, mental health issues and housing insecurity, as well as individuals not being given the support they need to rebuild their lives. Canadians deserve a bail system that protects communities while respecting rights, as well as sentencing systems that hold offenders accountable while promoting rehabilitation.

This government is delivering on that promise. We are not acting in haste or based on politics; we are consulting with experts, collaborating with provincial counterparts and building laws that work in practice. We are introducing legislation to ensure that repeat offenders face appropriate consequences, that courts have the tools to protect public safety and that the justice system functions efficiently and fairly for all Canadians.

In conclusion, Canadians expect a government that acts responsibly, listens to experts and delivers results. That is what we are doing with our justice reform agenda. We have introduced Bill C-9 to fight hate crime; we strengthened the bail system through Bill C-48, and we are preparing additional measures this fall to further address repeat and violent offences. That is not about political games or empty slogans; it is about real action, public safety and justice, and that is exactly the approach Canadians elected this government to take.

Laws exist, and we need to enforce them.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a proud representative of Mississauga—Lakeshore, and I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Signal Hill.

As I rise to debate the opposition motion before us, I want to talk particularly about its narrative and the appropriate steps moving forward. My community, like many communities, is concerned. We have a number of town halls. We have talk groups. We have ongoing discussions with Peel police. We understand the dilemmas that are before us, and we recognize the concerns our neighbours face. They are concerned about guns, home invasions and auto thefts. These things have become an issue of concern across the country. However, there is also a blame game that seems to be going on. Oftentimes, it deflects responsibility. We are all responsible for ensuring that our communities are safe, at the federal level, at the provincial level and at the municipal level, and even with some of the organizations and associations that are engaged. It is appropriate for us to have this ongoing debate and discussion. I welcome the fact that it is a non-partisan issue.

There is organized crime. We have been in meetings with the RCMP, border security, international agencies and the police to ensure that organized crime is addressed. Organized criminals are perpetrating some of these criminal acts; they are engaging with our young people, who are victimized themselves by being sourced in order to do these criminal acts. This is why, just last month, we introduced Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, to address hate-motivated offences. This legislation successfully passed second reading yesterday, and it is now moving to committee for detailed study and consideration.

Over the summer, the Minister of Justice engaged in consultations with provincial and territorial counterparts, law enforcement agencies, police chiefs and associations to ensure that any reforms are practical, evidence-based and responsive to the needs of Canadians. This is how responsible reform happens, through careful study, collaboration and expert guidance.

Meanwhile, the Conservative leader, who was preoccupied with keeping his job, has torqued the rhetoric, which is very partisan in its nature. While seeking his parachute return to the House after being resoundingly rejected by his constituents, he has now been more concerned for himself than for the public safety measures we are talking about. lnstead of focusing on measures that truly improve public safety, he continues to advance reckless, politically motivated proposals, prioritizing appearances over solutions that actually protect Canadians.

Canadians deserve more than slogans and political theatre. They deserve government that listens, engages with experts and acts decisively to make communities safer. That is exactly what this government is doing, through legislation that addresses urgent issues while respecting the principles of justice and fairness. This is why the federal government has taken important steps to reform the bail system in recent years. ln 2023, former Bill C-48 made meaningful changes to strengthen the bail system in response to concerns about efficiency and repeat offences.

For example, Bill C-48 created a reverse onus to target serious repeat offending involving weapons, and it expanded the list of firearms that trigger a reverse onus at bail. It also broadened the reverse onus targeting repeat offenders in cases of intimate partner violence. These changes made it more difficult for accused persons to obtain bail when they are charged with serious repeat offences.

All of us want to keep criminals in jail. All of us—

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, as Secretary of State for Combatting Crime, I appreciate the opportunity to debate this motion. Public safety and our bail and sentencing laws play a critical role in the criminal justice system. These are some of the most important laws that are supposed to ensure not only that justice is served but also that Canadians are safe in their communities.

Over the past years, Canadians have raised legitimate concerns about violent crime and repeat offending. These concerns are real, and our government is working hard with law enforcement, Crown attorneys and other levels of government across this country to act on them. It is encouraging to see alignment between the Conservative opposition and the newly elected Liberal government when it comes to improving public safety, including through the adoption of stronger laws to build safer communities.

I have good news for my colleagues. The Minister of Justice will be introducing legislation during this parliamentary session to comprehensively change parts of the Criminal Code and other aspects of the criminal justice system. These comprehensive changes would strengthen bail reform in this country, to have harsher, longer sanctions for violent offenders and to make sure we have the support to help keep communities safe with direct investments in law enforcement.

