Debates of Nov. 30th, 2023

Business of the House

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed to the hon. parliamentary secretary's moving the motion will please say nay.

It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

Ways and Means Motion No. 19

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

Madam Speaker, the second point of order is a little more detailed.

I rise to respond to a point of order raised on Tuesday, November 28, by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle respecting the inadmissibility of the notice of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and two items of Private Members' Business.

The crux of the argument by the member opposite is on the principle of a bill at second reading stage. This is the heart of the argument. I would humbly point to the purpose of the second reading debate and the vote at that stage, which is on the principle of the bill.

Before I get into the specific matters involved in the member's argument, I would like to remind my colleagues across the aisle of what a debate and vote on the principle of a bill entails.

Members of the House know that our Standing Orders and practices derive from those of Westminster. If a member would like to look into how debates at Westminster are handled at the second reading stage, they might be surprised. The British House of Commons has 650 members, yet the debate on any government bill at the second reading stage very rarely exceeds one sitting day.

Now I will go to the specific argument raised by my colleague across the way. The two bills in question that are subject to certain provisions containing Ways and Means Motion No. 19 are Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, and Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act (mental health services).

With respect to the first item, Bill C-318 requires a royal recommendation which would govern the entire scheme of a new employment insurance benefit for adoptive parents. As a result, the bill cannot come to a vote at third reading in the absence of a royal recommendation provided by a minister of the Crown.

The bill was drafted by employees of the law clerk's office who would have notified the sponsor of this requirement. While I would not want to speculate on the intentions of the member who sponsored this bill, there is little doubt that the member knew this bill would not pass without royal recommendation.

As a result of a ministerial mandate commitment to bring forward an employment insurance benefit for adoptive parents with an accompanying royal recommendation, the government has brought forward this measure for consideration of the House in a manner that raises no procedural obstacle to providing this important benefit for Canadians. It is the sole prerogative of the executive to authorize new and distinct spending from the consolidated revenue fund, and that is what is proposed in the bill that would implement the measures contained in Ways and Means Motion No. 19.

Now I will go to the point of a similar question. The example my colleague raised with respect to the Speaker's ruling on February 18, 2021, concerns Bill C-13 and Bill C-218 respecting single sports betting. Both bills contain the same principle, that being to allow certain forms of single sports betting. The approaches contained in Bill C-13 and Bill C-218 were slightly different, but achieved the same purpose. As a result, and rightly so, the Speaker ruled that the bills were substantially similar and ruled that Bill C-13 not be proceeded with.

The situation with Bill C-13 and Bill C-218 bears no resemblance to the situation currently before the House, and the member opposite has been again helpful in making my argument. The member cites the situation with Bill C-19 and Bill C-250 concerning Holocaust denial.

The case with this situation, and the case currently before the House, is instructional for the question faced by the Speaker, which is whether the principle of the questions on the second reading of Bill C-318 and Bill C-323, and the question on Ways and Means Motion No. 19, are the same.

The answer is categorically no. The question on both Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and the question should Ways and Means Motion No. 19 be adopted on the implementing of a bill are vastly different. The questions at second reading on Bill C-318 and Bill C-323 are specific questions on the principle of measures contained in those private members' bills.

The question on Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and the question at second reading on the bill to implement those measures is much broader. As the member stated in his intervention yesterday, Ways and Means Motion No. 19 contains many measures announced in the 2023 budget as well as in the fall economic statement. While the measures to implement the fall economic statement are thematically linked to the issue of affordability, they contain many measures to address the affordability challenges facing Canadians. As a result, the question at second reading on implementing legislation is a very different question for the House to consider.

In conclusion, while there have been precedents respecting similar questions on similar bills which propose a scheme for a specific issue, namely Bill C-13 and Bill C-218, this and other precedents do not in any way suggest that the questions at second reading on Bill C-323 and Bill C-318 in any way resemble the question on Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and the question at second reading on the implementing bill for the measures contained in the 2023 budget and the fall economic statement.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I thank the member. I appreciate the additional information and we will certainly take that into consideration as the deliberation is happening on drafting a response to the House.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

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

Criminal Code

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would like to be a bit more granular. I am looking at the crime severity index, and it seems that the communities that are really suffering the most with the lift, particularly in violent crimes, are medium-sized and small cities that are more in the rural areas. Therefore, I am wondering whether he could offer an explanation as to what might be going on there that causes this lift, especially in violent crime. That is the first thing.