As set out in our 2025 electoral platform, our government is committed to strengthening the Criminal Code bail provisions to make it onerous to obtain bail for those charged with violent or organized crime related to auto theft, home invasion, trafficking in persons, human smuggling and drug trafficking. Our government is also committed to adding a requirement for courts to impose a firearms or weapons prohibition when granting bail to anyone charged with an organized crime-related offence.

Our government has committed to reforming Canada's sentencing regime to better address repeat and violent offending. More specifically, the 2025 electoral platform includes commitments to change the law to direct courts to give primary consideration to the principles of denunciation and deterrence when determining a sentence for anyone who has numerous convictions. That means courts would have to primarily consider a sentence that would deter repeat offenders. It includes commitments to broaden sentencing tools by allowing consecutive sentences for violent or organized crime-related auto theft.

The Prime Minister followed up on these electoral commitments when he agreed to strengthen the Criminal Code bail and sentencing laws during the June 2 first ministers meeting. Later that month, the Minister of Justice also announced publicly that bail and sentencing reforms will be forthcoming this fall to address growing concerns of repeat and violent offending at all stages of the criminal justice process. Over the summer, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Public Safety and I undertook significant engagement with the provinces and territories, law enforcement and legal stakeholders alike to inform and develop these reforms.

Now, although looking to future solutions is important, it is equally important to look to the past and to properly understand our criminal justice system and the current state of the law. For example, despite a persistent narrative that former Bill C-75 was soft on crime, I want to highlight that it explicitly strengthened the Criminal Code bail provisions as they relate to intimate partner violence. Former Bill C-75 made it more onerous for individuals previously convicted of intimate partner violence to obtain bail. This change was based on research suggesting that victims of intimate partner violence face a higher risk of violence from their intimate partners after charges are laid. This was a critical step in recognizing the unique risks posed by repeat offenders in intimate partner violence cases and in ensuring that survivors are protected.

More recently, in 2023, Parliament unanimously enacted former Bill C-48 in response to a new and pressing challenge: growing concerns about repeat violent offending involving firearms and other weapons at the bail stage. The former Bill C-48 amendments were not developed in isolation. They too were the result of extensive collaboration with the provinces and territories. They also responded directly to calls for reform from premiers across the country.

Among other changes, former Bill C-75 created a reverse onus at bail to better address the heightened public safety risks posed by those accused of repeat violent offending with firearms and other weapons. That meant that violent offenders with firearms now had to prove they deserve bail, as opposed to the previous process through which the Crown was having to prove why someone should not receive bail.

This presented a significant change that reflected the seriousness of this type of offending and the need to ensure that the courts would turn their minds to the unique public safety risks that those charged with this type of offending might present. Former Bill C-48 also strengthened the intimate partner violence reverse onus. The bill expanded the reverse onus to also apply to anyone who had been previously discharged, and not just those convicted, of an offence involving intimate partner violence.

Before moving on to what the government has committed to doing, I want to address another area of criminal law that generates significant commentary: conditional sentence orders, or CSOs. A CSO is a sentence that allows an offender to serve a term of imprisonment in the community under certain conditions. They are only available when the sentence is less than two years and when the court determines that it does not pose a risk to public safety or conflict with sentencing principles. CSOs cannot be imposed for offences that involve mandatory minimums, terrorism, criminal organization offences with indictable minimums of 10 years or more, advocating genocide, torture or attempted murder.

The current CSO rules stem from former Bill C-5, which was presented in 2022. This bill strictly made mention that courts may only impose CSOs when consistent with community safety and sentencing principles. CSOs must remain proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the offender's responsibility, and provide adequate denunciation and deterrent. The government has heard concerns that CSOs have been increasingly used for sexual offences in some lower courts. Even though appellate courts hold that they rarely represent proportionate sentences, our government continues to monitor the impacts of former Bill C-5 and will consider further refinements to ensure community safety and public confidence.

As crime evolves, so must our laws. This is why the Minister of Justice will be advancing additional bail and sentencing reforms this fall.

I would now like to turn to an aspect of our bail system that often gets overlooked, and that is the matter of shared responsibility between federal and provincial and territorial governments. While federal legislation sets the laws governing bail, the effectiveness of our bail system depends largely on how it is administered. Provinces are responsible for appointing provincial judges and judges who conduct most bail hearings, who are in some provinces are called justices of the peace; overseeing the operation of police services, which are responsible for supervising individuals who are released on bail; and enforcing any conditions of release.

Provincial investments in community-based supports and supervision programs to reduce the risk of reoffending at the bail stage are also critical to ensuring that our bail system works as intended. Provinces and territories also hold the key to improving our understanding of bail outcomes. Right now, the provinces do not keep the bail data needed to ascertain whether our bail system is failing. Provincial leadership in improving data collection, and reporting is necessary to ensure effective evidence-based law reform at the federal level. It is an issue that I have brought up with every provincial representative I have met. Bail data will be crucial in understanding the fight against the cracks in our bail system.

In my speech so far, I have addressed several areas where reverse onuses have been imposed, such as cases involving firearm-related offences. We have yet to know whether that has had a positive impact or not. I fear, as we continue to make other reforms, that perhaps we may not understand fully whether they are having the impact Parliament intends.

Further to that, the provinces administer the bail courts. Earlier this year, Brampton mayor Patrick Brown, on behalf of Ontario's Big City Mayors, wrote a letter to the Province of Ontario sounding the alarm on cases being withdrawn, discharged or dismissed. It was almost over 50% of cases. This is shocking.

Highlighting the need for more Crown attorneys to try these cases more quickly, more judges to hear them and more spaces in jails to put criminals away is crucial. Comprehensive criminal justice reform must include all levels of government coming to the table and doing their part. We are ready to do our part and to work with the provinces and territories that are ready to do theirs.

The changes I mentioned will help with our immediate issues, but if we are serious about reducing crime and seeing improvements of public safety, we must look beyond our criminal law system as well. Public safety begins with prevention. It requires supporting our youth, investing in communities and addressing the social conditions, including poverty, addiction, mental health and housing. Bail reform is but one piece of the complex puzzle. Lasting change requires a broader commitment to equity, opportunity and support.

All orders of government must work together to build an effective justice system that distinguishes between those who pose a genuine risk and those who can be safely managed in the community. People in Canada deserve a justice system that protects them all. They deserve laws that are clear, consistent and effective. They also deserve a justice system that works and that is firm but fair. They also deserve a government that listens, responds and acts, and we will do exactly that.

I also want to make mention of the opposition finally showing a shred of common sense, though it is long overdue. In Bill C-242, which is mentioned in today's motion, the Conservatives quietly removed the reckless American-style, far right, three-strike scheme they ran on in the last election. Empty slogans based on sporting rules will not foster a robust criminal system and keep Canadians safe. Canadians deserve real solutions that are guided by working collaboratively with law enforcement, attorneys and other levels of government. That is exactly what our comprehensive bill would do.

I pause here to comment on the way this motion is drafted. It claims that the Liberal government promised to pass criminal justice reform six months ago but has failed to do so. That is strange. Just last week, we introduced Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, which includes targeted Criminal Code provisions to address hate crimes, which are on the rise. The bill passed second reading yesterday evening on a deferred division and is now heading to committee for further study.

Over the summer, the Minister of Justice has been hard at work studying ways to improve our laws by consulting closely with his provincial counterparts, law enforcement, police chiefs and police associations. Meanwhile, the Conservative leader was busy fighting for his own job and then parachuted into Alberta, after being catastrophically rejected by Canadians across the country and in his own former riding of Carleton. However, it seems he has not learned any lessons from that rejection. He continues to act recklessly, prioritizing political posturing over meaningful, evidence-based criminal justice reform.

Let us reject slogans and oversimplifications. Slogans such as “jail not bail” may sound tough, but they do not get us any closer to solving the problem. Real solutions require real work. They involve strengthening laws, improving enforcement, investing in data, devoting resources to addressing the root cause of crime and ultimately building a justice system that works for everyone.

Let us embrace real solutions that are evidence-based, collaborative and grounded in the values of fairness and accountability. That is the path forward. That is the commitment of the government. That is what Canadians deserve and expect.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with a lot of what the member says, minus a lot of exaggeration and some oversimplification at times. We are bringing forward legislation that is going to reform the bail process. We have also brought forward other, smaller bills, wherein a lot of the work was already complete. Our strong borders act, Bill C-2, was the second piece of legislation we brought into the House, and Bill C-9, hate crime, is what we have before us. In a few weeks, we will have the bail reform as well. We are hard at work on this.

I would like to know, from the member, whether he is going to support Bill C-2, because what I have heard from a lot of the Conservatives is that they are in opposition to what law enforcement has asked for.