The second thing is that I would like him to comment on a situation that I have commented on quite often in British Columbia, where the police cannot lay charges; they have to be approved by a provincial Crown counsel. Provincial Crown counsels will not lay charges unless they are almost 100% sure they are going to get a conviction. I do not know whether that is the situation in other provinces, but I would not mind the hon. member's reflection on that.

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

Madam Speaker, if the Liberal member of Parliament from British Columbia wants to know what is happening in small and medium-sized cities, we have had a Liberal government for eight years that has passed soft-on-crime legislation that has put repeat violent offenders on the streets, over and over again, and we are seeing skyrocketing crime rates. The Liberals broke the bail system; that is why the bill is before us. The Liberals are admitting that the bail reforms they made are broken and are not working. However, they are not going far enough. The Liberals need a little more humility.

Here is the thing. This is the problem with the member from British Columbia. I cited the Vancouver Police Union and the Union of B.C. Municipalities that talked about exactly that for repeat violent offenders, but the member goes on and blames everybody else but the Liberal government. Liberals have been in power for eight years. Crime went down before they came into office, and since they have been there, it has only gone up.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague has already touched on the subject, but I would like him to tell us more about other initiatives that are seeking stronger mechanisms to ensure that the justice system is more closely aligned with public safety, particularly with regard to repeat offenders or people who commit offences using a firearm.

Can he remind us of what more should be done?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my Bloc Québécois colleague for asking me this question, which I appreciate. As a bonus, it gives me a chance to practise my second language a bit.

A lot of work can be done in communities across the country to reduce gun violence, for example.

There are a lot of things we could do when working with law enforcement, and not take away tools, like bail reform, by saying that repeat violent offenders can have a revolving door. We need to go after the smuggling of firearms from the United States. We need to go after gang violence and its increases. Programs for youth and deterrents for those crimes need to be investments. We need to invest in our law enforcement, not take resources away.

At the end of the day, when we look at this and at the root causes, not just the devastating numbers I mentioned from Stats Canada, we are seeing repeat violent offenders being a significant part of the increase. We are seeing illegally smuggled guns being part of it. We are seeing a government that is completely unserious about addressing the problem and that is instead going after law-abiding hunters and firearm owners in this country rather than going after the root causes.

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

Madam Speaker, I am a bit puzzled by the speech from the Conservative member, because, of course, his party was part of the House of Commons that unanimously supported the bill. His party was the one that called for swift action to deal with repeat violent offenders. Many of the groups the member cited in raising the problem now support the bill. It is a little puzzling to hear the tone of the speech, when I hope the Conservatives are still supporting a bill like this, which has been so broadly supported by the Canadian public, including premiers, police and victims associations.

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

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

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

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

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

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, we know that Canadians are less safe. I see that in my community of Kelowna—Lake Country. We know that this crime wave has been created by bail reform changes that happened with Bill C-75. We now have a revolving door of criminals in Canada.

As you mentioned in your intervention, this would fix some of the issues, but not all of them. It certainly would not bring it back to the level that it was before the government made the changes. Could you comment on the fact that it would not be going back to the same level and would not actually fix a lot of the crime issues we are seeing with bail?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will remind members that they are to address all questions and comments through the Chair and not directly to the members.

The hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

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

Madam Speaker, if I had a piece of advice, and I try to give some constructive advice and commentary around here once in a while, I would encourage every member of Parliament, every member of the House, regardless of party, to spend a little time on the front lines.

I have had the honour of serving here in the House for four years. One of the most impactful things I am able to do a couple of times a year is a ride-along on a Friday or Saturday night from eight o'clock until about two or three in the morning. One morning, I was out until about 4 a.m. or 5 a.m. I have done it with the OPP in SDG and with the Cornwall Police Service.

I want to build on what my colleague just said: The bill does not go far enough with respect to the changes the government is proposing. All any member of Parliament needs to do is spend a night or two on the front lines, at least, each year. Talk to frontline law enforcement. They will tell us the demoralizing aspect, the demoralizing environment, that is being created with the bail reform under Bill C-75, and now with only this partial fix. They would tell us, I think, the intention, the message or the morale with respect to criminals. They know they are getting out all the time. They know the revolving door. MPs need to spend more time on the front lines. I think all Canadians would benefit from it.

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

Madam Speaker, last summer, the leader of the Conservative Party made it very clear that he wanted the session to reconvene, and he made a commitment that the Conservative Party is so much wanting to see the bail reform that it would be prepared to pass it through the entire system in one day.

We had a delay because of Conservative senators, but, at the end of the day, we have an opportunity to actually pass legislation. Does the member believe there is any sense of commitment from the Conservative Party today to actually see the bill passed, given the wide spectrum of support out there and the commitment his leader gave a few months ago to pass the bill as quickly as possible?

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

Madam Speaker, the member from Winnipeg gives me a good opportunity to have Canadians understand that they can read between the lines of what the member asks all the time.

The bill just came back. We are not even an hour into talking about it, and the Liberals do not like the direction in which the debate is going, because Conservatives are highlighting the failed approach after eight years of the Prime Minister and the NDP-Liberal government. I did not even get through my Q and As, and he is asking to drop it and have it go by.

I will repeat, again, which clearly makes it uncomfortable for the member opposite, that the bill does not go far enough. The Liberals, after eight years, own the Stats Canada statistics. They own the violent crime increase of 39%. It did not happen by chance or as some sort of phenomenon. There is a direct correlation. If the member spent some more time talking to frontline law enforcement members in Winnipeg, I think they would say not to just pass the bill, but to do more. It is only a small fraction of the solution that is needed to make our streets safe again.

I will say that, with regard to the Leader of the Opposition's resolve to pass the bill, it is not to just pass the bill but to fix the whole problem, and not piecemeal, not to just try to address it and pass it on.

The member does not like his record being talked about. That is just fine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to give my colleague an opportunity to use up a bit more floor time.

Joking aside, this is a very serious subject. We are seeking a fragile balance between individual rights and collective rights, the protection of society and the community. This is not an easy balance to strike.

I am very interested in what my colleague had to say. He showed that people do not need to spend a lot of time talking when what they say is clear and precise. I congratulate him. As my colleague explained, this bill applies to repeat offenders when the offence is repeated within a five-year period. Could he tell us whether the bill makes a distinction for prolific offenders? Does that change anything? Is the five-year period extended in their case?

When we talk about issues like this, it is easy to fall into the trap of populism, because we can all think about horrific cases we have seen or heard about. I would like to know whether this is clearly expressed in the bill, and whether there is any leeway for the judge. It is also important to allow the judge to gauge the specific situation. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say.

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

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, who always asks really good questions. It is not always easy to answer them, but they are always important questions.

That being said, I will answer both components of his question.

First, the bill defines a repeat offender as someone who has committed “an offence in the commission of which violence was allegedly used, threatened or attempted against a person with the use of a weapon, and the accused has been previously convicted, within five years of the day on which they were charged for that offence, of another offence in the commission of which violence was also used, threatened or attempted against any person with the use of a weapon, if the maximum term of imprisonment for each of those offences is 10 years or more”.

We simply want to avoid being taken for a ride. A repeat offender is someone who, every two, three or five years at most, repeatedly appears before the courts, charged with using a firearm to commit a violent offence. We believe, without presuming this person guilty, that there is a very good chance that they are dangerous for society. We are saying that the judge will have to take this into account before releasing them.

That does not mean that the judge is obliged to reach a particular decision. To answer the second part of my colleague's question, the judge does indeed retain some discretion. However, the onus is reversed. Individuals found guilty of a gun crime two or three years ago will have to prove that they are no longer too dangerous to be released. The judge will have all the necessary discretion to release them or not, but the onus will be reversed during the judicial process. The Crown will not be required to prove that such individuals are dangerous and must remain in custody. The individuals themselves must prove that they are not dangerous and that they can be released.

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

Madam Speaker, I intend to be very brief this afternoon because the bill we have before us was supported unanimously by the House and has had some useful amendments made by the Senate, which I now hear that everyone in the House is prepared to support.

The bill would do two things. One thing, which we have focused on, is that it would make it more difficult for serious repeat violent offenders to get bail by establishing a reverse onus. All parties here recognize we have a problem that needs to be fixed and that this bill would fix that problem. Therefore, most of the attention has gone to that aspect of the bill.

However, there is a second provision in the bill that is also quite important. Despite the rhetoric we hear from the Conservatives, over the past 30 years, the rate of pretrial detention in Canada has more than tripled. Instead of the Conservatives' version, where everybody gets out with a “get out of jail free” card, we tripled the number of people in detention. Our rate is far higher than in the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, Ireland or any other western European nation. That means, in the situation we have in Canada, there is a second problem with the bail system: The poor, the homeless and those suffering from substance abuse challenges or mental health issues are more likely to be denied bail and end up in custody.

What does that mean? When people are in pretrial custody, they end up in provincial institutions, which have no programming for anti-violence, anti-substance abuse or mental health. Therefore, we are warehousing the poor, the marginalized and indigenous people without giving them the supports they need in the period when they are waiting for a trial. We have to remember that over a third of those who are subject to bail conditions or kept in custody before trial are never convicted of anything. One-third of the people are innocent.

We know what happens. Pretrial detention has very serious impacts. It can lead to loss of employment, it can lead to loss of housing and it can lead to loss of custody of children, because more than 40% of those detained in Canada pretrial are held for more than one month and many are held for as long as six months. This causes a complete disruption in people's lives. It keeps them in a provincial institution, where they have no programming, and makes their conflict in the future with the legal system and society far greater.

In this bill, there is a provision that New Democrats added, which is to make judges consider community-based bail supervision programs. We know what works for those on bail. We know it does not work to ask people's mom, dad or sister to be a surety, because how do they influence the behaviour? The John Howard Society has run very successful pilot programs in Ontario whereby a person gets supervision. In other words, someone looks after their behaviour when they are on bail. Second, they get someone who helps hook them up to the services they need, including mental health and addiction services, employment services and whatever else they need. Those John Howard programs that are running in Ontario have a 90% success rate. In other words, 90% of the people show up in court to face their trial, but in the meantime they do not reoffend.

The Conservatives are talking about those who offend while they are out on bail, and yes, that happens. However, why does that happen? It is because they do not have access to the services they need and they do not have real supervision. The police do not have a mandate to do bail supervision, nor do they have the resources. We know that community-based bail supervision programs work, and this bill would require judges to consider them.

Of course, that means the federal government would have to pony up some money at the front end to get those kinds of programs running across the country. However, does it cost money? No, it does not, because it is far more expensive to keep people in detention than it is to supervise them in the community. Listen to this: The costs are about 10 times higher to detain someone than to put them into a community-based bail supervision program. That part of this bill is overlooked in the debate about legitimate concerns the public has.

If we really want to get the rate of reoffending down, we know what works. We know it is community-based bail supervision programs. We know it is devoting more money to on-demand mental health treatment. We know it is about more money for on-demand substance abuse treatment. We know it is better access to employment and education programs for those who currently lack those opportunities.

We will continue to support this bill. I think everybody will. I found it a little odd to hear a speech that essentially opposed it from the Conservatives, but I think everybody is on board. We know premiers are on board. We know police associations are on board. We know that victims' associations are on board. We know the Senate is on board. Therefore, if nobody is against this, I am going to end my speech at this point and ask us to move forward with passing this bill, which would approve the Senate amendments, this afternoon.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, in my town of Cobourg, we recently had an incident where an individual assaulted a person who had their child there, and the individual was out on bail the same day and committed another crime. It was because of the bail reform that the NDP supported earlier, and now this is going halfway back. Is the member at all regretful for his voting record?

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

Madam Speaker, I first want to start by saying that I do quite often resent the implication that anyone in the House does not have sympathy for victims and what happens to them, or that anyone in the House actually supports crime and criminal activity. What I support, and my background was in criminal justice for 20 years before I came here, are things that are actually effective in addressing those problems.

We know that if someone is let out on bail now with no supervision, with no access to programming, the chances they will reoffend while they are out on bail are very high. The bill before us, and what we are calling for, would provide for community-based bail supervision programs, which would help avoid exactly the circumstances the member raised in this incident.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about making changes that would actually make a difference.

One of the things that I had proposed in a private member's bill was to get those people who are incarcerated in federal institutions access to addiction treatment and recovery, but the NDP, unfortunately, did not support that. How does the member rationalize saying that he wants to vote for legislation that would actually make a difference and yet he will vote against a bill like that? He also supports bills like Bill C-75, which actually lessened the bail system, and we have seen from the stats how many more victims there are because of Bill C-75.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member that, of course, her private member's bill had a poison pill in it for people like me who want to vote for things that are effective.

Does reform to the bail system cause crime? No, it does not, and reforms to the bail system in Bill C-75 did not increase the crime rate. There are lots of other very complicated factors we could look at about why that happened, but the Conservatives like to point to the headlines and not actually point to the things that really work when it comes to combatting crimes and preventing future victims.

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

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